. 
sarees 


Votehay 
Bote) 


rent wnawayrs 
44 
piety bd wl 


OFF 2948's Ghote. ass, 
7 02 esl ve 


wee 
Peet any 


Cees 
@ eee mae tat 
Mat SLE “ Rae ek on 
bea poy teh vse ey 
. be deters tt 
idee 


< stere 
renee 


Posteri ry eat 
COA ee aes 
. 





LIBRARY OF PRITICETON 






ocT 10 2007 


THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY 


Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2008 


https://archive.org/details/greektestamentwidvr02alfo 





THE 
GREEK TESTAMENT. 
VOL. II. 


THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES, 
THE EPISTLES TO THE ROMANS AND CORINTHIANS. 


EDueATICH! READING ROOM 
JAN 27 1947 


pINNCETON Toe COAL SENINARY 


. ATU apxnv NaBodca Nareto Oar Sia TOD Kupiov, bro THY 
> U > (4 an > / 
akovoavTwv els nuas €8eBatwoOn. 
Hes. ii. 3. 


THE 


GREEK TESTAMENT: 


WITH A CRITICALLY REVISED TEXT: A DIGEST OF 
VARIOUS READINGS: MARGINAL REFERENCES TO VERBAL AND 
IDIOMATIC USAGE: PROLEGOMENA: 

AND A CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL COMMENTARY. 


FOR THE USE OF THEOLOGICAL STUD 


“EIBRARYOF PRINCETO 







OCT 10 2007 


aS 
3 
HENRY “ALFOR 


DEAN OF CANTERB 


D. 
THEOLOGICAL SEMINAI 


IN FOUR VOLUMES. 


MOL: sErs 


CONTAINING 


THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES, 
THE EPISTLES TO THE ROMANS AND CORINTHIANS. 


SIXTH EDITION. 


Boston: 
LEE AND SHEPARD, PUBLISHERS. 


Pew Pork : 
LEE SHEPARD, AND DILLINGHAM. 


1874. 


LIBRARY OF 
TENNENT COLLEGE 


OF CHRISTIAN EDUC. oN 






rte " > oe 


PAiMa2 JADIAOIOTITI 


h 
<a 4 





ADVERTISEMENT 


TO THE 


SIXTH EDITION. 


Tue Fourth Edition of my Second Volume passed under entire and 
careful revision as regards, 1. the critical arrangement of the text, 
and 2. the body of references. Both these labours were carried 
on under my own superintendence by my Secretaries; the former, 
including the re-writing of the Digest of various readings, and of 
that part of the Prolegomena which treats of the Apparatus 
Criticus, by the Rev. A. W. Grafton, now Vice-Principal of the 
Theological College at Wells: the latter, by the Rev. R. Hake, 
Minor Canon of Canterbury. 

The alterations in the notes were chiefly those which were 
rendered necessary by the more complete conformation of the text 
to the testimony of our most ancient Manuscripts and Versions. 

In the Fifth Edition, the Codex Sinaiticus was collated 
throughout, and in certain doubtful passages of the text its 
testimony decided the reading. 

The references were somewhat modified, principally with a view 
to render each volume independent in itself, and prevent constant 
cross reference to the others. 


In this Sixth Edition, the Codex Porphyrianus (P) has been 


vi ADVERTISEMENT TO THE SIXTH EDITION. 


collated (from Tischendorf’s Edition) for the Acts of the Apostles : 
and its readings, and those of the cursive ms. 47 have been 
inserted (from Tregelles) in the Digest, throughout 1 and 2 
Corinthians. 

My thanks are due to P. E. Pusey, Esq., for additional notices 
and corrections of the readings found in Cyril of Alexandria, and in 


the Syriac Versions. 


DEANERY, CANTERBURY, 
January 2, 1871. 


CONTENTS OF THE PROLEGOMENA. 


CHAPTER I. 


OF THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. 


SECTION 


- Its Authorship 

. Its Sources 

. For what Readers me with eit Object it was eaten 
. At what Time and Place it was written . 

. Genuineness and State of the Text 

. Chronology 


CHAPTER II. 


OF THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 


. Its Authorship and Integrity . 

. For what Readers it was written 

. With what Object it was written 

. At what Time and Place it was written 
. Language and Style 


CHAPTER ITI. 


OF THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


. Its Authorship and Integrity . 

. For what Readers it was written 

. With what Object it was written . = 

. Of the Number of Epistles written by Paul to the Qematianat 
. Of the Number of Visits made by Paul to the Corinthians 

. At what Place and Time this Epistle was written 

VII. : - . - 


Matter and Style 


32 
33 
37 
39 
40 


Vili CONTENTS OF THE PROLEGOMENA. 


CHAPTER IV. 


OF THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


SECTION 
I. Its Authorship and Integrity 
II. Circumstances, Place, and Time of Wr ae 
III. Matter and Style 


CHAPTER V. 
APPARATUS CRITICUS. 
I. Manuscripts referred to in this Volume 


II. Ancient Versions referred to in this Volume 
III. Fathers and Ancient Writers cited in the Digest of fie Woleanst 


IV. List and Specification of Editions of other Books ee, referred +e or 


made use of in this Volume 


62 
76 
78 


82 


PROLEGOMENA. 


CHAPTER I. 


THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. 


SECTION I. 


ITS AUTHORSHIP. 


1. Tue Author of this book is identical with that of the third Gospel, 
as plainly appears from the circumstance that in its address, to a certain 
Theophilus, reference is made to a former work, on the acts and words 
of Jesus, similarly addressed. Compare Acts i. 1, Luke i. 3. That 
Author is traditionally known as Lucas or Luke, spoken of Col. iv. 14, 
and again Philem. 24, and 2 Tim. iv. 11. For notices respecting him, 
see Prolegg. to Vol. I. ch. iv. § i. 

2. Nor is there any reason to reject the testimony of tradition in this 
matter. In chapters xxvii. and xxviii. we find our Author (see below, 
par. 4) accompanying Paul to Rome. In the passages above cited, all 
written from Rome, we find that Luke was there, in the company of that 
Apostle. So far at least there is nothing inconsistent with Luke having 
written this book ; and if this book, the Gospel. 

3. That no other writer has here assumed the person of the Author of 
the Gospel, may be gathered from the diction of this book strongly 
resembling that of the other. Supposing the student to consult the 
references in this Edition, he will be continually met by words and 
phrases either peculiar to the two books and not met with elsewhere 
(about fifty of these occur),—or mostly found in the two. 

4. That no writer other than the Author of the rest of the book has 
furnished the parts in which the narrative proceeds in the first person, 
will be plain, if the matter be thus considered. (a) We have evidence, 
both by his own assertion (Luke i. 3), and from the contents of the 
Gospel and this book, that Luke was a careful and painstaking writer. 
Now it would bespeak a degree of carelessness wholly unexampled,— 
for one who compiled a continuous memoir, to leave its component 
parts, derived from various sources, in their original fragmentary state, 

Vor. I.—1] a 


PROLEGOMENA.| THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. (om, x. 


some in the third, others in the first person. Unquestionably such a 
writer would in such a case have translated the whole into the third 
person. (f£) Seeing that Luke does use the first person in Acts i. 1, 
and that the first person is resumed ch. (xiv. 22) xvi. 1O—17 ; xx. 5— 
15; xxi. 1—18 ; xxvii. 1—xxviii. 16, it is but a fair inference that in 
one and the same book, and that book betokening considerable care of 
writing and arrangement, the speaker implied by the use of the first 
person is one and the same throughout. 

5. That the author never names himself, either as the author, or 
otherwise, can of itself not be urged as an objection to any hypothesis 
of authorship, unless by the occurrence of some mention, from which 
the authorship by another may be fairly inferred. But, if we have in 
this book no mention of Luke, we have as certainly no hint of any other 
person having furnished the narrative. On the other hand we have a 
hint by which it appears that some one other than all the specified 
companions of Paul on a certain occasion (Acts xx. 4, 5) was with 
him, and was the author of the narrative. After the mention by name 
of Sopater, Aristarchus, Secundus, Gaius, Timotheus, Tychicus, and 
Trophimus, we read, ‘These having gone forward waited for us at 
Troas: this pronoun including Paul and the writer, at least (see note 
there). 

6. That Paul himself, in Epistles written during the journeys here 
described, does not name Luke, cannot be alleged as any argument why 
Luke should not have been the author of our narrative. For (a), we 
have undoubted examples of Paul sometimes merely alluding generally 
to those who were with him, as Phil. iv. 21, 22 ;—sometimes sedulously 
suppressing their names while speaking of services performed by them, 
as 2 Cor. viii. 18: sometimes not mentioning or alluding to them at all, 
as in the Epistles to the Galatians and to the Ephesians :—and 
(8) strictly speaking, no Epistles appear to have been written by Paul 
while our writer was in his company, before his Roman imprisonment. 
For he does not seem to have joined him at Corinth, ch. xviii., whence the 
two Epistles to the Thessalonians were written :—or to have been with 
him at Ephesus, ch. xix.,—whence (perhaps) the Epistle to the Gala- 
tians was written ;—nor again to have wintered with him at Corinth, ch. 
xx. 3, at the time of his writing the Epistle to the Romans, and (perhaps) 
that to the Galatians. 

7. But independently of the above arguments to establish the identity 
of the author throughout, we may infer the same from the similarity of 
diction and style, which do not vary through the book. Here again we 
have, as will be seen abundantly in the references, terms peculiar to the 
writer occurring in various parts of the book ;—favourite terms and 
phrases occurring in all parts of the book ; which could not well have 
been the case, had he merely incorporated the memoirs of others. For 


2] 


§ 1.] ITS AUTHORSHIP. [PROLEGOMENA. 


compendious statements of these, the whole of which have been inserted 
in my references, I refer the reader to Dr. Davidson’s Introd. to the 
N. T. vol. ii. pp. 4, 5. 

8. And again, the notes will be found repeatedly to point out cases 
where the narrator takes up again (with his characteristic pév ody or 
otherwise) the thread of history previously dropped (see e.g., and com- 
pare, ch. xi. 16,1.5: xi. 19, viii. 1—4: xxi. 8, vi. 5, viii. 5 ff.: xxii. 20, 
vii. 58, viii. 1, &c.). 

9. Another interesting source of evidence on this head is pointed out 
by Mr. Smith, in his valuable work on the Voyage and Shipwreck of 
St. Paul. He has shewn that in the various narratives of sea voyages 
in this book, and in that of the stilling of the storm in the Gospel, Luke 
has, with remarkable consistency, shewn himself to be just so much 
acquainted with the phrases and habits of seamen, as a landsman well 
habituated to the sea, but himself no seaman, might be expected to 
be. To specify instances would be beyond my limits, besides that 
Mr. Smith’s very interesting and ingenious argument and illustrations 
would be spoiled by abridgment. I can only refer my reader to his 
work *. 

10. To the same class belong the intimations, slight indeed but 
interesting, discoverable here and in the Gospel in the descriptions of 
diseases, that the author was one well acquainted with them and with 
the technical language of the medical profession. Of this kind are 
TwvEexonevy TupeTO peyddw, Luke iv. 38 ; ruperots x. dusevrepiw cuvexdpevor, 
Acts xxviii. 8: see also Luke viii. 48, 44,—Acts iii. 7, xii. 23, xiii. 11, 
and compare Col. iv. 14. 

11. It will be necessary to mention the various hypotheses which 
have substituted some other narrator for Luke in the parts of the Acts 
where the first person is used, or have merged his personality in that of 
some other companion of Paul: and, irrespective of the above argu- 
ments, to deal with them on their own merits. (a) Bleek and De 
Wette hold Timoruevs, and not Luke, to have been the companion of 
Paul and the narrator in the first person,—and Luke to have inserted 
those portions from a journal kept by Timotheus, and without alteration. 
But this is not consistent with ch. xx. 4, 5: where, when the com- 
panions of Paul have been named, and Timotheus among them, it is said 
otro mpoehOovtes ewevov jas év Tpwadu: the escape from this objection 
attempted by making otro refer to Tychicus and Trophimus only, being 
on all ordinary rules of construction, inadmissible. This reason is, to 
my mind, sufficient : those who wish to see others brought out, and the 
supports of the hypothesis (which are entirely negative and inferential) 


1 A second edition of Mr. Smith’s book appeared in 1856, enlarged with much 
interesting detail. See the excursus below “On the city of Laswa.’’ 


3 | a 2 


PROLEGOMENA.] THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. [cH. 1. 


invalidated, may consult Dr. Davidson’s Introduction to the N. T., vol. 
ii. pp. 9 ff. 

(8) Stas was the narrator in the first person, and indeed the author 
of the latter part of the book, beginning with ch. xv. 138 (30 ?), in the form 
of personal memoirs, which then were worked up. ‘This hypothesis, which 
has not any thing resembling evidence to support it, is sufficiently refuted 
by the way in which the mention of Silas is introduced ch. xv, 22 
(included by the hypothesis in his own work) as being a ‘chief man among 
the brethren.’ If it be answered that this notice of him was inserted 
by Luke,—Is it, I would ask, likely, that an author who was at no more 
pains in his work than to leave the jirst person standing in the narrative 
of another which he used, would have added to the mention of new 
individuals notices of this kind ? 

(y) More ingenious, and admitting of more plausible defence, is the 
hypothesis, which identifies Luke himself with Silas. The latest and 
ablest vindication of this view is contained in an article by the Author 
of the literary history of the N. 'T. in Kitto’s Journal of Sacred Lit. for 
Oct. 1850. The chief arguments by which he supports it are these :— 

(1) * The author of the Acts appears, in the early part of his history, 
to have been well acquainted with the acts and sayings of Peter, as he 
was afterwards with those of Paul. Now the only persons whom this 
description would fit, are Silvanus (or Silas), and Mark (see 1 Pet. 
vy. 12, 18). That Mark did not after Acts xv. travel with Paul, we 
know : but Silas did, and from that time we find greater precision in 
the narrative as regards the history of that Apostle.” . 

But to this it may be answered,—that the difference between the 
kind of acquaintance which the historian possesses with Peter and his 
sayings and doings, and that with Paul and his history, is very obsery- 
able even to a cursory reader. No where in the first part of the book 
does he use the first person: and no where, although the testimony has 
"plainly come in many parts from autoptie authority, does the narrator 
himself appear as the eye-witness. In fact, all that the above argu- 
ment insists on, is easily and naturally satisfied, by the long and inti- 
mate companionship of Luke and Silvanus as fellow-travellers with Paul, 
during which time Luke may have gathered, if Silvanus must be con- 
sidered as his authority, all that we now find in the former parts of our 
history’. 


2 I do not notice in the text the untenableness of the author’s hypothesis that 
Silvanus accompanied Peter from Jerusalem into the East, and became the bearer of 
his first Epistle to the Christians of Asia Minor, before the commencement of his own 
connexion with Paul: i.e. before the gospel had ever been preached to many of those 
nddressed by Peter, which it had already been,—see 1 Pet. i. 12, 25, and remark the 
norists in both places. This extraordinary hypothesis is not necessary to his theory of 
the identity of Luke and Silas: indeed that theory is better without it, as then the 


4] 


§ 1.] ITS AUTHORSHIP. [PROLEGOMENA. 


(2) “Luke and Silvanus (Silas) are no where mentioned together. 
Luke is never mentioned in the Acts: Silas is never coupled with Luke 
in the addresses or salutations of the Epistles. And the two names, 
Silvanus from si/va, and Lucanus from lwcus, are so cognate that they 
might well be the appellations of one and the same person.” 

This ingenious argument, if well weighed, will be found to have but 
little force. As to Luke not being named in the Acts, the fact itself 
goes for nothing. If it have any prima facie weight, it would be against 
the hypothesis. ‘That one who was careful to insert an explanatory 
notice respecting one so well known as SatAos 6 kat HatAos, should take 
no notice at all of the fact hereafter likely to occasion so much confusior, 
—that he who was named Silas in the history, was known by Paul, and 
mentioned in his Epistles, as Lucas,—is hardly probable. But let us 
observe the occasions on which Silvanus and Lucas have been mentioned 
by Paul. In 1 Thess. i. 1, and 2 Thess. i. 1, we have Silvanus joined 
with Paul and Timotheus. In 2 Cor. i. 19, we have an allusion to the 
preaching of Christ at Corinth by Paul, Silvanus, and Timotheus. <Ac- 
cordingly in Acts xviii. 5, we find that Silas and Timotheus came from 
Macedonia and joined Paul at Corinth: this occurring in a part of the 
history when (I am speaking according to the ordinary and prima 
facie inference, from the disuse of the first person since xvi. 17) the 
author was absent from Paul. Now let us turn to Col. iv. 14, 
Philem. 24°. These Epistles belong to a time when we know by 
the latter chapters of the Acts, that the writer of the history was with 
Paul. Accordingly I find Lucas mentioned in both places. So far at 
least is in remarkable accordance with the common view that Silas and 
Lucas were not one, but two persons, and that the latter was the author 
of the Acts, and not the former, It may be said that Paul called the 
same person Lucas whom he had previously called Silvanus: and this 
may be supported by his variations between Peter and Cephas. But 
(1) I conceive that the case of Peter was too exceptional an one (both 
names having apparently been given him and used by our Lord Himself) 
to found an analogy upon: and (2) Peter’s names are forms of the 
same meaning in two different languages, ne words of similar meaning 
in the same language. 

But the principal argument in my mind against this hypothesis (over 
and above that from ch. xv. 22) is, that it would introduce unaccount- 
able confusion into the form and expression of a history, which on the 
common view is lucid and accountable enough. Imagine Silas to be the 
speaker in ch. xvi., and Luke to be merged in Silas. Then ‘we,’ from 
ver. 10 to ver. 18, = Silas and Timotheus. In ver. 19, it would be 


silence of the Acts on Peter’s proceedings after Acts xii. is accountable, which on that 
hypothesis it would not be. 
3 IT omit at present 2 Tim. iv. 11. 


5] 


PROLEGOMENA.] THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. [ om. I. 


natural to desert the first person, in order to express what happened to 
Paul and Silas, and not to Timotheus. The same specification of Paul 
and Silas might, for the same reason, be continued during the stay at 
Philippi, i.e. to the end of that chapter. But is it conceivable, that the 
‘we’ should not be resumed when the journey begins again ch. xvii, 1, 
—that it should not be used ch. xviii. 11, seeing that from 2 Cor. i. 19 
it was Paul, Silvanus, and Timotheus, who were preaching during that 
time at Corinth—in fact, that it should never be resumed till ch. xx. 5, 
at the very place (Philippi) where it was dropped before ? 

The argument from the similarity of silva and lucus is too unsub- 
stantial to deserve serious attention. And that built on the assumption 
that the author of the third Gospel and the Acts must have held a place 
of greater honour than we find assigned to Lucas, is purely arbitrary, 
and sufficiently answered by observing that he is ranked with Marcus, 
apparently his fellow-Evangelist, in Philem. 24. Rather would it seem 
probable, that the men of word and action, in those times of the living 
energy of the Spirit, would take the highest place ; and that the work of 
securing to future generations the word of God would not be fully 
honoured, till from necessity, it became duly valued. 

12. I shall now endeavour to sketch out the personal history of the 
author of the Acts, as far as it can be gathered, during the events which 
he relates. 

The first direct intimation of his being in the company of Paul, occurs 
ch. xvi. 10, at Troas, when Paul was endeavouring (looking for a ship) 
to sail into Macedonia. Now at this time, Paul had been apparently 
detained in Galatia by sickness, and had just passed through (preaching 
as he went, see ch. xviii. 23) that country and Phrygia. It is hardly 
probable that he had visited Colosse, as it lay far out of his route, but 
he may, in the then uncertainty of his destination, have done so. (See 
Col. ii. 1 and note.) I say this, because it is remarkable that in sending 
Luke’s salutation to the Colossians (Col. iv. 14), he calls him 6 tarpds 6 
dyarnrés. This designation might recall to their minds the relation in 
which Luke had stood to Paul when in their country ; or more probably 
may have been an effusion of the warm heart of Paul, on recollection of 
the services rendered to him on that journey by his loving care. At all 
events such a designation, occurring in such a place, is not inconsistent 
with the idea that Luke about that time became Paul’s companion on 
account of the weak state of his health. Further to establish this is 
impossible: but what follows is not inconsistent with it. We find him 
in the Apostle’s company no further than to Philippi, the object perhaps 
of his attendance on him having been then fulfilled *. 


4 He may have been put in charge with the church at Philippi, but the conjecture 
is not very probable. 


6] 


§ 1] ITS AUTHORSHIP. [PROLEGOMENA. 


13. If we seek for any trace of previous connexion between Luke and 
Paul, we find nothing but the very slightest hint, and that-perhaps 
hardly to be taken as such. In ch. xiv. 21, 22 we read, that Paul, after 
the stoning at Lystra, departed with Barnabas to Derbe, and returned 
through Lystra and Iconium and Antioch (in Pisidia) confirming the 
souls of the disciples, exhorting them to remain in the faith, cat dru dua 
mov\AGv Odivewv Set Huds ciseAOcty eis Tt. Bacirciav tod Oeod. This 
Hpas may be, as commonly understood, spoken by the writer as a Chris- 
tian, and of all Christians: but it may also be indicative of the writer’s 
presence®: and I cannot help connecting it with the tradition that Luke 
was a native of Antioch®: though Antioch in Syria is there meant. 
Certainly, in the account (ch. xiii.) of the events at Antioch in Pisidia, 
there is remarkable particularity. Paul’s speech is fully reported: 
the account of its effect vv. 44—49 given with much earnestness of 
feeling:—and one little notice is added after the departure of Paul and 
Barnabas, ver. 52, which looks very like the testimony of one who was 
left behind at Antioch. Whether this may have been the place of 
Luke’s own conversion, we know not; but a peculiar interest evidently 
hangs about this preaching at Antioch in the mind of the narrator, be 
he who he may: and Mark had departed, who might have supplied the 
Cyprian events (see ver. 13). 

14. After the second junction with Paul and his company, ch. xx. 4, 
we find him remaining with the Apostle to the end of our history. It 
would not be necessary to suppose this second attachment to him to 
have had the same occasion as the first. That which weakness of body 
at first made advisable, affection may subsequently have renewed. And 
we have reason to believe that this was really the case. Not only the 
epithet ayamnrds, Col. iv. 14, but the fact, that very late in the life of the 
Apostle (see Prolegg. to the Pastoral Epistles, § ii.) when “all in Asia were 
turned away from him” (2 Tim. i. 15), and Demas, Crescens, and Titus 
had for various reasons left him, the faithful Luke still remained (2 Tim. 
iv. 11), bespeaks an ardent and steady attachment to the person of him 
who in all probability was his father in the faith. 

15. Of the subsequent history and death of Luke nothing is known. 


5 The idea that jas can by any possibility be applied to the writer has been contro- 
verted by Prof. Lightfoot in the Journal of Classical and Sacred Philology for March, 
1856, p. 95. But see note in loc. 

6 That the two places of that name would thus be confounded, is nothing surprising 
to those who are familiar with tradition. The usual ground assigned for this idea, viz. 
the mention of Lucius (of Cyrene) as being at Antioch, ch. xiii. 1, is certainly far from 
satisfactory. 


7] 


PROLEGOMENA.] THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. [ou. 1. 


SECTION II. 
ITS SOURCES. 


1, The principal enquiry respecting the sources of the narrative in the 
Acts relates to the first part as far as ch. xiii. After that, the history 
follows the Apostle Paul, of whom its writer was subsequently the con- 
stant companion. From him therefore the incidents might be derived, 
where the writer himself was not present. I shall before the end of this 
section enquire how far the appearances warrant our supposing that his 
testimony has furnished such portions. 

2. I proceed to enquire into the probable sources of the first part of 
our history. And here something will depend on our answer to another 
question,— When is it probable that Luke was engaged in drawing up 
the book? I shall endeavour to support in another section my firm 
conviction that its publication took place at the end of the two years 
mentioned in ch. xxviii. 30,31. It may be convenient for me at present 
to assume that to have been the case, but my argument does not 
altogether depend on that assumption. I proceed on the hardly 
deniable inference, that of the last voyage and shipwreck a regular 
journal was kept by Luke—probably set down during the winter 
months at Malta. It must then be evident, that at this time the pur- 
pose of writing a de’repos Aoyos was ripened in his mind. But how 
long had this purpose been in his mind? Am I altogether beside the 
mark in supposing, that it was with this purpose among others that he 
became one of Paul’s company on the return to Asia in ch, xx. 4, 5? 
Whether (see Prolegg. to Luke, § iv. 2, 3) the Gospel was written for 
the most part during the interval between Luke being left at Philippi in 
ch. xvi. and his being taken up at the same place in ch. xx., or after- 
wards in Palestine,—on either supposition it is not improbable that the 
writing of the Acts was at this time already designed,—either as a 
sequel to the Gospel already finished, or simultaneously with the Gospel, 
as its future sequel. 

3. It is very possible that the design may have grown under his 
hands, or more properly speaking have been by little and little sug- 
gested by the direction of the Spirit of God. He may have intended, on 
leaving Philippi with Paul (ch. xx. 4, 5), only to draw up a dujyyots of 
his own travels in company with that Apostle, to serve as a record of his 
acts and sayings in founding the churches in Europe and Asia. However 
this may have been, we find him recording minutely every cireumstance 
of this voyage, which I take to have been the first written portion of the 
book. At any time during that or subsequent travels, or during the 
two years at Rome, he may have filled in those parts of the narrative 


8] 


§ ir] ITS SOURCES. [PROLEGOMENA. 


which occurred during his absence from Paul,—by the oral dictation of 
the Apostle. 

4. Let us now suppose Paul already in custody at Caesarea. The 
narrative has been brought down to that time. The circumstances of 
his apprehension,—his defence before the Jews,—their conspiracy,— 
his rescue from them and transmission to Felix,—all this has been duly 
and minutely recorded,—even the letter of Claudius Lysias having been 
obtained, probably by acquaintance with some one about Felix. An 
intention similar to that announced in wapyKodovOyKdTe Tacw axpiBids 
(Luke i. 3) is here evidently shewn. i 

5. But now Providence interposes, and lays aside the great Apostle 
for two years. During all this time Luke appears to have been not far 
from his neighbourhood, watching the turn of events, ready to accom- 
pany him to Rome, according to the divine announcement of ch. xxiii. 
11. But “they also serve, who only stand and wait.” What so 
natural, as that he should avail himself of this important interval to 
obtain, from Cxsarea and Jerusalem, and perhaps from other parts of 
Palestine, information by which*he might complete his hitherto frag- 
mentary notices? That accurate following up of every thing, or rather 
tracing down of every thing from its source,—what time so appropriate 
for it as this, when among the brethren in Juda he might find many 
eye-witnesses and ministers of the word, and might avail himself of the 
duyynoes Which of all places would be most likely to abound there where 
the events themselves had happened ? During this interval therefore I 
suppose Luke to have been employed in collecting materials, perhaps for 
his Gospel, but certainly for the first part of the Acts. 

6. His main source of information would be the church at Jerusalem. 
There, from James, or from some apostolic men who had been on the 
spot from the first, he would learn the second and fuller account of the 
Ascension,—the weighty events of the day of Pentecost, the following 
acts and discourses. In the fulness of the outpouring of the Holy 
Ghost on the apostles and elders at this time, which raised them above 
ordinary men in power of spirit and utterance, it would be merely an 
inference from analogy, that their remembrance of the words uttered at 
remarkable crises of the apostolic history should be something sur- 
passing mere human recollection: that these hallowed words of the 
Spirit's own prompting should have abode with the church for its com- 
fort and instruction, and finally have been committed to writing for all 
subsequent ages. 

7. But if analogy would a priori suggest this, the phenomena of our 
history confirm it. The references (which have been on that account a 
singularly interesting labour) will shew to the attentive student in those 
speeches, quite enough peculiarities to identify them as the sentiments 
and diction of the great Apostle of the circumcision, while at the same 


9] 





PROLEGOMENA.] THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. Ke ape 


time there is enough of Luke’s own style and expression to shew that 
the whole material has been carefully worked over and grecized by 
his hand. 

8. It has been much disputed whether Luke used written documents 
in constructing this part of the Acts’. It may have been so. Detailed 
memoirs of some of the most important events may have been drawn up. 
If so, ch. ii. would in all probability be such a memoir. The letters, 
ch. xv. 23—29 (xxiii. 26—30), must have been of this kind : some of 
the discourses, as that of Peter ch. xi. 5—17, containing expressions 
unknown to Luke’s style (see reff.): more or less, the other speeches of 
Peter, containing many striking points of similarity to (both) his 
Epistles,—see reff. At the same time, from the similarity of ending of 
the earlier sections (compare ch. ii. 46, 47; iv. 32 ff; v. 42; ix. 31; 
xii. 24), from the occurrence of words and phrases peculiar to Luke in 
the midst of such speeches as those noticed above (e. g. orabévra ch. 
xi. 13, and see Dr. Davidson p. 30 for a list, which I have incorporated 
in the reff.), the inference must be (as in the last paragraph) that such 
documents were not adopted until their language had been revised, 
where thought necessary, by the author himself. The very minute and 
careful detail of ch. xii., evidently intended to give the highest authority 
to the narrative of Peter’s miraculous deliverance,—so that the house 
itself of Mary the mother of John Mark is specified, the name of the 
female servant who went to the door, her remarks and the answer made 
to her, are all given,—has apparently been the result of diligent inquiry 
on the spot, from the parties concerned. We can hardly resist the 
inference that the very same persons who fifteen years before had been 
witnesses of the deliverance, now gave the details of an occurrence 
which they could never forget, and described their own feelings on it. 

9. Whether Luke at this time can have fallen in with Peter person-. 
ally, is very questionable. That Apostle certainly does not appear to — 
have been at Jerusalem when Paul visited it: and from the omission of 
all mention of him after ch. xv., the natural inference is, that he was not 
there during any part of Paul’s imprisonment. (See note on Gal. ii. 
11, and Prolegg. to 1 Pet. § ii. 6, 7.) 

10. But one very important section of the first part of the Acts is 
concerned with events which happened at Casarea,—and derived from 
information obtained there. There dwelt Philip the Evangelist, one of 
the seven (ch. xxi. 8): a most important authority for the contents of 
ch. vi. and viii. *, if not also for some events previous to ch. vi. There 





7 See the question discussed by Dr. Davidson, pp. 21 ff. 

8 De Wette (Exeget. Handb. Apostg. p. 6) objects that Philip could hardly have 
imparted ch, viii. 39 in its present form, At first sight, it seems so: but the next 
verse evmyyediCero Tas méAes mdoas, K.7.A. can on the other hand hardly have been 
imparted by any but Philip: and this leads us to think whether subsequent enquiry 


10] 


§ 1] ITS SOURCES. [ PROLEGOMENA. 


too, we may well believe, still dwelt, if not Cornelius himself*, yet some 
of the ovveAndvOdres rodXoi of ch. x. 27,—the persons perhaps who had 
gone to fetch Peter from Joppa,—at all events plenty who could nar- 
rate the occurrences of that memorable day, and the words which formed 
the great procem of the Gentile Gospel. 

11. Connected with the Cesarean part of our history, is one minute 
touch of truth and accuracy, which is interesting as pointing to careful 
research and information of the most trustworthy kind. The awful 
death of Herod Agrippa I. had happened on a great public occasion. 
Tt appears that the celebration of a festival in honour of Cesar had also 
been selected as the time of audience for an embassy of the inhabitants 
of Tyre and Sidon, and during this audience, after making an oration to 
the embassy, Herod was struck by the hand of God. Now of this latter 
particular, the Sidonian embassy, the Jewish historian knows nothing. 
(See the passage quoted, ad loc. ch. xii. 21.) But Luke, who had made 
careful enquiries on the spot, who had spent a week at Tyre, ch. xxi. 4—7, 
—and Paul, who had friends at Sidon, ch. xxvii. 3, were better acquainted 
with the facts of the occurrence than to overlook, as Josephus did, the 
minute details in the general character of the festival. 

12. One or two sections in the former part of the Acts require sepa- 
rate consideration. 

(a) The apology of Stephen, from its length and peculiar characteris- 
tics, naturally suggests an enquiry as to the source whence it may pro- 
bably have been obtained by Luke. And here I should feel little hesi- 
tation in ascribing a principal share in the report to him who was so 
deeply implicated in Stephen’s martyrdom,—who shews by his own 
reference (ch. xxii. 20) to the part taken by him on that occasion, how 
indelibly it was fixed in his memory,—and who in more than one place 
of his recorded speeches and writings, seems to reproduce the very 
thoughts and expressions of Stephen. At the same time, it would be 
improbable that the church at Jerusalem should have preserved no 
memorial of so important a speech as that of her first martyr before his 
judges. So that, however we may be inclined to attribute much of its 
particularity and copiousness to information derived from Paul, it must 
be classed, as to its general form, among those contributions to the 
history obtained by Luke at Jerusalem. 

(8B) The narrative of the conversion of Saul in ch. ix. ean hardly fail 





respecting the eunuch (who as he had before come to Jerusalem to worship at the 
feast, so would again) may not have enabled Philip to add this particular, éropevero 
yap T. 6ddv a’Tov xalpwy, over and above what he could know at the time. 

9 It seems probable that the Roman forces never left Cesarea during the whole period 
from Augustus to Vespasian. The territory during that time (see chronological table) 
was alternately part of the province of Syria, and a dependent kingdom: but the 
garrisons do not appear to have been changed in such cases. 


ity 


PROLEGOMENA.| THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. [ou. I. 


to have been derived from himself. I have shewn in the notes that 
there are no discrepancies between this and the two other relations of 
the same event, but such as may easily be accounted for by the peculiar 
circumstances under which each is given, and the necessarily varying 
expressions of narratives which were afterwards not reduced into har- 
mony with each other, but written faithfully down as delivered. 

13. Agreeable with the above suppositions is the fact, that the former 
part of the book presents more traces of Hebraistic idiom, not only in 
speeches, but in the form of the historical narrative’. 

14. I proceed now to an enquiry promised in par. 1 of this section: 
How far we have indications of the lacune in the author's personal tes- 
timony in the latter part having been filled in by that of Paul. 

Perhaps one of the best sections for the purpose of this examination 
will be that from ch. xvii. 16—xviii. 5, which relates to a time when 
Paul was left alone. Do we discover in the narrative or speech the 
traces of an unusual hand, and if so, whose is it? That some unusual 
hand has been here employed, is evident: for in the six verses 16—21 
inclusive, we have no fewer than nine expressions foreign to Luke’s 
style *, or no where else occurring: and in the speech itself, no fewer 
than nineteen*. Now of these twenty-eight expressions, five are either 
peculiar to, or employed principally by Paul*; besides that we find the 
phrase 76 rvetya atrov, so frequently (see reff.) used by him of his own 
spirit or feelings. That the dra€ Aeydpeva in the speech exceed in 
number the expressions indicative of his style, may fairly be accounted 
for by the peculiar nature of the occasion on which he spoke. Here I 
think we can hardly fail to trace the hand of the Apostle by quite as 
many indications as we might expect to find. That Luke should, as in 
every other case, have wrought in the section into his work, and given 
it the general form of his own narrative, would only be natural, and we 
find it has been so *. 

15. It may be instructive to carry on the examination of this part of 


1 See ch. i. 15, 23: the connexion by kal ch. ii. 1—4: aad mposdmrov 7. cuvedp., 
v. 41: jKotoOn 6 Adyos cis TA Gta T. exkAnolas, xi. 22: wats Geod (of Christ), ch. iii. 
13, 26; iv. 27, 830; (of David) iv. 25: 614 orduaros Aaveld or tev mpod., i. 16,—iii. 18, 
21,—iv. 25 :—oi viol "Iop., v. 21:—7 yepovota, ib., &e. 

2 exdexoucvov, mapwttvero, kateldwAov, mapatvyxavovtas, omepmoddyos, tevwy (bis), 
katayyedeus, teviCovra, nikalpovy. 

3 SeiciDauovertépous, avabewpav, oeBdopata, Bwyudv, ereyéeyparto, (ayveoTw,) 
ebocBeire, avOpwrivwv, (Oepareverat,) mposdeduevos, dpobcolas, Karouclas, ((nretv,) 
xapdyuati, (rExVNS,) evOuuhoews, Td Oeiov, brepidov, ETHTEV. 

4 éxdéxouat, mapoktivw, edkaipéw, céBacua, avOpdmivos.—katayyédAdw, dpl(w, eis 
éxaoros with gen. partitive, are peculiar to Luke and Paul: dyvoéw is a favourite word 
in the Epistles of Paul. 

5 We have the characteristic SieAéyero, émiAauBdvoua, eis Tas axods (Luke vii. 1), 
otadels, Siepxdmevos, Ka0dT!. 


12] 


§ u.] ITS SOURCES. [PROLEGOMENA. 


the history somewhat further. At ch. xviii. 5, Silas and Timotheus joined 
Paul at Corinth. One at least of these, Timotheus, was afterwards for 
a considerable time in the company of Luke in the journey from Philippi 
to Jerusalem. But on his arrival at Corinth, no alteration in the style 
of the narrative is perceptible. It still remains the mixed diction of 
Paul and Luke: the dz. Aeyy. are fewer, while we have some remarkable 
traces of Paul’s hand®. Again, in vv. 24—28 of the same chapter, we 
have a description of what took place with regard to Apollos at Ephe- 
sus, when Paul himself was absent. This portion it would be natural to 
suppose might have been furnished by Apollos himself, were it not for 
the laudatory description of ver. 24. If not by Apollos, then by Aquila 
and Priscilla to Paul on his return to Ephesus. And so it seems to 
have been. The general form is Luke’s: the peculiarities are mostly 
Paul’s’. : 

16. The examination of these sections may serve to shew that the 
great Apostle appears to have borne a principal part in informing Luke 
with regard to such parts of his history: the traces of this his share in 
the work being visible by the occurrence of words and phrases peculiar 
to him in the midst of the ordinary narrative from Luke’s own pen. 
These he preserved, casting the merely narrative matter into the form in 
which he usually wrote. :) 

17. It yet remains, before terminating this section, to say something 
of the speeches reported in the latter part of the Acts. Are they Paui’s 
own words, or has Luke in this case also gone over the matter, and left 
the impression of his style on it ? 

These speeches are, (a) the discourse to the Ephesian elders in ch. 
xx. 18—35,—(£) the apology before the Jews, ch. xxii. 1—21,—(y) the 
apology before Felix, ch. xxiv. 1O—21,—(6) the apology before Agrippa 
and Festus, ch. xxvi. 1—29. 

(a) The discourse to the Ephesian elders is a rich storehouse of 
phrases and sentiments peculiar to Paul. These are so numerous, and 
so remarkable, that nothing short of a complete study of the passage, 
with the references, will put the reader in full possession of them. Very 
faint traces are found of the hand of Luke*®. Of those mentioned in 


6 guveixeTo, ver. 5,—kabapds éyd, 6,—mapa roy vduov, 13,—adiknua, 14 (see ch. xxiv. 
20), padiovpynua, ib. (see ch. xiii. 10), Aveoxdunv buay, ib., Adyou, 15,—ke. 

7 katnxnmévos, axpiBGs Hptaro moppnoid(ecOa, e&€OevTo, dieA9eiv, amodetacba, 
maparyevduevos, cdTéves Siaxatnr€yxero (an &m. A., but in Luke’s manner of using long 
compounds), belong to Luke’s style: (éwy 7G mveduari, Snuoote (ch. xvi. 37; xx. 20 
only), to that of Paul. 

8 Among these may perhaps be counted the opening words bets értoracbe (compare 
ch. x. 28, 37)—éwéBnv eis 7. ’Ac. (ch. xxi. 4),—d:9AOov (ver. 25) ;—mposéxere Eavrois 
(ver. 28),—évacrhoovrat (ver. 30),—dmédeiéa (ver. 35). But most of these are such 
that we can only say Paul das not used the expressions, or not in the same sense: that 
he would not have done so, if occasion had offered, we cannot affirm. 


13] 


PROLEGOMENA.] THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. [cH. I. 


the note, scarcely any are decisive, whereas hardly a line of the whole is 
without unmistakable evidences that we have here the words of Paul. In 
the Prolegomena to the Pastoral Epistles, I hope to shew the importance 
of this discourse, as bearing on the very difficult question of the diction 
and date of those precious and to my mind indubitable relies of the 
great Apostle *. 

(B) The apology before the Jews (ch. xxii. 1—21) was spoken im 
Hebrew (Syro-Chaldaic). Another interesting question is therefore 
here involved, Did Luke understand Hebrew ? The answer to the two 
questions will be one and the same. We may find the diction of this 
translation either so completely Luke’s, as to render it probable that he 
was the translator ;—or it may bear traces, as usual, of Paul’s own 
phraseology set down and worked up by Luke. In the former case, we 
may confidently infer that he must have understeod Hebrew : in the 
latter, we may (but not with equal confidence, for Paul may by pre- 
ference have given his own version of his own speech) conclude that that 
language was unknown to him. Ifagain the speech is full of Hebraisms, 
it may lead us to infer that Paul himself was not the translator into 
Greek, but one who felt himself more strictly bound to a literal ren- 
dering than the speaker himself, who would be likely to give his own 
thoughts and meaning a freer and more Grecian dress. Now we do find, 
(1) that the speech is full of Hebraisms: (2) that while it contains 
several expressions occurring no where but in the writings of Luke’, 
not one is found in it peculiar to Paul, or even strikingly in his manner. 
Our inference then is that Luke himself has rendered this speech, from 
having heard it delivered ;—and consequently, that he was acquainted 
with Hebrew. 

(y) The short apology before Felix (ch. xxiv. 10—21) contains some 
traces of Paul’s manner’, but still they are scanty, and the evidences of 
Luke’s hand predominate, as may be seen from the reff. Its very com- 
pendious character makes it probable that it may have been drawn up 
by Luke from Paul’s own report of the substance of what he said. 

(8) The important apology before Agrippa and Festus (ch. xxvi. 1— 
29) is full of Paul’s peculiar expressions *. It was spoken in Greek, and 


9 See Vol. III. Prolegg. ch. vii. 1, 33 note. 

1 gives, evdAaBhs, a’th tH Spa, %xoraors, are peculiar to Luke: émords is a 
favourite word with him: and very many other expressions, as may be seen by reff., 
are in the common manner of his writings. 

2 ampdésxowos,—aovveldnots,—8e ér@v,—and perhaps adiknua. 

3 fynua (in this sense never used by Luke, but by Paul 11 times), dvta ge (ace. 
pendens, see reff.),—5:d,—paxpodduws (only used here, but the cognate words are very 
favourite ones with Paul),—poywaéokovtes,—Opnokela,—em eAmldi k.7.A.,—viKTA K, 
huepay (see reff.),—Katavrijca (see reff.),—xkplvetar map’ duiv,—eota,—evayria (com- 
pare ch. xxviii. 17),—aylwy (in Acts, only ch. ix. 18, of Paul,—and in the section ch, 
ix. 32—43, but in the Epistles passim),—tiuwp@v,—tas &w wéreis,—brétp 7. Aaum.,— 


14] 


§ u1.] FOR WHAT READERS, &c. [PROLEGOMENA. 


taken down very nearly as spoken. Some phrases however occur in it 
which seem to belong to Luke‘; just enough to shew the hand which 
has committed the speech to writing. © We must remember however that 
several of these are expressive of meanings not elsewhere occurring in 
Paul’s composition, which therefore he may well, in uttering, have thus 
expressed. 

18. Our conclusion from this examination may be thus stated; 

(1) That in all cases the diction of the speeches was more or less 
modified by Luke’s hand. (2) That they are not in any case (as some 
have supposed) composed by him for the speaker, but were really in 
substance, and for the most part in very words, uttered as written. 
(3) That the differences apparent in the greater or less amount of 
editorial diction in different speeches, remarkably correspond to the 
alleged occasions and modes of their delivery:—where Paul spoke 
Hebrew, hardly any traces of his own style being discernible,—as also 
where a short compendium only of his speech is given ; while on the 
other hand speeches manifestly reported at length and which were 
spoken in Greek originally, are full of the characteristic peculiarities of 
Paul himself. 

19. For many other interesting particulars connected with the sources 
of the narrative in the Acts, I refer the student to Dr. Davidson’s 
Introduction to the N. T. vol. ii. 


SECTION II. 


FOR WHAT READERS AND WITH WHAT OBJECT IT WAS WRITTEN. 


1. The Gospel of Luke commences with a preface, in which he de- 
clares his object with sufficient precision. Dedicating it to his friend 
Theophilus, he describes it as a record of 7a rerAnpodopynpéva ev Atv 
mpdypata,—and asserts his purpose in writing it to be, wa émuyrds 
mepl av KaTnxnOys Adywv THY dodadeaav. Now there can be little ques- 
tion that both these descriptions apply to the Acts also. The book is 
introduced without preface, as a second part following on the former 
treatise: a devtepos Adyos to the Gospel. 

2. Ihave stated with regard to the Gospel, that we can hardly sup- 
pose Luke’s design to have confined itself to Theophilus, but must 
believe that he followed the common practice of dedicating his work to 
some one person of rank or influence, and describing it as written for 
him. The same applies also to the Acts: and the class of readers for 


KARpoy ev Tots Hyiaopevors,—petavoety (absol.),—éxrdés,—mpatos ef dvarT.,—cwhpo- 
ovvn,—ev 6Aly@,—éroto0s,—mapektés. 

4 éy pvdakais KatéxAcioa,—etovolay AaBdv,—dvaipovuévwy (never used by Paul), 
—repirduvay,—Katamed dytwy,—ovAAaBdpnevolt,—diax eiploacbat,—amopbeyyouat. 


15] 


PROLEGOMENA.] THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. [or 1: 


whom Luke wrote is the same as before ; viz. Christians, whether Jews 
or Gentiles. 

3. If a further specification of his object in writing be required, it 
can only be furnished by an unprejudiced examination of the contents 
of the book. ‘These are found to be, The fulfilment of the promise of 
the Father by the descent of the Holy Spirit: the results of that out- 
pouring, by the dispersion of the Gospel among Jews and Gentiles. 
Under these leading heads, all the personal and subordinate details may 
be ranged. Immediately after the ascension, Peter, the first of the 
twelve, the Rock on whom the church was to be built, the holder of 
the keys of the Kingdom, becomes the great Actor under God in the 
founding of the Church. He is the centre of the first great group of 
sayings and doings. The opening of the door to Jews (ch. ii.) and | 
Gentiles (ch. x.) is his office,—and by him, in the Lord’s own time, is 
accomplished. But none of the existing Twelve were (humanly speaking) 
fitted to preach the Gospel to the cultivated Gentile world. To be by 
divine grace the spiritual conqueror of Asia and Europe, God raised up 
another instrument, from among the highly educated and zealous Pha- 
risees. ‘The preparation of this instrument for the work to be done,— 
the progress in his hand of that work—his journeyings, preachings and 
perils, his stripes and imprisonments, his testifying in Jerusalem, and 
being brought to testify in Rome,—these are the subjects of the latter 
half of the book, of which the great central figure is the Apostle Paul. 

4. Nor can we attribute this with any probability to a set design of a 
comparison between the two great Apostles, or of an apology for Paul by 
exhibiting him as acting in consonance with the principles which regu- 
lated Peter. All such hypothesis is in the highest degree unnatural 
and forced. The cireumstances before the narrator’s view would, without 
any such design, have led to the arrangement of the book as we now 
find it. The writer was the companion of Paul ;—and in the land which 
had been the cradle of the Church he gathered materials for the portion 
which might join his Gospel to the narrative with which Paul’s history 
began. In that interval, Peter was the chief actor: Peter was the 
acknowledged ‘chosen vessel’ in the first days of the Gospel. But 
Luke does not confine himself to Peter’s acts. He gives at length the 
mission of Philip to the Gaza road and the conversion of the Ethiopian 
Kunuch, with which Peter had no connexion whatever. He gives at 
length the history of Stephen—the origin of the office which he held,— 
his apology,—his martyrdom,—how naturally, as leading to the narrative 
of the conversion of him who took so conspicuous a part in the transae- 
tions of that day °. 

5 Schneckenburger, who (as well as Griesbach and Baur) holds the theory against which 
this paragraph is directed, is obliged to suppose that Stephen was purposely introduced 
to be exhibited as the prototype and forerunner of Paul. That Stephen was so, in some 


16] 


§ rv.] TIME AND PLACE OF WRITING. [PRoLEGomena. 


5. Any view which attributes ulterior design to the writer, beyond 
that of faithfully recording such facts as seemed important in the 
history of the Gospel, is, I am persuaded, mistaken. Many ends are 
answered by the book in the course of this narration, but they are the 
designs of Providence, not the studied purposes of the writer :—e. g., 
the sedulous offer of the Gospel to the Jewish people,—their continual 
rejection of it,—the as continual turning to the Gentiles :—how strik- 
ingly does this come out before the reader as-we advance,—and how 
easily might this be alleged as the design,—supported as the view would 
be by the final interview of Paul with the Jews at Rome, and his solemn 
application of prophecy to their unbelief and hardness of heart. Again, 
in the course of the book, more and more strongly does it appear that 
God’s purpose was to gather a people out of the Gentiles to His name: 
so that by Michaelis thzs is assigned as one of two great objects of the 
book. And so we might pass on through the whole cycle of progress 
of the faith of Christ, and hypotheses might be raised, as each great 
purpose of Providence is seen unfolding, that to narrate it was the 
object of the work. 


SECTION IV. 


AT WHAT TIME AND PLACE IT WAS WRITTEN. 


1. I see no cause for departing from the opinion already expressed 
in the Prolegomena to Luke’s Gospel (Vol. I., Prol., § iv. 1) that the Acts 
was completed and published at the expiration of the two years described 
in the last verse of chap. xxviii, No reason can be assigned, why, had 
any considerable change in the circumstances of Paul taken place, it 
should not have been mentioned by Luke. The same will hold still 
more strongly of the death of the Apostle. 

2. The prevalent opinion of recent critics in Germany has been, that 
the book was written much later than this. But this opinion is for the 
most part to be traced to their subjective leanings on the prophetic 
announcement of Luke xxi. 24. For those who hold that there is no 
such thing as prophecy (and this unhappily is the case with many of the 
modern German critics), it becomes necessary to maintain that that 
verse was written after the destruction of Jerusalem. Wence, as the 
Acts is the sequel to the Gospel, much more must the Acts have been 
written after that event. To us in England, who receive the verse in 
question as a truthful account of the words spoken by our Lord, and 


sense, is true enough; but the assimilation of Paul to Stephen is a result springing 
naturally out of the narrative, not brought about by the writer of the history. Supposing 
the facts to have been as related, it was most natural that Paul should earnestly desire 
the whole particulars respecting Stephen to be minutely recorded: and so we find them, 


Vor. IL—17] b 


PROLEGOMENA.| THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. [cH.:1. 


see in them a weighty prophetic declaration which is even now not 
wholly fulfilled, this argument at least has no weight. 

3. The last-mentioned view (which is that of De Wette) differs 
from that of Meyer (Edn. 1), who saw in ch. viii. 26 (atrqn éortiv 
épnpos) a terminus a quo, and in the omission of all mention of the 
destruction of Jerusalem, a terminus ad quem, for the publication of 
the history ; which he was therefore inclined to place at the beginning 
of the Jewish war, after the destruction of Gaza by the revolutionary 
bands of the Jews, and before the destruction of Jerusalem. But the 
notice of ch. viii. 26 cannot be fairly thus taken: see note there, in 
which I have endeavoured to give the true meaning of épypos as 
applying to édds and not to Gaza, and as spoken by the angel, not added 
by the Evangelist. Meyer’s latter terminus, and the argument by 
which he fixes it, I hold to be sound. It would be beside all proba- 
bility, that so great, and for Christianity so important an event, as 
the overthrow of the Jewish city, temple, and nation, should have passed 
without even an allusion in a book in which that city, temple, and nation, 
bear so conspicuous a part. 

4. Meyer also (Edn. 1, Einl. p. 7) endeavoured to render a reason why 
the subsequent proceedings of Paul in Rome should not have been noticed. 
They were, he imagines, well known to Theophilus, an Italian himself, 
if not a Roman. But this is the merest caprice of conjecture. What 
convincing evidence have we that Theophilus was a Roman, or an 
Italian? And this view would hardly (though Meyer laboured to make 
it do so) account for the narration of what did take place in Rome,— 
especially for the last verse of the book. It is fair to state that in sub- 
sequent editions Meyer has abandoned this view for that impugned at 
the beginning of par. 2. 

5. De Wette attempts to account for the history ending where it 
does, because the words of our Lord in ch. i. 8 had been accomplished, 
and so the object of the history fulfilled. But how were they more 
accomplished at that particular time than before? Rome had not been 
specified in that command: and he who now preached at Rome was not 
Jormally addressed in those words. Rather, if the object of the writer 
had been merely to trace these words to their fulfilment, should he have 
followed the actual Apostles to whom they were spoken, many of whom 
we have reason to believe much more literally preached és éaydrov THs 
yis, than St. Paul. But no such design, or none such in so formal a 
shape, was in the mind of our Evangelist. That the Lord commanded 
and his Apostles obeyed, would be the obvious course of history ; but 
that the mere bringing of one of those Apostles to the head of the 
civilized world should have been thought to exhaust that command, 
is inconceivable as a ground for breaking off the narration. 

6. Still more futile is the view that it was broken off because the 


18] 


§ rv. ] TIME AND PLACE OF WRITING. [PrRotecomena. 


promise of ch. xxiii. 11 was now fulfilled (otrtws ce Set Kat ets ‘Pdunv 
Paptupjoa). For on this view, the being brought before Caesar ought 
to have been expressly narrated: another promise having been given to 
Paul, ch. xxvii. 24, x7) oBod, Tadd, Katoaps oe Set mapacrqvar. Indeed 
this very argument tells forcibly in favour of the date commonly as- 
signed. Without attributing it as an object in the mind of the writer, 
to relate the fulfilment of every divine promise recorded by him, we 
may at least regard it as probable, that had he been able to chronicle the 
fulfilment of this promise, he would have done so, seeing that the apology 
before Cesar was so weighty an event, and that three former apologies, 
those before the Jews, before Felix, and before Festus and Agrippa, had 
been inserted. 

7. If we look at the probabilities of the matter, we shall find that the 
time commonly assigned was by very far the most likely for the publi- 
cation of the book. The arrival at Rome was an important period in 
the Apostle’s life: the quiet which succeeded it seemed to promise no 
immediate determination of his cause: a large amount of historie mate- 
rial was collected :—or perhaps, taking another view, Nero was begin- 
ning ‘in pejus mutari;’ none could tell how soon the whole outward 
repose of Roman society might be shaken, and the tacit toleration which 
now the Christians enjoyed be exchanged for bitter persecution. If 
such terrors loomed in the prospect of even those who judged from 
worldly probabilities, there would surely be in the church at Rome 
prophets and teachers, who might tell them by the Holy Ghost of the 
storm which was gathering, and might warn them that the words lying 
ready for publication must be given to the faithful before its outbreak, 
or never. It is true that such a prior? considerations would weigh little 
against presumptive evidence furnished by the book itself: but when 
arrayed in aid of such evidence, they carry with them no small weight: 
when we find that the time naturally and fairly indicated in the book 
itself for its publication, is that one of all others when we should con- 
ceive that publication most likely. 

8. We thus get A.D. 63 (see the following table) for the date of the 
publication. 

9. The same arguments which establish the date, also fix the place. 
At Rome, among the Christians there, was this history first made 
public, which has since then in all parts and ages of the church formed 
a recognized and important part of the canon of Scripture. 

10. As regards the title of the book, we may observe, that it appears 
to represent the estimate, not of one culling these out of more copious 
materials, but of an age when these were ail the Acts of the Apostles 
extant: and probably therefore proceeded not from the author, but from 
the transcribers. 


19] b 


bo 


PROLEGOMENA.| THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. (cH. I. 


SECTION V. 


GENUINENESS, AND STATE OF THE TEXT. 


1. Eusebius (H. E. iii. 25), recounting the éuoAoyovpevat Getar ypadat, 
says, TakTéov év mpwTois THY aylay Tov edayyeAlwv TeTpaKTiV ols ETrETaL 7 
Tav mpdgewv Tov amootédwy ypapy. And in iii. 11,—Aovkas 70 pev yévos 
dv tov dm ’Avtioxelas, tiv S€ éeriotHpyy tatpds, TA TACioTA TvyyEyoVHS 
73 Vath, Kai tots Aoirous S€ od Teptepyws TOV drooTOAwV GpAnKws, 7s 
Grd totvtwv mposextioato Wuxav Oeparevtuxns ev dvolv jpiv brodetypara 
Georvevorots KatadéXoure BuBAlouss 7H TE edayyeAiw . . . . Kal Tals TOV 
droctéAwv mpdéeow, Ss ovixére OC dons, 6pOarpois S€ adrots rapahaBov 
ovveraéaro. And many earlier fathers, either by citation or by allusion, 
have sufficiently shewn that the book was esteemed by them part of the 
canon of Scripture. 

(a) Papias (see Euseb. H. E. iii. 39) does not mention nor refer to 
the Acts. He speaks indeed of Philip, and his daughters, but mistakes 
him (?) for Philip the Apostle: and of Justus surnamed Barsabas. 
Nor are there any references in Justin Martyr which, fairly considered, 
belong to this book. Such as are sometimes quoted may be seen in 
Lardner, vol. i. p. 122. The same may be said of Clement of Rome. 
Ignatius is supposed to allude to it (mera 6€ tyv dvdcTaocw owwedayev 
a’rois kat ouvércev. Smyrn. § 3, p. 709. Compare Acts x. 41): so also 
Polycarp (dv éyepev 6 eds, AVoas Tas divas Tod Gdov. Phil. § 1, p. 1005. 
Compare Acts ii. 24). 

(8) The first direct quotation occurs in the Epistle of the Churches 
of Lyons and Vienne to those of Asia and Phrygia (A.p. 177) given in 
Euseb. H. E. v. 2. Speaking of the martyrs, they say, irép ray 7a dewa 
Suaribévtwv ndyovro, Kabdrep Srépavos 6 rédevos pdptus* Kipte, py) OTHONS 
avrots THY Gpaptiay TavTnv. 

(y) Irenzus frequently and expressly quotes this book: and in book 
iii. ch. 14, p. 201 f., he gives a summary of the latter part of the Acts, 
attributing it to Luke as its writer. 

(5) Clement of Alexandria quotes it often, and as the work of Luke: 
e. g. Kad Kat 6 Aovkas év Tals mpakeot TOV aroctéAwy aropvnovever TOY 
TladAov Aéyovta’ "Avépes “AOnvato, x.7.d. (see Acts xvii. 22, 23) Strom. 
v. 12 [83], p. 696 P. 

(e) Tertullian often quotes it expressly: e. g. ‘ Adeo postea in Actis 
apostolorum invenimus, quoniam qui Joannis baptismum habebant, non 
accepissent Spiritum Sanctum, quem ne auditu quidem noverant ’ (com- 
pare Acts xix. 1—3), De baptismo, c. 10, vol. i. p. 1211. And again: 
‘cum in eodem commentario Luce, et tertia hora orationis demonstretur, 
sub qua Spiritu Sancto initiati pro ebriis habebantur, et sexta, qua Petrus 
ascendit in superiora,’ &c. De jejuniis, ec. 10, vol. ii. p. 966. 

20] 


§ v.] GENUINENESS, AND STATE OF TEXT. [protecomena. 


2. (a) The Marcionites (cent. iii.) and the Manichzans (cent. iv.) 
rejected the Acts as contradicting some of their notions. “Cur Acta 
respuatis jam apparet, ut deum scilicet non alium predicantia quam 
creatorem, nec Christum alterius quam creatoris, quando nee promissio 
Spiritus sancti aliunde probetur exhibita, quam de instrumento Ac- 
torum.” Tertull. adv. Marcion. lib. v. § 2, vol. ii. p. 472. And of the 
Manichxans, Augustine says, ‘‘ Manichai canonicum librum cujus titulus 
est Actus Apostolorum repudiant. 'Timent enim evidentissimam veri- 
tatem, ubi apparet, Sanctum Spiritum missum qui est a Domino Jesu 
Christo evangelica virtute preditus.” Epist. cexxxvii. 2, vol. ii. p. 1035. 

(8) Some modern critics in Germany, especially Baur, have made use 
of the hypothesis, that the Acts is an apology for Paul (see above, 
§ iii. 4), to throw discredit on the book, and to bring down its publica- 
tion to the second century. But with the hypothesis will also fall that 
which is built’on it ; and from the reasoning of the preceding sections it 
may be seen how utterly impracticable it would have been for an imitator 
to draw up narratives and speeches which should present the phenomena, 
in relation to the facts underlying them, which these do. 

3. The text of the Acts, in D and E of the leading MSS., and their 
cognates in the mss. and versions, is varied by many interpolations of 
considerable length. It may suffice to point out a few of these, referring 
the student to the various readings to examine them in detail : 

Gaps Jos xt. 2) LF, 25, 26; 297 xO xivy 2)°7,- 18.) 195" xve. 2; 

ie 20s xvi. 10:30) 35, 39, 40; xvii. 15s) xvill. 4:27; xix. 1: xx. 

3; xxiii. 24; xxiv. 24; xxv. 24; xxvil. 1; xxvii. 31. 
Of these, some are remarkable as bearing considerable appearance of 
genuineness, e. g. those in ch. xii. 10, xvi. 10: some are unmeaning and 
absurd, as those in ch. xiv. 19, xvi. 89. Considerable uncertainty hangs 
over the whole question respecting these insertions. A critic of emi 
nence, Bornemann, believes that the text of the Acts originally contained 
them all, and has been abbreviated by the hand of correctors: and he 
has published an edition on this principle. 

4, The great abundance of various readings in the Acts, and the 
extent of space consequently devoted to them, will be observed by every 
reader. In no book of the N. T., with the exception of the Apocalypse, 
is the text so full of variations as in this. To this result several reasons 
may have contributed. In the many backward references to the Gospel 
history, and anticipations of statements and expressions occurring in the 
Epistles, temptations were found inducing the corrector to try his hand 
at assimilating, and as he thought reconciling, the various accounts. In 
places where ecclesiastical order or usage was in question, insertions or 
omissions were made to suit the habits and views of the church in after 
times. Where the narrative simply related facts,—any act or word 
apparently unworthy of the apostolic agent was modified for the sake of 

21| 


PROLEGOMENA.| THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. [ cH. 1. 


decorum. Where St. Paul relates over again to different audiences the 
details of his miraculous conversion, the one passage was pieced from 
the other, so as to produce verbal accordance. These circumstances 
render the critical arrangement of the text in this book a task more than 
usually difficult. 


SECTION VI. 
CHRONOLOGY. 


1. The chronology of the Acts has been the subject of many learned 
disquisitions both in ancient and modern times. It must suffice here 
(1) to point out to the reader those recent works where he will find the 
whole matter thoroughly discussed, and the results of older inquiries 
stated and criticized: and (2) to furnish a table arranged according to 
years, in which the contemporary sacred and profane history may be 
placed side by side, according to the conclusions which I myself have 
been led to form. 

(a) The treatise of Anger, de temporum in Actis Apostolorum 
ratione, Lips. 1833, was by far the best complete discussion of the 
chronology which had appeared up to that time: and the student who 
masters this not very voluminous work, will be in entire pea of 
the state of the inquiry when it was published. 

(8) But the ground has since been again gone over, and Anger’s 
results somewhat shaken, by Wieseler, Chronologie des apostolischen 
Zeitalters, Géttingen, 1848, which is now the best and most important 
work on the subject. I have been led in several places to differ from 
Wieseler, but I do not on that account underrate the value of his re- 
searches. His work, as well as that of Anger, should be in the hands of 
every student who wishes to master the chronology of the apostolic period. 

(y) A work often referred to in these Prolegomena, Dr. Davidson’s 
Introduction to the New Testament, will be found by the English reader 
to contain a very useful résumé of the views and arguments of other 
writers as well as his own conclusions ; and is accompanied with the 
table usual in the German writers, giving at one glance the various dates 
assigned by different chronologists for the events in the apostolic history. 

2. I proceed to give the chronological table above promised. It will 
be observed that the chronology of the Acts takes us only to the end of 
the second year of St. Paul’s [first] imprisonment at Rome. With the 
important and difficult question respecting a second imprisonment, we 
are here in no way concerned. It will come before us for full discussion 
in the Prolegomena to the Pastoral Epistles, Vol. IIL. (§ ii. 17 ff.) 


22) 


[ PROLEGOMENA. 


CHRONOLOGY. 


§ vi. ] 


‘TVop 8 porsyzyT 10jye sdeysod—‘(ge ‘rx) 
(JISIA PU0d9§) [neg pur svqvuieg jo spury 943 Aq 
vepne UL Watyja1q 94} 03 yuas sartddns : (97 ‘rx) 
sures v sorsoydoid snqysy—'(-qt) sueiysi1yO poryeo 
IY 91v sapdiostip ayy—(gz Ix) YoonuY 4x aod & 
urvutat Ady, “sNsIVy, WOLF [NV sayozoz pur ‘vovid 
Way} pry yey ye saorolot ‘miayesnaae ye YyornyD 943 
Aq JayIIYI Was SI sequumeg °(9% “BT ‘IX) PoonuY 38 
Sa[ijuex) 0} poyovaid useq pry jadsox oy} ouURaT 





‘susie y, 0} UaryjoIq oy} Aq yUAS ST 
Fl SI JO tasuvp ur Suroq uayy ‘sXep useqyy sureuol 
(TE 18D 6G—9G “X!) AJoq syoour pur (FISTA 
4SIL,J) Wayesniae 0} dn sa08 Tavg ‘(g[—cT ‘t ‘[ey) 
snosviuug pue viqvry ur sivad 9aiq} Sutpuads 19y 
— (SIT FX) mopesnise ye yoanyD 943 0} ommes a1} 
© junos0v uv saATy—'(QF—] “X) BoIeSMD ye spudLIy 
a[HUIy sI{ pur sntjeusoy 04 sayovaid ayy—(e-—ze 
*Xt) 19}9q JO JMOITQ—'([¢e “xt) sayoanyO oy} Jo dovag 


(ap ‘a'y “etkg Jo yoajarg ‘snsunpy sndqrJ ) 
‘(L 9 “¢ “XIX “WUY) snipnely 
jo drys—nsuoo pug oy} at ‘zp ul Wopsury sty 0} 
sauioo :vapne jo Sury ‘VddIYNV GOUAH 
CLT “¢ *Xtx yuy] 1yyeypuess 
SIY 4vatx) OY} polszT JO suotuIMOp osfoya 
aq} IaAO Sury snipneyyD Aq poyurodde yaaruyy) 


“+gpraqqUeD Jo UOS SAWNOTTG|QG) gy 


‘ep, ut vddiuusy Aq poaomar 
“"'seuuy Jo 0s SVIHLLY]{, 
oh c¥ 
‘reak ommes oy} ureddusy fq 
peaomlar :svtayjuRD pouren 
-Ins ‘snyja0q jo uos NOWIG 


OL 


[eg “31180 
yong] FZ “urge Woy 





(Bg “XIX “HUY 90g 

‘0F-68 ‘a [ZL "Max Huy] vddusy 0 wos 

Ayoursjo} sty pue ‘suokry 03 paysrueq st ynq 
‘DUTY JO 91714 OY} JLOI[Os 0} oMOY 07 so0d sedyuy) 

‘IMAX “q]UW] epnsteg jo reak pug oq} on 
-SULY MOM Sly 0} OMOY Wo suInjor vddwsy) 

(6g ‘av ‘etthg Jo yoajorg ‘snunr 

ding, snuo.yag "d) (GZ ‘FZ “XL SV ‘ajou 
aas ‘snosvuud jo uorssossod ur Sutoq svjoty uQ) 








“(GIT “X1) (seed ou 
Ur ayz]) Meg JO WOIsIOAMOQ—"(NF ‘9% “WHA) voruse_ 
0} smjozy Uloly soyovoid pue ‘yonuno ueidoryy yy 
ay} S}taauod dijiyg—(ez—e “IA) vlivuIeg ye ‘uYyoOr 
puv jd}9q spivasoye pure ‘diy g—(F ‘mHA) saydrostp 


ay} Jo uorsiodsiq7— (ge “a) ueydeyg Jo woprAqrepy|surlysniua snyjoitA Aq poyutodde ‘sxzjaaunpyr 





“ULa[VSNIOf UL YAIey oY} Jo ssaisoid snosodsorg 
‘8 ‘IA—GPF_ IL S19V pojefed sjueaa ayy ‘ye—(e ‘a'v 
‘qtutdg Ajo oy} Jo worsuyy ‘(12 Ae) LSOO 
AINAd ‘(79891 ‘gt AtIV) NOISNAOSV AHL 








‘SLOV HHL NI CAaLYTAU SINAAT 


(G9 “xx soradury SATA AV'TO) 
yay) eddusy fq poaoulot *6L Wounue wima'esiaiscleavain eur oa 6 3 
ogy crerreeerceengg 
OL 
16h soierseneege 





(‘sto[eyQ JO Bury ope poarofzyT 19yI01q SiFT) 
(Lor ‘9 ‘Hrax “uy ] siyrues 
NY pur ‘siytuoyorry, ‘veunjyeg a ‘t ‘dipiyg jo 
Aypo.te139} 94} Jo Sury ‘worssodor sty tae sup 

May v ‘epnstpeg Aq paquiodde -] nddaibp posary 
“(OT “9 “tax “yqUV) yornd 

-diyy se vepne 0} vpnsipey Aq yuos SATTAUV IN 
‘Cat Huy) vapne jo 


— 


see eeeneees Sen eeeees (qt “4]U0y) 
snuruy jo uos ‘sa TIHdOdH | 
(G “¢ “THAX “UV) 380993 
-uag yz snipjaytA Aq pooeydstp 
se eeee seeeee (¢ 'p “THLAX ‘q,U0V ) 
snuzuy jo uos ‘NYHLVNO¢ 
“IQAOSSET 





(Log tA uy yor] 
OT TPOIB TAL TOI AOL 
-duy VWIONDITYO) 





"I19Y} [BALI Si 9LOJ9q Pelp snIMaqey, (ZF 
THAX "}UY) Loy 29g UF azRT ‘suETaI1A Aq (Jonp 
-U0D SI 1OF ADMSUB O}) OULOY 0} JUas ST azLIIG 

(FE "GV ‘VIIA Jo yoajorg ‘sn2p7724 ) 
*(g@ ‘a'v ‘Mojaq 998 + Z% “PMIAX “QQUW ‘sor) Jz 
ur A[Iva 10 ‘9g “G'V WO ‘SOLVTId SQILNOd 


ay} 9@ SNIT[ATA &q paoedstp 1 a) paneer forsoees ceveeeceeers Le 
68h seuseee sore eae 

OL 
senecevecons eeaeeees (Z "2 THAX Geipernana st tcsres BI) 


‘yquy ‘sor¢) ¢z ‘a’v ‘vepne 
jo coyeindoad snqeiyy) Snioy 
-vA Sq poyutodde ‘syHdvIVO 





‘ona ‘V#anr dO SHONUTAOD 





“SLSGIUd HOIH 








on 


cal ‘ay ‘“6T 


“OLA 


‘SUVAA 


‘Sny wor 1o1dmy 
[eos] (SATA ALL) 





“Cy 








Tiel 
ae) 
N 


for: a. 


PROLEGOMENA. | THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. 


4SATT) YULtoy ye ([T ‘WLAX) grey v pure avas v spuads 
IH CUAX “IAX) O0001) pUL ULUOpaLA, 03 AOUTTY 
UISV YSuotyi— [g Jo WN; Ne ayy aaojoq you sduysod— C[e zt 


*(@*1Ax) ShoqjoutLy, pur “(QP AX) supigaq potuvduoose |e "q] ‘03 ‘sHraL[NeD ‘syMOYeAT, ‘vaULjug_ Jo 


‘(ung jo Lawmol Axeuorsstut PMoosg—'suquuing put jsury oq 07 swyeyg woy pojyoutord “yy vddusy) *(Z “MIxx 
[neg Woajaq uoviedes pus oyndsiqy ['(Y [TH 18D) ([ ‘1 °Xx  |sjoy ‘oj0u 99s) ooo sty 
ouuy W Lag YIM AoLAIoyUT] “(Gg AX) Durqouvord ‘yuy) (eg ‘a'v) vapne jo r0;eAnd014 XITH {SOL OAvY 07 you savodde ynq 
puv Suryova} ‘yoorup ue Kucmp pus ‘ainjat Ady, (uuinyjoo =|: (Z "9 *xx ‘uy) IO}BANIOLT 


—(UoIsi9AuoD SNe WorZ oAtsnpour sivo{ uda}n0f [Surpooord oos ‘omoy 4x pasodop SHUBLUND)/94} SHUvUIN TIA LoY]0504 


YT Ue +e °Z AX) doyguur oy} uo (4ISTA PAT) 
moyesniae 07 dn od5 suqeuimg pus [neq—("[ ‘Ax) 
‘oN ‘WOISLWUINOITD Jo UONRTI|Go 943 Suyoodsor oyndsiqg 








i (¢-S1 HLM 33 °9 XX “HUY 

‘BIMAG Jo yoajorg ‘sngpuponey Srepueuty) snjr7) 
Se Giegteiorg 

“(9% “ALX) sopdiostp oy yt [storeyD Jo Sury pozurodde sasunok ayy nddutby)| 


YOOHUWY 48 OUll} Buoy V Ulemor {Oy} WANJaA Atay} O4y IY |}AAARA@-a$_?$_?_?_?_€_?_$_________ "| 
CCT @1 Hpac 

‘Qh 10 Lp UL YoouUY 0} unjor AYUaNbasuos | jog osfe aag] sarp ‘stareyD Jo Bury ‘poropy 
oyy savor v uvy} o1out sardnovo ATpavy Aoutnol siypy\‘{-prqr Uy] «SIpNe[D jo tvok yQYysta 044 


—‘sun}iumng ot} yytas oynd 
-SIp tv jo oouanbasuoo ur ‘snqea 
-penty 4q ZG UL omtoyy 07 3U~as 





| 


[208 Mehtnesecseeereere seers 


OL 








UL,, “oULIZ OMS O43 JuOoqY) ‘Z‘¢ *Xx ‘UW suaaener ses 
“vapor JO AoyVINIIT ‘SANVWAD SAIUILNAA|"qI‘suapoqon Jo U0s SVINVNY 


‘(Jp 10 OF) dour vIsy pur *‘(priqt) wapue ut ZG sxx: 
snad&p 03 “(gg “AIX—T WX) (1TAVq pavasojoousy) [Furser sr ourmay quaad oy, *(Z “¢ “xx uy) ‘yuy) Jp ur qoad ‘storey 





[neg pue svqvuivg jo Aoumol Areuorsstu ysitqivapne jo s0yeinoo1g ‘uaaNVXaTY SQIUANTY, JO Sury posrozy Aq poaowaa 





108 


SpRBEEIOR SSeS reece, 





(le ‘[ °xx ‘uy ] ems 


“vary patos oy pur ofduia, oyy Jo Apoysno aga |---"* “qt StuMeD Jo uos Hdasor 


pue sysatgq ysip{ oy} Sunurodde yo somod ayy (¢ °[ XX ‘UY) stopeyo 


SNIPNV[) WO SUIL}qO sIo[vYD Jo Sury poszszy)|jo Sury porozy Aq poaoutos 











*(@z “1LX) Boresay ye ‘190138 OOS CTL (XX “Huy “endg jo ywoyorg 
fioa ‘vadIUNY GOUuaf{ AO HLVAQ ‘(J[—E “UxX) |‘snubuoT smssmQ —) (Z “TT “xix ‘yuy) 
19]9q jo advosa sno(novtrut pu (tadosstqg oyj qu) jamoy ye pourvjor Suteq uddusy szosunod 
yuomuostidmy—'(Z tx) (avod Surpoooad ayy ur oyxp joyy ‘vepne jo aojywind01g ‘saayg sarasag 
sdeyied 10) uyor Jo LoyjoIG OY} SoMUP Jo Mop«LhyIeTW (12 °g ‘xix ‘yuy] eddiusy porozy jo yyvaq ) 











‘SSLOV AHL NI G4aLVYTAU SLNHAL ‘ona ‘V¥daALr JO SHONUTAOD “SESHIUd HOW 








On 


‘OLE ‘SUVAA 








‘ay 


[ PROLEGOMENA. 


CHRONOLOGY. 


§ vIi.] 





‘(gnb 4nq) suvtddyrag oy) 0 yy} sduyrod 
puv : WOWeTIy, pur ‘suvissojog ‘suvisoydy oy} 07 
‘dd ayy sayum ay (A[quqoad) sreak omy 04} Surang 
‘aanqoaluod 10 uotpeay st puodagq [[v pur ‘aoetd sox} 
SV 94} Jo uoMrotqnd oyy AyTquqoad ou siqy Jo 
pus 943 3V (TL MAXX) osnoy paar uMo stg 
ur savof 0M} sarpvaid pure s[[aap ‘s2uaj2j2u Dypojsna 


"(T ‘6 “XX ‘UV ) atossao0ns sty 
St JU9S ST SANIATY ‘amoy 4v Sutatte smou 
ut yday Suteq pue : (Areniqayy UL) ouLOY UL saAttue [neg|eq} UQ "Zg JeMUINs UT “qoad ‘snyso,q Jo YEG 





‘([[ ‘TUAXX—] “HAXx) sioqUIA\ ot] OF0q A. 

“RYRI J@ poyooradrys SJ—'UUINyNe 9} Ul 97eT OMMOYy, 

0} vas Aq YO juos pue ‘(Ze “IAXX—C@_ ‘AXX) snjso,\7 

pue eddusy o1ojaq pavay st—(Z[—][ ‘AxXx) aesag 

01 sjeadde oy ‘utayesni9¢ ye patty oq 0} UayL} SuTeq Jo 
igsuvp ur pur ‘smor ay} 4q snysayq at0jaq posnoor Sutog 
“raaesey ye uostid ur pueg 





(6 ‘Q xX "UW ‘JZ “AIXX) SOLsaq saTOUOg 
Aq popasiodns st xi[o)f 09 JO 2e[pplal 943 ynoqy 


“CPrq! 
‘yuy) pajuiodde snauuecp 
jo uos saSae pur ‘(Z9) “ay 
Aq sqjuout daa} ut paoeydstp 
SO CECT (5 G "xx ‘yuy) 
pojurodde = SaANVNY put 
‘(zg 40 [9) “adv Aq poorrdstp 
nreee eee eeee (II 9 "xx ‘yuy) 
pajuroddey IavyQ Hagsor 
pur ‘(Tg ut) uy Aq pooeyd 
-stp st vddusy ysurese n01y 
-1yod 0} omMoy 0} 9u05 Suraty 





see seeeeee (9 9 "xx “yu ) Ht 
vddusy Aq ‘q “F{ poyuiod 
-de iqeyg jo uos THV WHS] 








tt Z Ixx) xtjaq Aq uostd ur ydoy pur ‘uLipayurg 94} pur stiavuy 
Aq pasnoor st ay A19yM *XI[ay{ 0} Vaaesad 0} jus pur ‘smar oy} Jo sjord oy} UAOA seisAry oUNGLy 
ay} Aq panosat ‘uipayurg oq} pue sviuruy otojoq yySno.1q ‘ojdut9} ot) UL SMar dIVeISy ay Aq 
paztas StoFT *(9[ "XX JQ “OT ‘IXX—T ‘Xx) ys009}u0g o10jaq SXup MJ & (JISTA YYJTT) Wolrsnasse ye 
DUIALLIV—‘varlesay 0} ‘stvulalo1g pur ‘arXyz, ‘eavyeg ‘snqopi{ ‘story, ye Suiyonoj—"g [lady sires oy 
aouaya ‘tddiyiqg 3% Jayse5, spuods—‘moyesnise 10y purl Aq yNO sjas oY ‘AojjB UDOG—(¢suRyr[ey 
oy “day pur) (gg jo Suruuisoq oyj ul) sMEMoYy omy 09 oTIstdy ayy (gz “[ “AX “Woy “YIULIOD 
MO.AJ) $9}1IM PUv (Z *XX) S19} ULM OT] 2LOTTM ‘9999.19 0} 9DUdq) pue—‘(‘[R Z “XI “LOD Z) SUBTYIUIIOD 
9} 03 ‘dy puodeg 943 soz oy oro “(GT ‘ZT IL OD Z PT ‘XX Spy) Biuopaotyy 07 sfouimol aq 
‘TPES “XIX JO 4[NUINy 9yy A9IJu ‘(/¢) ysodajUag JnNOQYW = 


‘(Ger iixx—— 











g § ‘UL “Yo ‘mozaq vas : yyULMOD 03 Aournol pap.zoo 
-O1UN UB [GALI}UT SI} ULooe[dysnut 9A, *(Q“IAX "109 [) 
ainjiedap sity aojaq Suo, JOU SUBIYAUIION ey} 04 


‘AY IIT Oy} (pue gsuvyrypery 0, ‘deyz) soya oy oxazT|e spvoy ‘ge 1xx spy oF popnyle ‘ueydAsoy ory) 


‘(ajou pur ¢G ‘g “1AX “109 [ a1vdut09 


[@ °XX amjL310L) Jo “sodojusg [[Q snsoydy ye lneg)a2[T[ey Jo sqaed yy “yy eddusy syuosaad o19N) 





*([ xix) yyuLtog ye Surqovoad st 
sojjody ‘amiyurayy ‘snsoydyy oy hd3W yyidsLmav vL 
ysnoryy sjaavay oy ‘AQuoredde ‘umnjne oy} uj—(zz, 
“TWAX) IHONUY 0} suANqod (FISTA YANO) 4f Lae pur 


“pg jo Sutids oy} Ul WMalesnie¢ ye 48099}Uag 9]} 1OF 


[vs sjos (SMRTMOTYSSOT, oY} 0} eT[sTdq puooveg pue 


GIGE ETE sta si sudo) 0) xx 


‘yquy | sodvoso jyasury yng *xtjagq Aq paqno. are 


SLOMOT[OF SIFT 


“SSOUTIP[IAM 94} OFUL 9pnaN[NUT 


(LF 'g °xx ‘Uy] varog pur 











Q1g tietirseeeenigg 
Q1g cea 
Spee sssoeenewonnese 
BTg cirtrereereeeeeegg 
BIg ieee nege 
LI . Cec ccecscccccess pe 
Og soe erae 
Bop coma eee gt 
Gop Tne en nanerege 
(‘Fe 
*X] og ‘CP “pus[p 
‘yong 369 “UX ‘wuy 
‘OUL) “ET 10q07O 








mols dorsdug ‘OWAN 





25) 


PROLEGOMENA.] THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. [on. I. 


NOTES TO THE CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE. 


I. On the identity of the Journey to Jerusalem related in Acts xv., with that 
referred to Gal. ii. 1 ff. 


FIvE visits of St. Paul to Jerusalem are related in the Acts. Now the visit of Gal. 
ii. 1 ff. must be either (a) one distinct from all these, or (B) identical with one or other 
of them. 

(a) This hypothesis should not be resorted to, till every attempt to identify the visit 
with one of those recorded can be shewn to fail. Then only may we endeavour, as in 
the case of the unrecorded visit to Corinth (see below, chap. iii. § v.), to imagine some 
probable place for the insertion of sucha visit. So that the legitimacy of this hypothesis 
must be tried by the results arrived at in the discussion of the other. The maintainers 
of it are Beza, Paley (hesitatingly; Hor. Paul., p, 71, Birks’ edn.), Schrader (der 
Apostel Paulus, i. 74 ff.), and Tate. 

(8) The visit in question is identical with one or other of those recorded in the Acts. 

1. Itis not the first visit. The identity of the visits of Acts ix. 26—29 and Gal.i. 18 
being assumed (and it is hardly possible to doubt it), this follows as a matter of course. 

2. It is not the second visit (Acts xi. 29, 30). For we read, Gal. ii. 7, that Paul 
was already recognized as entrusted with the Gospel of the uncircumcision, and as 
having preached vv. 8, 9 together with Barnabas among the Gentiles. Now the com- 
mission of Paul and Barnabas to preach to the Gentiles dates from Acts xiii. 1, after 
the second visit. 

Also, at the time of the second visit, it is wholly improbable that Paul should have 
held a place of such high estimation in comparison with Peter, as we find him filling 
in Gal. ii. 8 ff. 

Again, on this hypothesis, either the first visit, or his conversion, was fourteen years 
inclusive before this, which took place certainly before 46 A.D.; for then the famine was 
raging, and this relief was sent up by prophetic anticipation. This would bring, either 
the first visit, or his conversion itself, to A.D. 32: a date wholly improbable, whichever 
way we take the fourteen years of Gal. ii. 1. 

3. The question of identity, with the third visit is discussed below. 

4, It is not the fourth visit. For in Gal. ii. 1, we read that Barnabas went up with 
Paul: but in Acts xv. 39, we find Paul and Barnabas separated, nor do we ever read of 
their travelling together afterwards,—and evidently Barnabas was not with him when he 
visited Jerusalem Acts xviii. 1S—22. Besides, the whole character of the fourth visit 
as there related, is against the idea that any weighty matters’ were then transacted. 
The expression merely is dvaBas kad domacduevos Thy exxAnolay KatéBy eis "AvTidxeay. 
Again, if we assume the identity of the visit in question with the fourth visit, the 
Apostle can hardly be acquitted of omitting, in his statement of his conferences with the 
principal Apostles in Gal. ii., an intermediate occasion when the matters arranged 
between them had been of the most solemn and important kind. This would be scarcely 
ingenuous, considering the object which he had in Gal. ii. 

5. It is not the fifth visit. For after this visit Paul did not return to Antioch, 
which he did after that in question, Gal. ii. 11. 

6. It remains therefore, that it can only, if identical with any of the five, be the 
third visit. Is this probable ? 

(a) The dates agree. See the Chronological Table, and notes on Gal. ii. 1. 

(b) The occasions agree. Both times, the important question relative to the obliga- 
tion of Christians to the Mosaic law was discussed: both times, the work of Paul and 
Barnabas among the Gentiles was recognized. What need was there for this to be 
twice done? It is of no import whatever to the matter, that in Acts, the result is 


26] 


§ vi. ] EXCURSUS I. [ PROLEGOMENA. 


a public decree,—whereas in Gal., no mention of such a decree is made: the history 
relates that which was important for the church,—the Hpistle, that which cleared the 
Apostle personally from the charge of dependence on man: all mention of the decree 
would in Gal. have been irrelevant. Similarly we may deal with the objection, that 
in Acts, a public council is summoned, whereas in Gal., it is expressly said that Paul 
laid forth to them the Gospel which he preached to the Gentiles, but kar’ idStav rots 
doxodow. This entirely agrees with Acts xv. 12, where Paul and Barnabas related to 
the multitude, not the nature of the doctrine which they preached, but only the patent 
proofs of its being from God,—éoa érolnoey 5 Oebs onucia Kk. Tépata ev Tois Cvecw BV 
QuTor. 

(ec) Nor is it any objection to the identity, that in Gal. ii. 2, Paul went up kar’ 
amroxdAvyw,—whereas in Acts xv. 2, the brethren éragay that P. and B. should go up, 
in consequence of the trouble given by the Judaizers. How do we know that this 
revelation was not made fo the church, and so directed their appointment ? Or if it be 
understood that the revelation was made to Paul himself, who can say whether the 
determination of the brethren was not a consequence of it 2? Whocan say again, whether 
Paul may not have been reluctant to go up, rather willing not to confer with flesh and 
blood on such a matter, and may have been commanded by a vision to do so? We 
have here again only the public and the private side of the same occurrence: the one, 
suitable to the ecclesiastical narrative: the other, to the vindication of his oftice by 
the Apostle. 

(d) The result is strikingly put by Mr. Conybeare, Life and Epistles of Paul, edn. 2, 
vol. i. p. 546,—“ The Galatian visit could not have happened before the third visit: 
because, if so, the Apostles at Jerusalem had already granted to Paul and Barnabas 
(Gal. ii. 3—6) the liberty which was sought for the evayyéAtov Tis &kpoBvortias: there- 
fore there would have been no need for the church to send them again to Jerusalem 
upon the same cause. Again, the Galatian visit could not have occurred after the 
third visit: because, almost immediately after that period, Paul and Barnabas ceased 
to work together as missionaries to the Gentiles: whereas, up to the time of the 
Galatian visit, they had been working together.” 

(y) It seems then to follow, that the Galatian visit is identical with that recorded in 
Acts xv. 

Those who wish to see the whole question dealt with more in detail, and the names 
and arguments of the champions of each view recounted, may refer to Mr. Conybeare’s 
Appendix I. at the end of vol. i. of Conybeare and Howson’s Life of St. Paul: or to 
Dr. Davidson’s Introd. vol. ii. pp. 112 ff. 


Il. On the discrepancy of Tacitus and Josephus regarding Felix. 


Tacitus, Ann. xii. 54, has generally been supposed to be in error in stating that 
Cumanus and Felix were joint procurators before the condemnation of the former. His 
account is very circumstantial, but seems to shew an imperfect acquaintance with 
Jewish matters: whereas it is probable that Josephus was best informed in the affairs 
of his own country. The discrepancy is a very wide one, and if Tacitus is wrong, he 
has the whole history of the outbreak in Judzea circumstantially misstated to correspond. 
See Wieseler, Chron. des Apost. Zeitalters, p. 67, note. 


EXCURSUS I. 
On “tHE CrTy or LAasmA,” AND OTHER PARTICULARS MENTIONED IN 
Acts xxvii. 7—17. 


Since the publication of the second edition of this volume, much light has been thrown 
on the interesting questions connected with the topography of this passage, by letters 


27] 


PROLEGOMENA.] THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. [cou. I. 


written to Mr. Smith from the Rev. George Brown, who accompanied the yacht 
St. Ursula, Hugh Tennent, Esq., on a cruise in the Mediterranean, in the winter of 
1855—6. I have to thank Mr. Smith for having kindly forwarded to me copies of these 
letters as they arrived. The substance of them is now printed as an extract from Mr 
Brown’s Journal, in the second edition of Mr. Smith’s “ Voyage and Shipwreck of St. 
Paul,” Appendix, No. 3. I extract here such portions as regard immediately the 
geographical points in question, referring my readers to the volume itself for the whole 
account, which is most graphic and entertaining. 


I. “We asked Nicephorus (the old Greek already mentioned) what was the ancient 
name of Lutro? He replied without hesitation, ‘ Phoeniki,’ but that the old city exists 
no longer. This of course proved at once the correctness of Mr. Smith’s conclusion. 
We were told further that the anchorage is excellent, and that our schooner could enter 
the harbour without difficulty. We next enquired the ancient name of the island of 
Gozzo, and he said at once, ‘ Chlavda,’ or ‘ Chlaydanesa’ (xAavda, or xAavda vijoos), a 
reply equally satisfactory. He told us also that there was a tradition in these parts 
that G@yios MataAos aréoroAos had visited Calolimounias (the fair havens), and had 
baptized many people there.” 


Il. “ Friday, Jan. 18th (Calolimounias).— Nothing now remained to be done but to 
ascertain the exact position of Lasea, a city which Luke says is nigh to the Fair 
Havens. ... Iasked our friend the Guardiano, rod éor: Aacéa (Adcata)? He said 
at once, that it was two hours’ walk to the eastward, close under Cape Leonda: but 
that it is now a desert place (rérw epfjuw). Mr. Tennent was eager to examine it: so 
getting under weigh, we ran along the coast before a S.W. wind. Cape Leonda is 
called by the Greeks Aéwva, evidently from its resemblance to a lion couchant, which 
nobody could fail to observe either from the W. or the E. Its face is to the sea, forming 
a promontory 340 or 400 feet high. Just after we passed it, Miss Tennent’s quick eye 
discovered two white pillars standing on an eminence near the shore. Down went the 
helm: and putting the vessel round, we stood in close, wore, and hove to. Mr. H. 
Tennent and I landed immediately, just inside the cape, to the eastward, and I found 
the beach lined with masses of masonry. These were formed of small stones, cemented 
together with mortar so firmly, that even where the sea had undermined them, huge 
fragments lay on the sand. This sea-wall extended a quarter of a mile along the beach 
from one rocky face to another, and was evidently intended for the defence of the city. 
Above we found the ruins of two temples. The steps which led up to the one remain, 
though in a shattered state : and the two white marble columns noticed by Miss Tennent, 
belonged to the other. Many shafts, and a few capitals of Grecian pillars, all of marble, 
lie scattered about, and a gully worn by a torrent lays bare the substructures down to 
the rock. To the E. a conical rocky hill is girdled by the foundations of a wall: and 
on a platform between this and the sea, the pillars of another edifice lie level with the 
ground. Some peasants came down to see us from the hills above, and I asked them 
the name of the place. They said at once, ‘Lasea:’ so there could be no doubt. Cape 
Leonda lies five miles E. of the Fair Havens: but there are no roads whatever in that 
part of Candia. We took away some specimens of marble, and boarded our yessel: at 
four P.M., sailed for Alexandria.”’ 


III. Lurro. ‘The health-officer told me, that though the harbour is open to the 
E., yet the easterly gales never blow home, being lifted by the high land behind, and 
that even in storms, the sea rolls in gently (‘piano piano’). He says it is the only 
secure harbour, in all winds, on the south coast of Crete: and that during the wars 
between the Venetians and the Turks (the latter took the island in 1688, I think), as 
many as twenty or twenty-four war-galleys had found shelter in its waters. He further 
shewed us an inscription on a large slab which he says was found among some ruins on 
the point, and took us up the hill to see the traces of the site of the ancient Pheeniki. 

28) 


§ vi. ] EXCURSUS I. II. [ PROLEGOMENA, 


The outline of its ramparts is clearly discernible, and some cisterns hollowed in the 
rock: but the ploughshare has been driven over its site, and it displays ‘the line of 
confusion and the stones of emptiness.’” 

The inscription here alluded to was afterwards made out accurately by Mr. Brown, 
and is given by Mr. Smith in his Preface. It is interesting and important : 


JOVI . SOLI . OPTIMO . MAXIMO . 
SERAPIDI . ET . OMNIBVS . DIIS . ET. 
IMPERATORI . CAESARI . NERVAE . 
TRAJANO . AVG . GERMANICO . DACICO . 
EPICTETVS . LIBERTVS . TABVLARIVS . 
CVRAM . AGENTE . OPERIS . DIONYSIO . 
SOSTRATI . FILIO . ALEXANDRINO . GVBERNATORE . 
NAVIS . PARASEMO . ISOPHARIA . CL . THEONIS . 


i.e. “ Epictetus, the freedman and tabularius, to Jupiter, only O. M., to Serapis and all 
the gods, and to the Imperator Cesar Nerva Trajanus Augustus Germanicus Dacicus : 
the superintendent of the work being Dionysius son of Sostratus of Alexandria, guber- 
nator (kvBepynrns) of the ship whose sign is Isopharia, of the fleet of Theon.” 

Now as Mr. Smith points out, we have here several points of union with the text of 
the Acts. 

1. It appears that Alexandrian ships did anchor and make long stay, perhaps winter, 
at Phoenice: otherwise Epictetus, the master of one, could hardly have remained long 
enough to superintend this votive building, whatever it was. 

2. We see the accuracy of the Alexandrian nautical language employed by St. Luke. 
We have here kuBepyqrns (ch. xxvii. 11) as the designation of the master of the ship ; 
and apache as indicating the name or sign of it (ch. xxviii. 11). 

The ¢abularius was the notary, or agent, of the fleet to which the Isopharia belonged. 
Mr. Smith quotes an inscription : 


CINCIO . L.F. SABINIANO . TABVLARIO . CLASS . RAVENN. 


EXCURSUS IT. 
ON THE READING ‘EAAnviotds IN ACTS xi. 20. 


My attention has been directed to a pamphlet by Dr. Kay, late Principal of Bishop’s 
College, Calcutta, “On the word Hellenist, with especial reference to Acts xi. 19 (20).” 
Dr. Kay defends the received reading ‘EAAnvords against the modern critical editors 
with considerable earnestness: I wish I could say that he had himself shewn the 

- humility and impartial investigation which he demands from them, or abstained from 
that assumption which substantiates nothing, and that vituperation of his opponents 
which shakes a reader’s confidence in even the best cause. I shall deal here simply with 
the residuum of critical argument in his work. 

1. The MS. evidence in his favour is B (now apparently ascertained) D6KHL p 13, 
and apparently the great mass of cursives : strong, it must be admitted, but not decisive, 
with AD! against him, and the testimony of & divided (N1 reading EvayyeAtords, and 
N3, “EAAnvas). 

2. He states that "EAAnvas is the easier word, and therefore “more likely to have 
supplanted "EAAyvords in a few MSS., than this latter to have supplanted it in nearly 
all.” But it is remarkable that he did not notice the bearing on such an assertion of a 
fact which he himself subsequently alleges: viz. that in ch. vi. 1, “there is no MS. 
variation at all.” Does not this circumstance shew, that the alteration here has not been 


29] 


PROLEGOMENA. | THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. [ cH. I. 


toEAAnvas for the reason he supposes? Does it not further make it probable that 
“EAAnuords being unquestioned there,—’EAAnvas, here so difficult to fit into the 
narrative, has been changed to that other form, which presented no such difficulty ? 
But of this more below. 

3. Dr. Kay has certainly succeeded in neutralizing the testimony of some of the 
versions, by noticing that the Peschito, Vulgate, and others, read the same word here 
and in ch. vi. 1. In this respect his pamphlet has done good service, and our future 
digests should be modified by this fact being stated,—the remaining versions being 
carefully examined and discriminated. 

4. As to the testimony of Fathers, Dr. Kay’s argument is one so exceedingly loose 
and fallacious, that I can only wonder at its having satisfied himself. Chrysostom says 
tows, 51a Td wh €idévar “EBpaiori, “EAAnvas avtovs éxddovy. Will it be credited, that 
Dr. K. here argues thus: “I will venture to say that if you were to strike out the word 
“EAAnvas, and put « in its stead, simply asking a person to determine from the sentence 
itself, for which of the two, ‘EAAnvords or “EAAnvas, « had been substitued, the 
answer would be ‘EAAnvotds.” My answer would be the other way, seeing that the 
latter word would require no such explanation: but setting this aside, was there ever 
such a critical principle laid down, or experiment proposed, and that by one who justly 
censures Doddridge for the very same proposal in our text? ‘Strike out,’—not a 
dubious reading, for there is no doubt about“EAAnvas in the text of Chrysostom’s homily, 
but—“a difficult reading,—put a for it, and then say, according to the measure of 
your own apprehension and private judgment, what the word ought to be!” Truly, 
we may be thankful that the text of the New Testament has hitherto escaped the 
application of such a process. 

5. In noticing the Editions, Dr. Kay has shewn singular unfairness. He has quoted a 
rash and foolish sentence from Doddridge, which says that “‘ common sense would require 
us to adopt “EAAnvas, even if it were not supported by the authority of any MS. at all,” 
—and then charged all the critical Editors with having acted in this spirit, administering 
to them a severe admonition about ‘altering the Scriptures by conjectural criticisms,’ 
from Scott, who however himself believes ‘ Greeks’ to be the right reading. In this, of 
course, the whole question is begged ;—and the very reverse of our practice is charged on 
us. It is by no conjecture, which source of emendation I altogether repudiate, but owing 
to conscientious belief that “EAAnvas is the original Scripture text, that I have edited 
it; and consequently all Dr. Kay’s charges, and admonition, are out of place here. 

6. His section ‘on the meaning of the term “EAAnvioral, as ‘designating those Jews 
and proselytes who used the LXX version of the Scriptures in their synagogues,’ tells 
us no more than all knew before. But when he proceeds to ‘the suitableness of this 
meaning to the context’ in Acts xi. 20, I cannot but think that he has missed the whole 
point of the narrative ; and in treating of the objectors to this view, selecting myself 
as representing them, he has exhibited, as before, remarkable unfairness, and want of 
logical apprehension. I might point out both these serviatim, as indeed any reader may 
trace them in his pamphlet: but it may suffice to deal with two or three instances. 
Against ‘EAAnviords, I have argued, that “the Hellenists were long ago a recognized 
_ part of the Christian Church: my inference being, that, were they here referred to, 
there would be no case justifying the phenomena in the text, viz. a special notice like 
éAdAovy Kal («ai is inserted by our three most ancient MSS., A, B, and &) apds robs 
‘EAAquioras, as distinguished from *Iovdalovs preceding,—a special mission of an apostle, 
as (for this is also implied in the text, not an hypothesis of mine) on some unusual 
occurrence. Now observe how this is treated by Dr. Kay: 

“Tf this be an argument, it must mean something of the following kind : 

‘Some Hellenists had been converted at Jerusalem: therefore St. Luke cannot be 
here narrating a wonderful extension of the Christian church among the Hellenist body 
at Antioch.” 


30] 


§ vi. ] EXCURSUS II. [PROLEGOMENA. 


««Why not ?? we ask. ‘ Because we have made up our mind that at this precise 
period a further development of the Church’s constitution took place. It is sufficient 
to reply: ‘that is a mere arbitrary assumption : we are content to say with Newton, 
Hypotheses non fingo.”” Kay, p. 16. 

I may safely appeal to the student of Scripture, whether this be not the very height 
of unfairness. I have advanced no hypothesis, but have been led into my view simply 
by the phenomena of the sacred text itself: by that “ patient, inductive criticism,” 
which Dr. Kay himself desiderates. His form of stating my argument keeps out of 
sight the very point on which it really turns. Instead of “ therefore St. Luke cannot 
be here describing,” he should have written, ‘‘ but, from the diction and character of 
this portion of St. Luke’s narrative, it is not probable that he is here describing.” 

7. The only other matter which I feel it necessary to notice is, the way in which he has 
dealt with what he has pleased to call my ‘hypothesis’ as to Barnabas being sent “ not 
with the intent to sympathize with the work at Antioch, but to discourage it.” This 
last word, italicized by Dr. Kay as being mine, has neither place nor representative in my 
note, and is a pure misrepresentation. My words are, “ probably from what follows, the 
intention was to ascertain the fact, and to deter these persons from the admission of the 
uncircumcised into the church ; or, at all events, to use his discretion in a matter on which 
they were as yet doubtful. The choice of such a man, one by birth with the agents, and 
of a liberal spirit, shews sufficiently that they wished to deal, not harshly, but gently and 
cautiously, whatever their reason was.” This he designates as “ a strange, and not very 
reverent hypothesis.” What Dr. Kay may understand by reverent, I am at a loss to 
imagine. I understand by reverence for Scripture, a patient, and at the same time fearless 
study of its text, irrespective of previously formed notions, but consistently with its own 
analogies. Now the analogy here is not with the mission of Peter and John to Samaria, 
as Dr. Kay represents it, nor was Barnabas sent from the Apostles and elders, as in that 
case: but our analogous incident is to be found in Gal. ii. 12, where, as here, the Church 
at Jerusalem sent down messengers to Antioch on an errand of supervision. Had any 
one ventured to infer the character of that mission, and its possible effect even on an 
Apostle, he would doubtless have incurred even more strongly from Dr. Kay the charge 
of irreverence. But the sacred record itself has set inference at rest in that instance, 
and thereby given us an important datum whereby to infer the probable character of 
another mission from the same Church to the same Church ; and our inference is, that 
the Jerusalem believers, whom we find ever jealous for the Judaic purity of the church, 
acted on this occasion from that motive. The whole character of that which is related 
of Barnabas’s proceeding at Antioch shews that he was acting, not in pursuance of his 
mission thither, but in accordance with the feelings of his own heart from seeing the 
work of God on his arrival. 

It were very much to be wished that able men, like Dr. Kay, would study fairness in 
representing those who differ from them on critical points. The same motives which 
he assumes exclusively for his own side in this matter, have actuated also those who 
maintain the other reading. We deprecate as much as he can, ‘a bold alteration of 
texts, and a supercilious disregard of authority ’ had he dealt fairly with us, and 
attributed to us ow own arguments, and not fictitious ones of his creation, he would 
have been the first to see this. 

It is only waste of precious time to spend our strength in jostling one another, when 
we have such a glorious cause to serve, and only our short lives to serve it in. Let all 
our strength and earnestness be spent over the Sacred Word itself. For sifting, eluci- 
dating, enforcing it, rivalry, if our purpose be simple and our heart single, is the surest 
pledge of union. 


31] 


PROLEGOMENA.] THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. [cnH, II- 


CHAPTER II. 
OF THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 


SECTION I. 


ITS AUTHORSHIP AND INTEGRITY. 


1. Tus Epistle has been universally believed to be the genuine pro- 
duction of the Apostle Paul. Neither the Judaizing sects of old, who 
rejected the Pauline Epistles, nor the sceptical critics of modern Ger- 
many, have doubted this. Some of the earliest testimonies are : 

(a) Ireneus, adv. Her. iii. 16. 3, p. 205 ; Hoc ipsum interpretatus 
est Paulus scribens ad Romanos : “ Paulus apostolus Jesu Christi, &e.” 
(Rom. i. 1) :—et iterum ad Romanos scribens de Israel dicit, “ Quorum 
patres, et ex quibus Christus, &c.” Rom. ix. 5 2 

(8) Clem. Alex., Pedag. i. 8 [70], p. 140 P. :—ide otv, dnow o MaiXos, 
xpnororyta kK. drotopiav God «.7.A. (Rom. xi. 22.) See also ib. 5 [191, 
p- 109 P. And the same, Strom. iii. 11 [75], p. 544: opotws d€ kat 6 
IladAos ev TH pos “Pwpatovs ex. ypdder oitrwes arebdvopev TH dpaprtia, 
x.7.\. (Rom. vi. 2.) See also ib. [76], p. 545, and al. freq. 

(y) Tertullian, adv. Praxeam, § xiii. vol. ii. p. 170: Deos omnino 
nec dicam nec dominos, sed apostolum sequar, ut, si pariter nominandi 
fuerint Pater et Filius Deum Patrem appellem, et Jesum Christum 
Dominum nominem (Rom. i. 7). Solum autem Christum potero deum 
dicere, sicut idem apostolus : ex quibus Christus, qui est, inquit, Deus 
super omnia benedictus in 2vum omne (Rom. ix. 5). 

More instances need not be given: the stream of evidence is con- 
tinuous and unanimous. 

2. But critics have not been so well agreed as to the IntEGRITY of 
the present Epistle. The last two chapters have been rejected by some : 
by others, parts of these chapters. Marcion rejected them, but on doc- 
trinal, not on critical grounds. Heumann imagined ch. xii.—xy. to bea 
later written Epistle, and ch. xvi. to be a conclusion to ch. xi. Semler 
views ch. xv. as a private memorandum, not addressed to the Romans, 
but written to be communicated by the bearers of the Epistle to those 
whom they visited on the way,—and ch. xvi., as a register of persons to 
be saluted, also on the way. Schulz imagines that ch. xvi. was written 
from Rome to the Ephesians, and Schott fancied it to be fragments 





1 See also the same chapter, § 9, where there are six express citations from the 
Epistle. 
32] 


§ u.] FOR WHAT READERS, &. [PRotEGomena. 


of a smaller Epistle written by Paul in Corinth to some Asiatic church. 
But these notions, as Tholuck remarks (from whom these particulars 
are for the most part taken), remain the exclusive property of their 
originators. He himself recognizes the genuineness of the portion, as 
also Neander, Credner, De Wette, and Olshausen. The more recent 
objections of Baur are mentioned and refuted, in part by De Wette, 
Comm. juxta finem,—Tholuck; Comm. pp. 2, 3,—Olsh. Comm. iii. 34, 
35, and fully, by Kling, theol. Stud. u. Krit. 1837, p. 308 ff. 

3. Still more discrepancy of opinion has existed respecting the doxo- 
logy at the end of the Epistle. I have summarily stated and discussed 
the evidence, external and internal, in the var. readings and notes in 
loc.: and a fuller statement may be found in Dr. Davidson’s Introd. ii. 
188 ff.: Tholuck, Einleitung, pp. 4—6; De Wette in loc. 


SECTION ILI. 
FOR WHAT READERS IT WAS WRITTEN. 


1. The Epistle itself plainly declares (ch. i. 7) that it was addressed 
to the saints who were at Rome. The omission of the words ev ‘Pay by 
some MSS. is to be traced to a desire to catholicize the Epistles of Paul ; 
—see Wieseler, Chron. des Apostol. Zeitalters, p. 438. 

With regard to the Church at Rome, some interesting questions 
present themselves. 

2. By WHOM WAS IT FOUNDED? Here our enquiries are enwrapped 
in uncertainty. But some few landmarks stand forth to guide us, and 
may at least prevent us from adopting a wrong conclusion, however 
unable we may still be to find the right one. 

(a) It was certainly not founded by an Apostle. For in that case, the 
fact of St. Paul addressing it by letter, and expressing his intention of 
visiting it personally, would be inconsistent with his own declared reso- 
lution in ch. xv. 20, of not working where another had previously laid 
the foundation. 

(8) This same resolution may guide us to an approximation at least 
to the object of our search. Had the Roman church been founded by 
the individual exertions of any preacher of the word, or had it owed its 
existence to the confluence of the converts of any other preacher than 
Paul, he would hardly have expressed himself as he has done in this 
Epistle. We may fairly infer from ch. xv. 20, that he had, proximately, 
laid the foundation of the Roman church: that is to say, it was origi- 
nated by those to whom he had preached, who had been attracted to 
the metropolis of the world by various causes,—who had there laboured 
in the ministry with success, and gathered round them an important 
Christian community. 

Vout. IT.—33 ] ce 


PROLEGOMENA.| THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. [cu. nu. 


Of this community, though not his own immediate offspring in the 
faith, Paul takes charge as being the Apostle of the Gentiles. He 
longs to impart to them some xépicpa (ch. i. 11): he excuses his having 
written to them roApnpdrepov azo pépous, by the dignity of that office, 
in which, as a priest, he was to offer the Gentiles, an acceptable and 
sanctified offering to God. 

(y) The character given in ch. i. 8 of the Roman Christians, that 
their faith was spoken of in all the world, has been taken as pointing to 
a far earlier origin than the preaching of Paul. But, even granting 
that some among the Roman Jews may have carried the faith of Christ 
thither soon after the Ascension (see Acts ii. 10; and Rom. xvi. 7, where 
Andronicus and Junias are stated to have been in Christ before the Apos- 
tle),—such a concession is not necessary to explain Rom. i. 8. What- 
ever happened at Rome is likely to have been very soon announced in 
the provinces, and to have had more reporters, wherever the journeys of 
the Apostle led him, than events occurring elsewhere. He could hardly 
fail to meet, in every considerable city which he had visited for the 
second time, in Judea, Asia, Macedonia, and Greece (see Acts xviii. 
22, 23; xix. 1; xx. 1, 2), believers who had received tidings of the 
increase and flourishing state of the Roman church. This occurrence 
of good news respecting them in all the cities might well suggest the 
expression, 4) mlotis tyav KatayyéAXeTar Ev GAw TO Koop. 

38. The above considerations lead me to the conclusion, that the 
Roman Church owed its origin, partly perhaps to believing Jews, who 
had returned or been attracted thither in the first days of Christianity, 
but mainly to persons converted under Paul’s own preaching. This 
conclusion is strengthened by the long list of salutations in ch. xvi. to 
Christian brethren and sisters with whose previous course in many cases 
he had been acquainted. 

4. It is not within the province of these Prolegomena to diseuss the 
question respecting the presence, preaching, and martyrdom of Peter at 
Rome. That he did not fownd the Roman church, is plain from the 
above considerations, and is conceded by many of the ablest among the 
modern Romanists*. Nor have we any ground to suppose that he was 
at Rome up to, or at the date of this Epistle. No mention is made of 
him,—no salutation sent to him. At present therefore we may dismiss 
the question as not pertinent. In the prolegg. to the Epistles of Peter, 
it will recur, and require full discussion. 

5. That the Roman church was composed of Jews and Gentiles, is 
manifest from several passages in our Epistle. In ch. ii. 17, iv. 1, 12, 


2 Tholuck, Einl. § 2, mentions Valesius, Pagi, Baluz, Hug, Klee: and an article in 
the Tubingen Theological Quarterly for 1824 (written according to Dr. Davidson by 
Feilmoser) which concludes that though Peter taught and suffered martyrdom in Rome, 
his stay there could not have much exceeded one year. 


34] 


§ u.] FOR WHAT READERS, &. [PrRoLEGomeNa. 


Jews are addressed, or implied : in ch. i. 13,—in the similitude of en- 
grafting in ch. xi., and in xv. 15, 16,—Gentiles are addressed. In what 
proportion these elements co-existed, can only be determined from indi- 
cations furnished by the Epistle itself. And from it the general 
impression is, that 7¢ is addressed to Gentiles, as the greater and more 
important part of its readers. Among them would be mostly found the 
‘strong’ of ch. xiv., to whom principally the precepts and cautions 
concerning forbearance are written. ‘To them certainly the expression 
7a €6vy in ch. i. 5, 18, xv. 15, 16, is to be applied, in the strict sense; and 
in those places it represents the persons to whom the Epistle is mainly 
addressed. ‘The same may be said of ch. xi. 18, 14, where tpeis ra evn 
are evidently the majority of the readers, as contrasted with the twés éé 
avtav, the Jewish believers. 

6. It may be interesting to add testimonies from profane writers 
which are connected with the spread of Christianity at Rome. 

That the Jews were found in great numbers there, is evident. 

(a) Josephus, Antt. xvii. 11. 1, mentioning an embassy which came 
to Rome from Judea under Varus, in the time of Augustus, says, kai 
Hoav ot pev mpéoBes of drootadevtes yvwpyn Tod vous TevTHKOVTA, TUV- 
iotavto O€ avrots TOV ext “Pouys “lovdaiwy trép éxraxisxiAiovs. 

(8) Philo, leg. ad Caium, § 23, vol. ii. p. 569, in a passage too long 
for citation, says that Augustus gave them the free exercise of their 
religion, and a quarter beyond the Tiber for their habitation. 

(y) Dio Cassius xxxvii. 17, cal gore kat mapa tots “Pwpaiors TO yévos 
TovTo, KoAovobévy piv rodXdkts, adéyOev bé ext mAciotov, dsTE Kal és Tap- 
pyciay THS vopioews exviKHoa. 

(8) So far relates to Judaism proper: in the following it is impossible 
to say how far Christianity may have been ignorantly confounded 
with it. 

Augustine, de Civ. Dei vi. 11, vol. vii. p. 192, cites from Seneca, ‘in 
eo libro quem contra superstitiones condidit,—De illis sane Judxis cum 
loqueretur, ait: —‘ Cum interim usque eo sceleratissime gentis consuetudo 
convaluit, ut per omnes jam terras recepta sit: victi victoribus leges 
dederunt.’ 

(e) Tacitus, in the same place where he relates the persecution of the 
Christians by Nero on occasion of the fire at Rome, adds, ‘ repressaque in 
presens exitiabilis superstitio rursus erumpebat, non modo per Judxam, 
originem ejus mali, sed per urbem etiam’... . 

(£) Juvenal describes the Judaizing Romans at a later period in a 
strain of bitter satire, Sat. xiv. 96 ff. 

(yn) On the passages in Sueton. Claud. 25, and Dio Cass. lx. 6, re- 
lating to the expulsion or coercion of the Jews at Rome, see note on 
Acts xviii. 2. 

7. It yet remains to consider the supposed discrepancy between our 

35 | ce 2 


PROLEGOMENA.]| THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. (cu. 1. 


Epistle, and the state of the Christian church at Rome implied some 
years subsequent to it in Acts xxviii. This discrepancy has been made 
the most of by Dr. Baur, and by him pronounced irreconcileable. The 
flourishing state of the Roman church set forth in this Epistle seems to 
him to be inconsistent with the tone used by the Jews in their speech 
to Paul, Acts xxviii. 22: détodpev 5€ rapa cod dxotoa & dpoveis: rept pev 
yap Tis aipécews tavtns yvwotov jpiv éotw Ore wavTaxod dvTiAéyera.. 
Olshausen and Tholuck have been at much pains to give a solution of 
the difficulty: the former referring the circumstance to the entire 
severance between Christians and Jews at Rome made necessary by 
Claudius’s persecutions of the Jews,—the latter, following many other 
Commentators, to an affected ignorance of the Christian sect on the part 
of the Jews. 

On this I will remark,—that the difficulty itself does not seem to 
me so serious as the German writers generally have regarded it. The 
answer of the Jews was to a speech of Paul in which he had given a 
remarkable instance of his becoming to the Jews asa Jew. He repre- 
sents, that he had no real quarrel with his nation: that in fact he was a 
prisoner for the hope of Israel. This hope they certainly knew, either 
from previous acquaintance with his name and character, or from his 
own lips in words which have not been recorded, to be bound up with 
belief in Jesus as the Messiah. They had received (see note in loc.) 
no message respecting him from Judea laying any thing zovypdr to his 
charge: and they were anxious to have an account from himself of his 
opinions and their ground: for as for this sect, they were well aware 
that every where it was a thing dvriWeyopevov: the very word, be 
it observed, used in ver. 19 [and ch. xiii. 45], respecting the opposition 
raised by the Jews to Paul. Now we may avail ourselves of both 
Olshausen’s and Tholuck’s suppositions. On the one hand it was very 
likely that the intercourse between Jews and Christians at Rome would 
be exceedingly small. The Christian church, consisting mostly of Gen- 
tiles, would absorb into itself the Jews who joined it, and who would, 
for the reason assigned by Olshausen, studiously separate themselves 
from their unbelieving countrymen. Again, it would not be likely that 
the Roman Jews, in their speech to Paul, would enter into any particu- 
lars respecting the sect,—only informing him, since he had professed 
himself in heart at peace with his nation and bound on behalf of their 
hope, that they were well aware of the general unpopularity among 
Jews of the sect to which he had attached himself, and wished from him 
an explanation on this head. Something also must be allowed for the 
restraint with which they spoke to one under the special custody, as a 
state prisoner, of the highest power in Rome, and in the presence of a 
representative of that power. 

Thus the difficulty is much lessened: and it belongs indeed to that 

36 | 


§ 11. ] WITH WHAT OBJECT, &c. [PRotecomena. 


class, the occurrence of which in the sacred text is to be regarded far 
rather as a confirmation of our faith, by shewing us how simple and 
veracious is the narrative of things said and done, than as a hindrance 
to it by setting one statement against another. 

With respect to that part of it which concerns the notoriety of the 
Roman church,—I may remark that its praise for faith in all the world, 
being a matter reported by Christians to Christians, and probably 
unknown to ‘ those without,’ need not enter as a disturbing element into 
our consideration. 

8. For a judicious and clear statement of the subsequent history of 
the early Roman church, I cannot do better than refer my readers to 
the former part of the work of Mr. Shepherd, “ The History of the 
Church of Rome,” 


SECTION III. 
WITH WHAT OBJECT IT WAS WRITTEN. 


1. In answering this question, critics have been divided between the 
claims of the unquestionably most important doctrinal portion of the 
Hpistle, and the particular matters treated in the parenthetical section 
(ch. ix.—xi.) and the conclusion (ch. xiv.—xvi.). It has not enough 
been borne in mind, that the occasion of writing an Epistle is one thing, 
—the great object of the Epistle itself, another. The ill-adjusted ques- 
tions between the Jewish and Gentile believers, of which St. Paul had 
doubtless heard from Rome, may have prompted him originally to write 
to them: but when this resolve was once formed,—the importance of 
Rome as the centre of the Gentile world would naturally lead him to 
lay forth in this more than in any other Epistle the statement of the 
divine dealings with regard to Jew and Gentile, now one in Christ. I 
will therefore speak separately of the prompting occasion, and the main 
object, of the Epistle. 

2. The eulogy of the faith of the Roman Christians which Paul met 
with in all his travels, could hardly fail to be accompanied with notices 
respecting their peculiar difficulties. These might soon have been set at 
rest by his. presence and oral teaching: and he had accordingly resolved 
long since to visit them (ch. i. 1O—13). Hindrances however had 
occurred: and that advice which he was not as yet permitted to give by 
word of mouth, he was prompted to send to them in a letter. 

3. The contents of that letter plainly shew what their difficulties 
were. Mixed as the church was of Jew and Gentile, the relative posi- 
tion in God’s favour of each of these would, in defect of solid and broad 
views of the universality of man’s guilt and God’s grace, furnish a sub- 
ject of continual jealousy and irritation. And if we assume that the 
Gentile believers much preponderated in numbers, we shall readily infer 

37 | 


PROLEGOMENA.| THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. [cn 1. 


that the religious scruples of the Jews as to times and meats would be 
likely to be with too little consideration overborne. 

4. From such circumstances we may well conceive that, under divine 
cuidance, the present form of the Epistle was suggested to the Apostle. 
The main security for a proper estimate being formed of both Jew and 
Gentile, would be, the possession of right and adequate convictions of 
the universality of man’s guilt and God’s free justifying grace. This 
accordingly it was Paul’s great object to furnish; and on it he expends 
by far the greatest portion of his labour and space. But while so doing, 
we may trace his continued anxiety to steer his way cautiously among 
the strong feelings and prejudices which beset the path on either band. 
If by a vivid description of the depravity of Heathendom he might be 
likely to minister to the pride of the Jew, he forthwith turns to him and 
abases him before God equally with the others. But when this is 
accomplished, lest he should seem to have lost sight of the pre-eminence 
of God’s chosen people, and to have exposed the privileges of the Jew 
to the slight of the Gentile, he enumerates those privileges, and dwells 
on the true nature of that pre-eminence. Again when the great argu- 
ment is brought to aclose in ch. viii., by the completion of the bringing 
in of life by Christ Jesus, and the absolute union in time and after time 
of every believer with him,—for fear he should seem amidst the glories 
of redemption to have forgotten his own people, now as a nation 
rejected, he devotes three weighty chapters to an earnest and affec- 
tionate consideration of their case—to a deprecation of all triumph 
over them on the part of the Gentile, and a clear setting forth of the 
real mutual position of the two great classes of his readers. Then, after 
binding them all together again, in ch. xii. xiii., by precepts respecting 
Christian life, conduct towards their civil superiors, and mutual love, he 
proceeds in ch. xiv. to adjust those peculiar matters of doubt,—now 
rendered comparatively easy after the settlement of the great principle 
involving them,—respecting which they were divided. He recommends 
forbearance towards the weak and scrupulous,—at the same time class- 
ing himself among the strong, and manifestly implying on which side his 
own apostolic judgment lay. Having done this, he again places before 
them their mutual position as co-heirs of the divine promises and merey 
(ch. xv. 1—13), and concludes the Epistle with matters of personal 
import to himself and them, and with salutations in the Lord. And 
probably on re-perusing his work, either at the time, or, as the altered 
style seems to import, in after years at Rome, he subjoins the fervid and 
characteristic doxology with which it closes. 

5. There seems quite enough in the circumstances of the Roman 
Chureh to have led naturally to such an Epistle, without supposing with 
some critics, that an claberate plan of written doctrinal teaching, to 
supply the want of oral, was present to the mind of the Apostle. We 

38] 


§ rv. ] AT WHAT TIME, &. ~-  [protecomena. 


must not forget to whom he was writing, nor fail to allow for the 
greater importance naturally attaching to an Epistle which would be 
the cherished possession and exemplar of the greatest of the Gentile 
churches. It was an Epistle to all Gentiles, from the Apostle of the 
Gentiles : tyuiv A€yw tots Cveow: ef’ doov pev cis ey eOvev dadoToXos, 
THv dvaxoviay pov dogagw. It had for its end the settlement, on the 
broad principles of God’s truth and love, of the mutual relations, and 
union in Christ, of God’s ancient people, and the recently engrafted 
world. What wonder then, if it be found to contain an exposition of 
man’s unworthiness and God’s redeeming love, such as not even Holy 
Scripture itself elsewhere furnishes ? 


SECTION IV. 
AT WHAT TIME AND PLACE IT WAS WRITTEN. 


1. This is more plainly pointed out in our Epistle than in most of 
the others. The Apostle was about to set out for Jerusalem with a 
contribution from the churches of Macedonia and Achaia (ch. xv. 25 ff). 
To make this contribution he had exhorted the Corinthian church, 1 Cor. 
xvi. 1 ff, and hinted the possibility of his carrying it to Jerusalem in 
person, after wintering with them. And again in 2 Cor. viii. ix. he 
recurs to the subject, blames the tardiness of the Corinthians in pre- 
paring the contribution, and (ib. xiii. 1) describes himself as coming to 
them immediately. Comparing these notices with Acts xx. 1 ff, we find 
that Paul left Ephesus (after Pentecost, see notes there) for Mace- 
donia, wintered at Corinth, and thence went to Jerusalem accom- 
panied by several brethren, bearing (ib. xxiv. 17) alms to his nation 
and offerings. 

2. Thus far it would appear that it was written close upon, or during 
his journey to bear alms to Jerusalem. But the very place is pointed 
out by evidence which can hardly be misapplied. We have a special 
commendation of Phcebe, a deaconess of the church at Kenchrea, to the 
kindness and attention of the Roman Christians: such a commendation 
as could hardly have been sent, had she not been, as generally believed, 
the bearer of the letter. Again, greetings are sent (ch. xvi. 23) from 
Gaius, evidently a resident, for he is called 6 €évos pov kal dAns THs 
exxAyotas. But on comparing 1 Cor. i. 14, we find Paul telling the 
Corinthians that he baptized among them one Gaius. These persons 
can hardly but be one and the same. Again, Erastus is mentioned as 
steward of the city. Therefore, as Tholuck remarks, of some city well 
known to the Romans, and one in which he must have been some time 
resident, so to speak of it. I may add, that after the mention of 

39 | 


PROLEGOMENA.| THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. (ca. 1. 


Kenchrea, 7 zoAts can be no other than Corinth: just as, if the Peirzeus 
had been mentioned, 7 7éAts would necessarily mean Athens. (An 
Erastus is said to have remained at Corinth, 2 Tim. iv. 20, but the 
identity is too uncertain for the notice to be more than a possible 
corroboration. ) 

3. From the above evidence it is placed almost beyond question that 
the Epistle was written from Corinth, at the close of the three months’ 
residence there of Acts xx. 3,—the rapayeyacia of 1 Cor. xvi. 6,—when 
Paul was just about to depart (vuvi dé ropevopa, ch. xv. 25) for Jeru- 
salem on his errand of charity. 

4. By consulting the chronological table appended to the Prolegg. 
to the Acts, it will be seen that I place this visit in the winter of A.p. 
57—58. The Epistle accordingly was sent in the spring of A.D. 58, the 
fourth of the reign of Nero, 


SECTION V. 
LANGUAGE AND STYLE. 


1. It might perhaps have been expected, that an Epistle to Romans 
would have been written in Latin. But Greek had become so far 
the general language of the world, that there is no ground for sur- 
prise in the Apostle having employed it. Not to cite at length the 
passages in the classics (Tacit. de Orator. c. 29: Martial, Epig. xiv. 56: 
Juvenal, Sat. vi. 184—189) which point to the universal adoption of 
Greek habits and language at Rome, we have the similar instances of 
Ignatius, Dionysius of Corinth, and Irenzus, all of whom wrote to the 
Roman Christians in Greek. Clement, Bishop of Rome, wrote in Greek. 
Justin Martyr addressed his apologies to the Roman Emperors in 
Greek. And if it be objected, that the greater number of the Christian 
converts would belong to the lower classes, we may answer, that a 
great proportion of these were native Greeks: see Juvenal, Sat. iii. 
60—80. 

2. In speaking of the style of the Epistle, the following general 
remarks on the style of the Apostle Paul, taken from Tholuck’s Intro- 
duction to his Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, p. 26 ff., are of 
considerable interest: ‘‘ As in general we can best apprehend and esti- 
mate the style of a writer in connexion with his character, so is it with 
the Apostle Paul. The attributes which especially characterize the 
originality of Paul as an Author, are Power, Fulness, and Warmth. 
If to these attributes is added Perspicuity of unfolding thought, we have 
all united, which ennobles an orator. But fulness of ideas and warmth 
of feelings often bring with them a certain informality of expression : 
the very wealth of the productive power does not always leave time to 

40] 


§ v.] LANGUAGE AND STYLE.  [proLtrcomena. 


educate (as Hamann expresses it) the thoughts which are born into the 
light,—to arrange and select the feelings. ‘Together with the excel- 
lences above mentioned, something of this defect is found in the style 
of the great Apostle of the Gentiles. Something of that which Diony- 
sius of Halicarnassus de Comp. Verb. c. 22 says of ‘compositio austera,’ 
is applicable to the Apostle’s method of expression. ovte rdpica Bov- 
Nera Ta KGAA GAAHAOLS civat, OvTE Tapopoia, OTE avayKaia dovAEvovTa 
axoAovbia, GAN ebyevn K. GAG Kk. EXeVOEpa: pioer T eouxévar pGddov aitd 
BovrAerau, ) réxvn, K. KaTaA Taos AéyerOar pGAdAov, 7 Kat 700s.  mepiddous 
d€ cuvtievar avvaprilovcas tov votv Ta ToAG pev ovTe BovdeTau ci OE 
OTE avToudtws emt Toto KaTevexHein, +O everitHdevTov eudaivew eOéret 
kat ddeXés, x.7.4. The high claims of St. Paul to the reputation of elo- 
quence were acknowledged by remote Christian antiquity. Nay, we 
have in all probability an honourable testimony to the same effect from 
one of the most celebrated critics of heathen Rome,—that namely of the 
fragment of Longinus, where he ranks Paul with the first orators of 
ancient times, adding however the remark, that he appears more to 
persuade than to demonstrate*. From Christian antiquity we will 
adduce the testimony of Jerome, Ep. 48, ad Pammachium, ec. 13, vol. i. 
p- 223 :—‘ Paulum Apostolum proferam, quem quotiescunque lego, videor 
mihi non verba audire, sed tonitrua . . . . videntur quidem verba sim- 
plicia et quasi innocentis hominis ac rusticani, et qui nec facere nec decli- 
nare noverit insidias, sed quocunque respexeris, fulmina sunt. Heret in 
causa, capit omne quod tetigerit, tergum vertit, ut superet: fugam 
simulat, ut occidat.’ Add to this the words of Chrysostom de Sacer- 
dotio iv. 7, vol. i. p. 431: ‘ damep yap Tetxos e€ dddmavtos KaracKevac bey, 
otTw TUS TavTAXOU THs oiKovmEevys exkAyolas TA TOUTOV TELXiCeL ypdppata* 
Kat KaOdrep Tis dpiote’s yevvaldTaTos EoTYKE Kal viv pécos, aixuadwrilov 
wav vonpa eis tiv traKkoyv Tod xpioTov, Kal Kafaipwy oyiTpods Kal TGV 
tiywpa eraipopevoy Kata THS yvdoews TOD Geod.” 

3. After having stated, and visited with severe and deserved censure, 
the disparaging estimate formed by Rickert in his Commentary, and 
criticized in a friendly spirit the other extreme, taken by Rothe 
and Glickler, of regarding all ellipses, anacolutha, and defects of 
style, only as so many hidden but intended excellences, Tholuck 
proceeds : 

‘‘We have then this question to ask ourselves: with what ideas as to 
the ability of the Apostle as a writer ought the believing Christian to 


3 The genuineness of this fragment has been defended by Hug, Einl. ins N. T. ii. 334 
(342 of Wait’s transl.), on grounds well worthy of consideration. [The passage runs 
thus: kopwris ® otw Adyou wavtds Kal ppovhwatos “EAAnvikod AnpoobEerns, Avotas, 
Aicxlyns, ‘Treplins, *Ioatos, Aclvapxos (Anuocbévns 6 Kpléivos), *looxpatns, “Avtipwr" 
mpos TobTos MavAos 6 Tapoeds, Svtwa Kal mpardév pnur mpoiotduevoy Séyparos avaro- 
delxrov. | 


41] 


PROLEGOMENA.| THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. [cua. 1. 


approach his works? And what is the result, when we examine in 
detail the Epistles of Paul in this bearing ? The Fathers themselves 
frequently confess, that the whole character of Christianity forbids us 
from seeking classical elegance in the outward style of the New Testa- 
ment :—as the Son or Gop appeared in His life on earth in a state of 
humiliation, so also the word of God. In this sense, to cite one example 
out of many, Calvin says (on Rom. v. 15):—‘ Quum autem multoties 
discriminis mentionem repetat, nulla tamen est repetitio, in qua non 
sit dvavramddotov, vel saltem ellipsis aliqua: Que sunt quidem orationis 
vitia, sed quibus nihil majestati decedit celestis sapientia, que nobis 
per apostolum traditur. Quin potius singulari Dei providentia factum 
est, ut sub contemptibili verborum humilitate altissima hee mysteria 
nobis traderentur; ut non humane eloquentiz potentia, sed sola spi- 
ritus efficacia niteretur nostra fides.’ But it must be borne in mind, 
that this our concession with regard to the formal perfection of the 
apostolic writings has its limits: for were we to concede that imperfec- 
tion of form amounted to absolute informality, the subject-matter itself 
would be involved in the surrender. If the aim of the apostolic teach- 
ing is not to be altogther frustrated, we can hardly object to the 
assumption, that the divine ideas have been propounded in such a form, 
that by a correct use of the requisite means they may be discovered, and 
their full meaning recognized. Assuming this, it is impossible to form 
so low an estimate as Riickert’s of the style of the Apostle: while at 
the same time we cannot see that the believing Christian is entitled to 
assume in him an academic correctness of syllogistic form, a conscious 
and perfect appreciation of adequacy of expression, reaching to the use 
of every particle. If we are to require these excellences from an 
apostolic writer, why not also entire conformity to classical idiom of 
expression ? And if we besides take into account the peculiarity of the 
Apostle’s character above pointed out, are we not obliged to confess, 
that so universal a reflection, such a calculation, as Rothe’s theory sup- 
poses, is altogether inconsistent with that character,—that such a pre- 
cisely measured style would be inexplicable from a spirit like that of 
the Apostle, except on the assumption of a passive inspiration? and 
as regards the point itself, I cannot see, that the writings of Paul, 
examined in detail, justify this prejudice in their favour, even according 
to the ingenious and minute exegesis of Rothe himself. (This he 
instances by examining Rothe’s account of the defective constructions 
in Rom. v. 12 f.) ** * * That the great Apostle was no ordinary 
thinker,—that he did not, after the manner of enthusiasts, carried away 
by warmth of feeling, write down what he himself did not understand, 
is beyond question :—but that all which hitherto has been accounted in 
him negligence or inaccuracy of expression, proceeded from conscious 


42] 


§ v.] LANGUAGE AND STYLE.  [protecomena. 


intention of the writer,—can neither be justly assumed a priori, nor 
convincingly shown a posteriori.” 

4. To these general remarks of Tholuck I may add some notice of the 
peculiarities of the argumentative style of the Apostle, with which we 
are so much concerned in this Epistle. 

(a) It is his constant habit to ¢nsulate the one matter which he is 
considering, and regard it irrespective of any qualifications of which it 
may admit, or objections to which it lies open,—up to a certain point. 
Much of the difficulty in ch. v. vi. vii. has arisen from not bearing this 
in mind. 

(8) After thus treating the subject till the main result is gained, he 
then takes into account the qualifications and objections, but in a man- 
ner peculiar to himself; introducing them by putting the overstrained 
use, or the abuse, of the proposition just proved, in an interrogative 
form, and answering the question just asked. On a superficial view of 
these passages, they assume a sort of dramatic character, and have led 
many Commentators to suppose an objector to be present in the mind of 
the Apostle, to whom such questions are to be ascribed. But a further 
and deeper acquaintance with St. Paul’s argumentative style removes 
this impression, and with it, much of the obscurity arising from sup- 
posing, or not knowing when to suppose, an interchange of speakers in 
the argument. We find that it is the Apostle himself speaking 
throughout, and in his vivid rhetorical manner proposing the fallacies 
which might be derived from his conclusions as matters of parenthetical 
enquiry. 

(y) Perhaps one of the most wonderful phenomena of St. Paul’s 
arguments, is the manner in which all such parenthetical enquiries are 
interwoven into the great subject; in which while he pursues and 
annihilates the offbranching fallacy, at the same time he has been 
advancing in the main path,—whereas in most human arguments each 
digression must have its definite termination, and we must resume the 
thesis where we left it. A notable instance of this is seen in ch. vi. of 
our Epistle; in which while the mischievous fallacy of ver. 1 is dis- 
cussed and annihilated, the great subject of the introduction of Life 
by Christ is carried on through another step—viz. the establishment of 
that life as one of sanctification. 

Among the minor characteristics of the Apostle’s style, may be 
enumerated, 

(0) Frequent and complicated antitheses, requiring great caution and 
discrimination in exegesis. For often the different members of the 
antitheses are not to be taken in the same extent of meaning; some- 
times the literal and metaphorical significations are interchanged in a 
curious and intricate manner, so that perhaps in the first member of two 


43] 


PROLEGOMENA.]| THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. [cza. nm. 


antithetical clauses, the subject may be literal and the predicate meta- 
phorical, and in the second, vice versa, the subject metaphorical and the 
predicate literal. Sometimes again, the terms of one member are to be 
amplified to their fullest possible, almost to an exaggerated meaning: 
whereas those of the second are to be reduced down to their least 
possible, almost to a depreciated meaning. To retain such antitheses 
in a version or exegesis is of course, generally speaking, impossible: the 
appropriateness of the terms depends very much on their conventional 
value in the original language. Then comes the difficult task of break- 
ing up the sentence, and expressing neither more nor less than the real 
meaning under a different grammatical form: an attempt almost always 
sure to fail even in the ablest hands. 

(ce) Frequent plays upon words, or rather perhaps, choice of words 
from their similarity of sound. Much of the terseness and force of the 
Apostle’s expressions is necessarily lost in rendering them into another 
language, owing to the impossibility of expressing these paronomasie; 
and without them, it becomes exceedingly difficult to ascertain the real 
weight of the expression itself; to be sure that we do not give more 
than due importance in the context to a clause whose aptness was 
perhaps its chief characteristic, and on the other hand to take care that 
we do not overlook the real importance of clauses whose value is not 
their mere aptness, but a deep insight into the philosophy of the 
cognate words made use of, as exponents of lines of human thought 
ultimately convergent. 

(£) Accumulation of prepositions, often with the same or very slightly 
different meanings. That this is a characteristic of St. Paul’s style 
there can be no doubt: and the difficulty created by it is easily obviated 
if this be borne in mind. The temptation of an expositor is to 
endeavour to give precise meaning and separate force to each pre- 
position, thereby exceeding the intention of the sentence, and distorting 
the context by elevating into importance clauses of comparative in- 
difference. 

(n) The frequency and peculiarity of his parenthetical passages. 
The difficulty presented by this characteristic is, in few words, that of 
disentangling with precision such clauses and passages. The danger is 
twofold: 1. lest we too hastily assume an irregular construction, not 
perceiving the parenthetical interruption: 2. lest we err on the other 
hand, which has more commonly been the case, in assuming the 
existence of parenthetical clauses where none exist. St. Paul’s paren- 
theses are generally well marked to the careful observer; and it must be 
remembered that the instances of anacoluthon and irregular construc- 
tion are at least as frequent: so that we are not, for the sake of clearing 
up a construction, to throw in parentheses, as is often done, to the 
detriment of the sense. 

44] 


CH. 111. | 1 CORINTHIANS. [PROLEGOMENA. 


The peculiarity of his parentheses consists in this, that owing to the 
fervency and rapidity of his composition he frequently deserts, in a 
clause apparently intended to be parenthetical, the construction of the 
main sentence, and instead of resuming it again, proceeds with the 
parenthesis as if it were the main sentence. 

Instances of almost all these characteristic difficulties will be found in 
chap. v. of this Epistle, where, so to speak, they reach their culminating 
point. 

5. Two cautions are necessary, on account of the lax renderings of 
our authorized version, by which the details of the argument of this and 
other Epistles have been so disguised, that it is almost impossible for the 
mere English student intelligently to apprehend them. 

(a) The emphatic position of words is of the highest importance. 
Pages might be filled with an account of misrenderings of versions and 
Commentators from disregard to the rules of emphasis. The student 
will continually find such instances alleged and criticized in these notes ; 
and will be surprised that so momentous a matter should have been 
generally overlooked. 

(b) The distinction between the aorist and perfect tenses is in our 
authorized version very commonly disregarded, and thereby the point of 
the sentence altogether missed. Instances are continually occurring in 
the Epistles: and it has been my endeavour in the notes to draw the 
student’s attention to them with a view to their correction. 

6. For much interesting matter on this subject the student is referred 
to Tholuck, Rémerbrief, Einleitung: and to Dr. Davidson, Introd. 
vol. ii. p. 144 ff. 


CHAPTER IIT. 


THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


SECTION I. 
ITS AUTHORSHIP AND INTEGRITY. 


1. As far as I am aware, the first of these has never been doubted by 
any critic of note. Indeed he who would do so, must be prepared to 
dispute the historical truth of the character of St. Paul. For no more 
complete transcript of that character, as we find it set forth to us in the 
Acts, can be imagined, than that which we find in this and the second 
Epistle. Of this I shall speak further below (§ vii.). 

45] 


PROLEGOMENA. | 1 CORINTHIANS. [ cH. UI. 


2. But external testimonies to the Authorship are by no means 
wanting. 

(a) Clement of Rome, in his Epistle to this very Church of Corinth, 
says, c. 47, p. 805 f.:—dvaddBere tiv éxictodjv Tod paxapiov Hatdov tod 
diootokov. th mpatov tiv év dpxyn ebayyeAiov eypapev; ex dAnOeias 
TVEVLATLKOS eréoTELE bply, Tept adrod Te Kal Kya kal “AmoAXO, bia 70 Kal 
TOTE TposkAioes tas weroujo an’. 

(8) Polycarp, ad Philippenses, c. 11, p. 1020 :—“ Qui autem ignorant 
judicium Domini? An nescimus, quia sancti mundum judicabunt?? 
sicut Paulus docet.” 

(y) Ireneus adv. Her. iv. 27 (45). 3, p. 264 :—“ Et hoc autem apos- 
tolum in epistola que est ad Corinthios manifestissime ostendisse, dicen- 
tem: Nolo enim vos ignorare, fratres, quoniam patres nostri omnes sub 
nube fuerunt* &c.” And almost in the same words Cyprian, Testim. 
i. 4, citing the same passage. 

(5) Athenagoras, de resurrect. mort. 18, p. 331 :—evdndov zav7i 70 
Neurdpevov, Ort Sel, Kata TOV. drocToAOV, 70 POaptov ToiTO Kal duacKedacToV 
evovoacbar adbapoiay *, iva x.T.d. 

(c) Clement of Alexandria cites this epistle very frequently and 
explicitly : e.g. Pedag. i. 6 (33), p. 117 P.:—cadéorata yotv 6 paxdpios 
IlatAos arpArAagev Huds THs Cytjoews ev TH Tpotepa pos KopwOiovs Gd€ Tws 
ypadov: “AdcAdoi, pn radia yiverGe tats ppecty x.7.A.°—And he proceeds 
to quote also 1 Cor. xiii. 11, with raAw 6 Ilatdos Aéyen. 

(€) Tertullian de Preseript. adv. Her. ¢. 33, vol. ii. p. 46,—~ Paulus 
in prima ad Corinthios notat negatores et dubitatores resurrectionis.” 

See Lardner: and Davidson’s Introd. vol. ii. p. 253 f., where more 
testimonies are given. 

3. The integrity of this Epistle has not been disputed. ‘The whole of 
it springs naturally out of the circumstances, and there are no difficulties 
arising from discontinuousness or change of style, as in some passages 
of the Epistle to the Romans. 


SECTION II. 
FOR WHAT READERS IT WAS WRITTEN. 


1. “ CortntH (formerly Ephyre, Apollod. i. 9,—which afterwards was 
its poetic name, Ovid, Met. ii. 240. Virg. Georg. ii. 264. Propert. ii. 
5. 1 al.) was a renowned, wealthy (Il. 8.570. Hor. ii. 16. Dio Chrysost. 
xxxvii. p. 464), and beautiful commercial city (Thue. i. 13. Cie. rep. 
i. 4), and in the Roman times the capital of Achaia propria (Apul. Met. 
x, p. 239, Bipont), situated on the isthmus of the Peloponnese between 


1 1 Cor. i. 10 f. 2 1 Cor. vi. 2. 8 aCorsx. at 
4 1 Cor. xv. 53. 5 1 Cor. xiv. 20. 
46] 


§ u.] FOR WHAT READERS, &c. [pRoLEGomena. 


the Ionian and /Mgean seas (hence bimaris, Ovid, Met. v. 407 ; Hor. 
Od. i. 7. 2,—épdilarXaccos, d\0dAaccos) and at the foot of a rock which 
bore the fortress Acrocorinthus (Strabo, viii.379 ; Plut. vit. Arat. 16 ; Liv. 
xlv. 28),—forty stadia in circumference. It had two ports, of which the 
western (twelve stadia distant) was called Lecheon (Aé¢yatov, Lecheum, 
Lechex, Plin. iv. 5), the eastern (seventy stadia distant) Kenchrex 
(Strabo, viii. 380; Paus. ii. 2, 3; Liv. xxxii.17;al.). The former was 
for the Italian, the latter for the Oriental commerce: so Strabo, l. ¢.: 
Keyxpeal xian kat Ay dréyov THs TOAEws Soov EBdopyjKovta ordd.a. 
TOUTH MeV XpOVTAL mpos TOs EK THS “Acias, pds Se Tods ek THS “ITaX~as 
76 Acxaiy. Arts and sciences flourished notably in Corinth (Pindar, 
Ol. xiii. 21 ; Herod. ii. 167; Plin. xxxiv. 3. xxxv. 5; Cic. Verr. ii. 19; 
Suet. Tiber. 84). The Corinthian plate was especially celebrated. But 
these advantages were accompanied by much wantonness, luxury, and 
gross corruption of morals (Athenzus, vii. 281, xiii. 543; Alciphr. 
iii. 60 ; Strabo, viii. 878 ; Eustath. Iliad 8. p. 220). (These vices were 
increased by the periodical influx of visitors owing to the Isthmian 
games, and by the abandoned and unclean worship of Aphrodite, to 
whose temple more than a thousand priestesses of loose character were 
attached. See testimonials in Wetst.) The city (lumen totius Greciz, 
Cic. Manil. 5) was taken, pillaged, and destroyed by L. Mummius (Flor. 
ii. 16; Liv. Epitome lii.) in a.v.c. 608, 164 B.c. (cf. Plin. xxxiv. 3),— 
but re-established (as the colony Julia Corinthus) by Julius Cesar, 
A.U.c. 710, B.c. 44,—and soon recovered its former splendour (Aristid. 
Or. 3, p. 23, ed. Jebb), and was accordingly in St. Paul’s time the seat 
of the Roman proconsul of Achaia (Acts xviii. 18), See, on the whole, 
Strabo, viii. 378 ff. ; Paus. ii. 1 ff” Winer, Realwérterbuch. An inter- 
esting description of the present remains of Corinth will be found in 
Leake’s Morea, vol. iii. ch. xxviii. 

2. The Christian church at Corinth was founded by St. Paul on his 
first visit, related in Acts xvili. (1—18). He spent there a year and a 
half, and his labours seem to have been rewarded with considerable 
success. His converts were for the most part Gentiles (1 Cor. xii. 2), 
but comprised also many Jews (Acts xviii. 8: see too ver. 5, and note) ; 
both however, though the Christian body at Corinth was numerous 
(Acts ib. 4,8, 10), were principally from the poorer classes (1 Cor.i.26 ff.). 
To this Crispus the ruler of the synagogue (Acts xviii. 8; 1 Cor. i. 14) 
formed an exception, as also Erastus the chamberlain (oikovoyuos) of the 
city (Rom. xvi. 23), and Gaius, whom the Apostle calls 6 éévos pov x. 
OAns THs exxAnoias. And we find traces of a considerable mixture of 
classes of society in the agape (1 Cor. xi. 22). 

3. The method of the Apostle in preaching at Corinth is described - 
himself, 1 Cor. ii. 1 ff He used great simplicity, declaring to them 
only the cross of Christ, without any adventitious helps of rhetoric or 

47 | 


PROLEGOMENA. | 1 CORINTHIANS. [cH. mI. 


worldly wisdom. The opposition of the Jews had been to him a source 
of no ordinary anxiety: see the remarkable expression Acts xviii. 5, and 
note there. ‘The situation likewise of his Gentile converts was full 
of danger. Surrounded by habits of gross immorality and intellectual 
pride, they were liable to be corrupted in their conduct, or tempted to 
despise the simplicity of their first teacher. 

4. Of this latter there was the more risk, since the Apostle had been 
followed by one whose teaching might make his appear in their eyes 
meagre and scanty. Apollos is described in Acts xviii. 24 ff. as a learned 
Hellenist of Alexandria, mighty in the Scriptures, and fervent in zeal. 
And though by the honourable testimony there given® to his work at 
Corinth, it is evident that his doctrine was essentially the same with that 
of Paul, yet there is reason to think that there was difference enough in 
the outward character and expression of the two’ to provoke comparison 
to the Apostle’s disadvantage, and attract the lovers of eloquence and 
philosophy rather to Apollos. 

5. We discover very plain signs of an influence antagonistic to the 
Apostle having been at work in Corinth. Teachers had come, of Jewish 
extraction (2 Cor. xi. 22), bringing with them letters of recommendation 
from other churches (2 Cor. iii. 1), and had built on the foundation laid 
by Paul (1 Cor. iii. 1O—18; 2 Cor. x. 13—18) a worthless building, on 
which they prided themselves. These teachers gave out themselves for 
Apostles (2 Cor. xi. 5, 13), rejecting the apostleship of Paul (1 Cor. 
ix. 2; 2 Cor. x. 7, 8), encouraging disobedience to his commands 
(2 Cor. x. 1,6), and disparaging in every way his character, and work 
for the Gospel (see for the former, 2 Cor. iv. 1, 2 ff.; v. 11 ff, and notes 
in both places: for the latter, 2 Cor. xi. 16—xii. 12). It is probable, as 
De Wette suggests, that these persons were excited to greater rage 
against Paul, by the contents of the first Epistle; for we find the 
plainest mention of them in the second. But their practices had com- 
menced before, and traces of them are very evident in ch. ix. of this 
Epistle. 

6. The ground taken by these persons, as regarded their Jewish posi- 
tion, is manifest from these Epistles. They did not, as the false teachers 
among the Galatians, insist on circumcision and keeping the law: for 
not a word occurs on that question, nor a hint which can be construed 
as pointing to it. Some think that they kept back this point in a 
church consisting principally of Gentiles, and contented themselves 
with first setting aside the authority and influence of Paul. But I 
should rather believe them to have looked on this question as closed, 


8 Os mapayevduevos cuveBdAeTO TOAY Tois memoTEVKdoW dia THs XdpiTos, ver. 27. 
See also 1 Cor. iii. 6. 
7 See especially 1 Cor. xvi. 12, and note. 


48] 


§ m.] FOR WHAT-READERS, &c.  [PROLEGOMENA. 


and to have carried on more a negative than a positive warfare with the 
Apostle, upholding, as against him, the authority of the regularly con- 
stituted Twelve, and of Peter as the Apostle of the circumcision, and 
impugning Paul as an interloper and innovator, and no autoptic witness 
of the events of the Gospel history: as not daring to prove his apostle- 
ship by claiming sustenance from the Christian churches, or by leading 
about a wife, as the other Apostles, and the brethren of the Lord, and 
Cephas. What their positive teaching had been, it is difficult to decide, 
except that, although founded on a recognition of Jesus the Christ, it 
was of an inconsistent and unsubstantial kind, and such as would not 
stand in the coming day of fiery trial (1 Cor. iii. 11 ff.). 

7. That some of these teachers may have described themselves as 
peculiarly belonging to Christ, is a priori very probable. St. Paul had 
had no connexion with our Lord while He lived and taught on earth. 
His Christian life and apostolic calling began at so late a period, that 
those who had seen the Lord on earth might claim a superiority over 
him. And this is all,that seems to be meant by the éya dé xpurrod of 
1 Cor. i. 12, especially if we compare it. with 2 Cor. x. 7 ff, the only 
other passage where the expression is alluded to. There certainly per- 
sons are pointed out, who boasted themselves in some peculiar connexion 
with Christ which, it was presumed, Paul had not; and were igno- 
rant that the weapons of the apostolic warfare were not carnal, but 
spiritual. 

8. It would also be natural that some should avow themselves the 
followers of Paul himself, and set perhaps an undue value on him as 
God’s appointed minister among them, forgetting that all ministers were 
but God’s servants for their benefit. 

9. It will be seen from the foregoing remarks, as well as from the 
notes, that I do not believe these tendencies to have developed them- 
selves into distinctly marked parties, either before the writing of our 
Epistle or at any other time. In the Epistle of Clement of Rome, 
written some years after, we find the same contentious spirit blamed 
(c. 47, p. 308), but it appears that by that time its ground was altogether 
different: we have no traces of the Paul-party, or Apollos-party, or 
Cephas-party, or Christ-party : ecclesiastical insubordination and ambition 
were then the faults of the Corinthian church. 

10. Much ingenuity and labour has been spent in Germany on the four 
supposed distinct parties at Corinth, and the most eminent theologians 
have endeavoured, with very different results, to allot to each its definite 
place in tenets and practice. I refer the student for a complete account 
of the principal theories, to Dr. Davidson’s Introduction, vol. ii. 
p. 224 ff, and Conybeare and Howson’s Life of St. Paul, vol. i. 
chap. xiil.:—and for separate expositions, to Neander, Pfl. u. Leit., 4th 
edn. pp. 875—397 : Olshausen, Bibl. Comm. iii. 475 ff: Schaft, Gesch. 

Vou. IIl.—49] d 


PROLEGOMENA. ] 1 CORINTHIANS. [ oH. 111. 


d. christlichen Kirche, § 64: Stanley, Epistle to the Corinthians, 
Introduction. 


SECTION III. 


WITH WHAT OBJECT IT WAS WRITTEN. 


1. The object of writing this Epistle was twofold. The Apostle had 
been applied to by the Corinthians to advise them on matters connected 
with their practice in the relations of life (ch. vii. 1), and with their liberty 
of action as regarded meats offered to idols (ch. viii.—x.) ; they had ap- 
parently also referred to him the question whether their women should 
be veiled in the public assemblies of the church (ch. xi. 3—16): and had 
laid before him some difficulties respecting the exercise of spiritual gifts 
(ch. xii.—xiv.). He had enjoined them to make a collection for the 
poor saints at Jerusalem: and they had requested directions, how this 
might best be done (ch. xvi. 1 ff.). z 

2. These enquiries would have elicited at all events an answer from 
St. Paul. But there were other and even more weighty reasons why an 
Epistle should be sent to them just now from their father in the faith. 
Intelligence had been brought him by the family of Chloe (ch. i. 11) of 
their contentious spirit. From the same, or from other sources, he had 
learned the occurrence among them of a gross case of incest, in whieh the 
delinquent was upheld in impunity by the church (ch. v. 1 ff.). He had 
further understood that the Christian brethren were in the habit of 
carrying their disputes before heathen tribunals (ch. vi. 1 ff). And it 
had been represented, to him that there were irregularities requiring 
reprehension in their manner of celebrating the Agape, which indeed 
they had so abused, that they could now be no longer called the Supper 
of the Lord. Such were their weighty errors in practice: and among 
these it would have been hardly possible that Christian doctrine should 
remain sound. So far was this from being the case, that some among 
them had even gone to the length of denying the Resurrection itself. 
Against these he triumphantly argues in ch. xv. 

3. It has been questioned whether St. Paul had the defence of his own 
apostolic authority in view in this Epistle. The answer must certainly 
be in the affirmative. We cannot read chapters iv. and ix. without per- 
ceiving this. At the same time, it is most probable that the hostility of 
the false teachers had not yet assumed the definite force of personal 
slander and disparagement,—or not so prominently and notoriously as 
afterwards. That which is the primary subject of the 2nd Epistle, is 
but incidentally touched on here. But we plainly see that his authority 
had been already impugned (see especially ch iv. 17—21), and his 
apostleship questioned (ch. ix. 1, 2). 

50] 


§ Iv. ] NUMBER OF EPISTLES. [PROLEGOMENA, 


SECTION IV. 
OF THE NUMBER OF EPISTLES WRITTEN BY PAUL TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


1. If we were left to infer a priori, it would be exceedingly probable 
that an Epistle had been sent to the Corinthians before this, which we 
call the first. It appears from ch. xvi. 1 that they wanted some direc- 
tions as to the method of making “ the collection for the saints.” We 
may ask,—when enjoined and how? If by the Apostle in person, the 
directions would doubtless have been asked for and given at the time. 
It would seem then to follow, that a command to make the collection 
had been sent them either by some messenger, or in an epistle. 

2. The uncertainty, however, which would rest upon this inference, is 
removed by the express words of the Apostle himself. In ch. v.9 he says, 
eypaya ipiv ev TH ericToAy, by cvvavaplyvvcbar répvots. In my note on 
those words, I have endeavoured to shew that the only meaning which 
in their context they will legitimately bear, is, that this command, not to 
associate with fornicators, was contained in a previous Epistle to them, 
whieh has not been preserved to us. Those who maintain that the 
reference is to the present Epistle, have never been able to produce a 
passage bearing the slightest resemblance to the command mentioned *. 

3. The opinions of Commentators on this point have been strangely 
warped by a notion conceived a priori, that it would be wrong to 
suppose any apostolic Epistle to have been lost. Those who regard, not 
preconceived theories, but the facts and analogies of the case, will rather 
come to the conclusion that very many have been lost. The Epistle to 
Philemon, for example, is the only one remaining to us of a class, which 
if we take into account the affectionate disposition of St. Paul, and the 
frequency of intercourse between the metropolis and the provinces, must 
have been numerous during his captivity in Rome. We find him also 
declaring, 1 Cor. xvi. 3 (see note there), his intention of giving recom- 
mendatory letters, if necessary, to the bearers of the collection from 
Corinth to Jerusalem: from which proposal we may safely infer that 
on other occasions, he was in the habit of writing such Epistles to indivi- 
duals or to churches. To imagine that every writing of an inspired 
Apostle must necessarily have been preserved to us, is as absurd as 


5 Perhaps the most extraordinary theory ever propounded by one who has evidently 
spent some pains on his subject, is that of Mr. Paget, in his “‘ Unity and Order of the 
Epistles of St. Paul,” in which, on account of a fancied resemblance of this command to 
that in Heb. xii. 16 (which if examined proves to be xo resemblance), he maintains 7 
émiaToA7 here to be the Epistle to the Hebrews, which he imagines to have been a sort 
of general circular epistle to all the churches, written previously to those addressed to 
particular congregations. I need hardly remind the student, how entirely all the data 
of every kind furnished by that Epistle are against such a supposition. 


51] d2 


PROLEGOMENA. | 1 CORINTHIANS. [ CH. II. 


it would be to imagine that all his sayings must necessarily have been 
recorded. The Providence of God, which has preserved so many pre- 
cious portions both of one and the other, has also allowed many, perhaps 
equally precious, of both, to pass into oblivion. 

4, The time of writing this lost Epistle is fixed, by the history, between 
Paul’s leaving Corinth Acts xviii. 18, and the sending of our present 
Epistle. But we shall be able to approximate nearer, when we have 
discussed the question of the Apostle’s visits to Corinth’. 

5. Its contents may be in some measure surmised from the data 
furnished in our two canonical Epistles. 

He had in it given them a command, pi cvvavapiyvveba répvots, 
which being taken by them in too strict and literal a sense, and on that 
account perhaps overlooked, as impossible to be observed, is explained in 
its true sense by him, 1 Cor. v. 9—12. 

It also contained, in all probability, an announcement of a plan of 
visiting them on his way to Macedonia, and again on his return from 
Macedonia (2 Cor. i. 15, 16), which he changed in consequence of the 
news heard from Chloe’s household (1 Cor. xvi. 5—7), for which altera- 
tion he was accused of lightness of purpose (€Aa¢pia, 2 Cor. i. 17). 

We may safely say also (see above) that it contained a command to 
make a collection for the poor saints at Jerusalem. Further than this 
we cannot with any safety surmise. 

It was evidently a short letter, containing perhaps little or nothing 
more than the above announcement and injunctions, given probably in 
the pithy and sententious manner so common with the Apostle’. 


SECTION V. 
OF THE NUMBER OF VISITS MADE BY PAUL TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


1. The controversy on this point will be cut very short, if the inter- 
pretation given in the notes of 2 Cor. xii. 14, xiii. 1, be assumed as 
correct :—and, as I have there maintained, I believe that neither the 
words nor the context will admit any other. The Apostle had paid 
two visits to Corinth before the sending of that, and consequently of 
this Epistle. 

2. The difficulty in this inference, which has led Commentators to 
adopt an unnatural rendering of the above passages, is, that but one 
visit is recorded, viz. that in Acts xviii. 1 ff. For both Epistles were 
written before the second visit in Acts xx. 2, 38. (Compare Acts xix. 
with 1 Cor. xvi. 8, and 2 Cor. ix. 2 with Acts xx. 1, 2.) 

3. But manifestly, the history of St. Paul’s apostolic career in the 


9 See below, § v. 1 See Rom. xii. 9 ff.; 1 ‘Thess. v. 16 ff. 
52] 


§v.]J NUMBER OF VISITS. [PROLEGOMENA. 


Acts is very fragmentary and imperfect. Long and important journeys 
are dismissed in a few words*: some, e.g. that to Arabia, and the 
missionary tour in Syria and Cilicia, Gal. i. 21 ff, not being even men- 
tioned. No notice is taken of the foundation of the churches of Galatia, 
unless the cursory mention of Acts xvi. 6, be taken as such :—and of the 
copious catalogue of perils undergone by him in 2 Cor. xi. 24 ff., but few 
can be identified in the history. Thata journey to Corinth should have 
escaped mention, where more extensive journeys and more important 
events have been omitted or slightly touched on, would not be at all 
improbable. 

4, Such a journey must of course be inserted between Acts xviii. 18, 
when his first visit to Corinth ended, and xx. 2, when the second Epistle 
was sent from Macedonia. But these limits are further narrowed by 
the history itself. From xviii. 18 to xix. 9, when we find the Apostle 
established at Ephesus, is evidently a continuous narrative. And as 
plainly, no visit took place between the sending of the first and second 
Epistle, as is decisively proved by 2 Cor. i. 15—23. Now the first Epistle 
was sent from Ephesus, in the early part of the year in which he left 
that city, 1 Cor. xvi. 8. Sothat our terminus a quo is the settling at 
Ephesus, Acts xix. 10, and our terminus ad quem the spring preceding 
the departure from Ephesus, Acts xx. 1. During this time, a visit to 
Corinth took place. 

5. Let us see whether any hints of his own throw light on this 
necessary inference. In 2 Cor. xi. 25 we read tpis évavdéyyoa, and this 
in a description of his apostolic labours: so that we must not go back 
beyond his conversion for any of these shipwrecks. Now his recorded 
voyages are these: (1) From Czxsarea to Tarsus, Actsix. 30. (2) Pos- 
sibly, from Tarsus to Antioch, xi. 25: but more probably this was a 
Jand-journey.. (3) From Seleucia to Cyprus, xiii.4. (4) From Paphos 
to Perga, xiii. 13. (5) From Attalia to Antioch, xiv. 26. (6) From 
Troas to Philippi, xvi. 11,12. (7) From Macedonia to Athens, xvii. 
14, 15. (8) From Kenchree to Ephesus, xviii. 18, 19. (9) From 
Ephesus to Cesarea, ib. 21, 22. (10) From Ephesus to Macedonia, 
xx. 1. Of these, it is certain that no shipwreck took place during (6), 
for it is minutely detailed: it is extremely improbable that any took 
place during (3), (4), and (5), as the account of the first missionary 
tour is circumstantial and precise. The same may be said of (7), in 
which the words of 8€ xaOiordvovres Tov IlatAov yayov ews “AOnvav 
will scarcely admit of such an interruption. It is hardly probable that 
any shipwreck took place in those voyages the purpose of which is 
described as being at once attained, to which class belong (8) and (9), 
and, if it is to be counted as a voyage, (2). The two left, of which we 


2 E.g., ch. xv. 41, xvi. 6, xviii. 23, xix. 1, xx. 2, 3. 
53 | 


PROLEGOMENA. | 1 CORINTHIANS. [cH. 11. 


have absolutely no account given, are (1) and (10). It is quite pos- 
sible that he may have been shipwrecked on both these occasions, and 
such an assumption with regard to (10) would suggest another inter- 
pretation of the difficult allusion, 2 Cor. i. 8—10. But even assuming 
this, more voyages seem to be required to account for three shipwrecks. 
It is true that the evidence thus acquired is very slight—but however 
trifling, it is at least in favour of, and not against, the hypothesis of an 
unrecorded visit to Corinth. : 

6. The nature of the visit may be gathered in some measure from 
extant hints. It was one made év Avry, 2 Cor. ii. 1, where see note : 
why, we might well suppose, but are not left to conjecture : for he tells 
them (2 Cor. xiii. 2 and note) that during it he warned them, that 7f 
he came again, he would not spare (the sinners among them) ; and 2 Cor. 
xii. 21, there is a hint given that God had, on this occasion, humbled 
him among them. It was a visit unpleasant in the process and in recol- 
lection : perhaps very short, and as sad as short: in which he seems 
merely to have thrown out solemn warnings of the consequences of a 
future visit of apostolic severity if the abuses were persisted in,—and 
possibly to have received insult from some among them on account of 
such warnings. 

7. If we enquire what sort of sin had occasioned the visit, the answer 
seems to be furnished by 2 Cor. xii. 21, pu) taAw édXOovros pov Tarewaoet 
pe 6 Oeds pov pos buds, Kai TevOjow roAAOVs TOV TpONLapTHKOTwOV Kal pH 
peravonoavtTwy el TH éxaSapota Kat mopvela kal doedyeta 7 érapagav. It 
was probably on account of these, the besetting sins of the place, that 
his second visit had been made in grief; it was to abstain from these 
sins and the company of those who committed them, that he had en- 
joined them in his lost Epistle : and accordingly, while we find in our 
first Epistle detailed notice of the special case of sin which he had 
recently heard of as occurring among them, the subject of zopveca is 
alluded to (vi. 12—20) only in a summary way, and in one which shews 
that he is rather replying to an excuse set up after rebuke in the matter, 
than introducing it for the first time. 


SECTION VI. 
AT WHAT PLACE AND TIME THIS EPISTLE WAS WRITTEN. 


1. The place of writing it is pointed out in ch. xvi. 8,—éripeva dé ev 
"Epeow ews ris TevTNKOTTHs, to have been EPHESUS. 

A mistaken rendering of the words (ib. ver. 5) Maxedoviav yap di- 
épxopat, as if they signified ‘for I am passing through Macedonia,’ —led 
probably to the subscription in the rec. and our English Bibles, éypaddy 
do Piriz7rwv. But the idea has never been seriously entertained. 

54 | 


§ vi] TIME AND PLACE OF WRITING. [protecomena., 


2. The above notice from ch. xvi. 8 also shews, that at the time of 
writing, the Apostle intended to quit Ephesus after Pentecost of that year. 
And on connecting this with Acts xix., xx., it appears (see notes, and 
chronological table in Prolegg. to Acts) that he really did leave Ephesus 
about Pentecost in the year 57. We may assume therefore (as we have 
no ground for supposing that he referred to a previous year and after- 
wards changed his purpose) that the Epistle was written in the former 
part of the year 57. 

3. It will be seen by my notes on 1 Cor. v. 7, that I cannot see in 
the words xafids éore avo. any allusion to the fact of the days of 
unleavened bread being then present. I have endeavoured to shew 
that external probability, as well as spiritual analogy, is against the 
idea that St. Paul would have so expressed himself. But there still is 
no reason, why the nearness or presence of that season may not have 
suggested to him the whole train of thought there occurring,—especially 
when we know independently that he was writing during the former 
part of the year. 

4. It is almost certain then that the Epistle was written before Pente- 
cost, A.D. 57: and probable, that somewhat about Easter was the exact 
time. 

5. The Apostle had at this time already sent off Timotheus and Erastus 
to Macedonia (cf. Acts xix. 22, and 1 Cor. iv. 17), the former (1 Cor. 
ib.) with the intention of his proceeding on to Corinth, if possible 
(1 Cor. xvi. 10), and preparing the way for his own apostolic visit (iv. 
17). Possibly also his mission had reference to the collection for the 
saints at Jerusalem (see 2 Cor. viii., and xii. 18); but the language 
used is ambiguous, and we cannot pronounce positively that Timotheus 
reached Corinth on this journey. (See below, ch. iv. § 2, 4.) 

6. The Epistle is addressed in the name of Sosthenes 6 ddeAdds, as 
well as in that of the Apostle. It is hardly possible that this Sosthenes 
should be the same as the person of that name mentioned Acts xviii. 
17%: see note there. ‘The conjectures respecting him I have given on 
1 Cor. i. 1. He bears no part in the Epistle itself, any more than 
Timotheus in 2 Cor.: the Apostle, after mentioning him, immediately 
proceeds cdxyapioT® TO Ged pov. 

7. It is uncertain, who were the bearers of the Epistle: but perhaps 
the common subscription is right in assigning that office to Stephanas, 
Fortunatus, and Achaicus. For they are mentioned as being present 
with the Apostle (1 Cor. xvi. 17) from Corinth ; and as an injunction is 
given (ib. 18) that they should be honourably regarded by the Corin- 
thians, it is highly probable that they were intending to return. 


3 Unless indeed, as Mr. Birks supposes, Hore Apostolice, p. 215 f., he was converted 
subsequently to that occurrence. 


55] 


PROLEGOMENA. | 1 CORINTHIANS. [eH arr. 


SECTION VII. 
MATTER AND STYLE. 


1. As might have been expected from the occasion of writing, the 
matter of this epistle is very various. It is admirably characterized by 
Mr. Conybeare, in Conybeare and Howson’s Life and Epistles of St. 
Paul, vol. ii. p. 28 (2nd edn.) :— 

“This letter is, in its contents, the most diversified of all St. Paul’s 
Epistles: and in proportion to the variety of its topics, is the depth of 
its interest for ourselves. For by it we are introduced as it were behind 
the scenes of the apostolic Church, and its minutest features are revealed 
to us under the light of daily life. We see the picture of a Christian 
congregation as it met for worship in some upper chamber, such as the 
house of Aquila or of Gaius could furnish. We see that these seasons 
of pure devotion were not unalloyed by human vanity and excitement : 
yet, on the other hand, we behold the heathen auditor pierced to the 

_heart by the inspired eloquence of the Christian prophets, the secrets of 
his conscience laid bare to him, and himself constrained to fall down on 
his face and worship God: we hear the fervent thanksgiving echoed 
by the unanimous Amen: we see the administration of the Holy Com- 
munion terminating the feast of love. Again, we become familiar with 
the perplexities of domestic life, the corrupting proximity of heathen 
immorality, the lingering superstition, the rash speculation, the lawless 
perversion of Christian liberty: we witness the strife of theological 
factions, the party names, the sectarian animosities. We perceive the 
difficulty of the task imposed upon the Apostle, who must guard from 
so many perils, and guide through so many difficulties, his children in 
the faith, whom else he had begotten in vain: and we learn to appre- 
ciate more fully the magnitude of that laborious responsibility under 
which he describes himself as almost ready to sink, ‘the care of all the 
churches.’ 

«But while we rejoice that so many details of the deepest historical 
interest have been preserved to us by this Epistle, let us not forget to 
thank God, who so inspired His Apostle, that in his answers to questions 
of transitory interest he has laid down principles of eternal obligation. 
Let us trace with gratitude the providence of Him, who ‘ out of darkness 
calls up light ? by whose mercy it was provided, that the unchastity of 
the Corinthians should occasion the sacred laws of moral purity to be 
established for ever through the Christian world ;—that their denial of 
the resurrection should cause those words to be recorded whereon 
reposes, as upon a rock that cannot be shaken, our sure and eertain 
hope of immortality.” 

2. In style, this Epistle ranks perhaps the foremost of all as to sub- 
limity, and earnest and impassioned eloquence. Of the former, the 

56 | 


CH. Iv. | 2 CORINTHIANS. [PROLEGOMENA. 


description of the simplicity of the Gospel in ch. ii,—the concluding 
apostrophe of ch. iii. (ver. 16—end),—the same in ch. vi. (ver. 9—end), 
—the reminiscence of the shortness of the time, ch. vii. 29—31,—the 
whole argument in ch. xv.,—are examples unsurpassed in Scripture 
itself: and of the latter, ch. iv. 8—15, and the whole of ch. ix. ; while 
the panegyric of Love, in ch. xiii., stands, a pure and perfect gem, per- 
haps the noblest assemblage of beautiful thoughts in beautiful language 
extant in this our world. About the whole Epistle there is a character 
of lofty and sustained solemnity,—an absence of tortuousness of con- 
struction, and an apologetic plainness, which contrast remarkably with 
the personal portions of the second Epistle. 

3. No Epistle raises in us a higher estimate of the varied and wonder- 
ful gifts with which God was pleased to endow the man whom He 
selected for the Apostle of the Gentile world: or shews us how large a 
portion of the Spirit, who worketh in each man severally as He will, 
was given to him for our edification. The depths of the spiritual, the 
moral, the intellectual, the physical world are open to him. He sum- 
mons to his aid the analogies of nature. He enters minutely into the 
varieties of human infirmity and prejudice. He draws warning from 
the history of the chosen people : example, from the Isthmian foot-race. 
He refers an apparently trifling question of costume to the first great 
proprieties and relations of Creation and Redemption. He praises, 
reproves, exhorts, and teaches. Where he strikes, he heals. His large 
heart holding all, where he has grieved any, he grieves likewise ; where 
it is in his power to give joy, he first overflows with joy himself. We 
may form some idea from this Epistle better perhaps than from any one 
other,—because this embraces the widest range of topics,—what mar- 
vellous power such a man must have had to persuade, to rebuke, to 
attract and fasten the affections of men. 


CHAPTER IV. 


THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


SECTION I. 


ITS AUTHORSHIP AND INTEGRITY. 


1. Tue former of these is undoubted. No Epistle more clearly marks 
itself out as the work of the Author whose name it bears. It is in- 
separably connected with the First, following it up, and only differing 
from it as circumstances since occurring had affected the mind of the 


57] 


PROLEGOMENA. | 2 CORINTHIANS. [cH. Iv. 


writer. See this more dwelt on, when I speak of its style and matter, 
below, § iii. 

2. The external testimonies are, 

(a) Ireneus, Her. iii. 7. 1, p. 182: 

Quod autem dicunt, aperte Paulum in secunda ad Corinthios dixisse : 
In quibus Deus seculi hujus exczcavit mentes infidelium. 

(8) Athenagoras, de resurr. mort. xviii. p. 831 : 

evonAov TavTt TO Aeiropevov . . . . ExagTos Koplonrar dixaiws & Six Tod 
oopatos empacer, ite AyaGd. ite kaka. 

(y) Clement of Alexandria very frequently cites our epistle: e.g., 
Strom. iii. 14 [94], p. 553, P.: 

abrika Bidleras tov IatAov éx tis ararns tiv yeveow ovvictdvar. éyew 
dia TovTwv’ HoBotpat de pap, Gs 6 dis Evay eénrdryoer, x.t.r. (2 Cor. xi. 3.) 

And again, Strom. iv. 16 [102], p. 607, P.: 

6 dioaroXos (specified as TatAos previously) . . . . eipyxev ev TH devrépa 
mpos Tovs KopwOiovs: axpi yap THs ojpepov Aépas TO aiTd KdAvppa Tots 
todXois eri TH dvayvece THs TadaLas SuaOHKyS peel. 

(8) Tertullian, de Pudicitia, ch. 13 init. vol. ii. p. 1003: 

Novimus plane et hie suspiciones eorum. Revera enim suspicantur 
apostolum Paulum in secunda ad Corinthios eidem fornicatcri veniam 
dedisse, quem in prima dedendum Satanz in interitum carnis pronun- 
tiarit, &e. He then cites 2 Cor. ii. 5—11. 

See more testimonies in Davidson, vol. ii. p. 279. 

3. The integrity of this Epistle has not however been unquestioned. 
Semler (in 1767) imagined it to consist of three separate epistles,—(1) 
chapters i. to viii. + Rom. xvi. 1 to 20+ch, xiii. 11 to 13. This he sup- 
poses to have been the letter which Titus bore on his second mission to 
Corinth. (2) On receiving intelligence of the effect produced at Corinth, 
the Apostle writes a second Epistle in justification of himself, chap. 
x. 1 to xiii. 10. (3) An Epistle sent to the other churches in Achaia 
on the subject of the collection for the saints at Jerusalem, ch. ix. 
To this curious theory a convincing refutation was furnished by Gabler 
(De capp. ult. ix.—xiil. poster. ep. P. ad Corr. ab eadem haud separan- 
dis, Gotting. 1782). Weber again (de numero Epp. P. ad Corr. rectius 
constituendo, 1798) thought it had been originally two Epistles, (1) 
chapters i. to ix.+ xiii. 11 to 138,—(2) ch. x. 1 to xiii. 10. But Meyer 
(from whom the foregoing particulars are taken) quotes respecting all 
such fanciful discussions a good remark of Hug (Einl. ii. p. 876), that 
it would be just as reasonable to suppose the zepi oreddvav of Demos- 
thenes to be two orations, because in the former part the orator defends 
himself calmly and in detail, and in the latter breaks out into fieree and 
bitter invective. Certainly, on the principle which these crities have 
adopted, the first Epistle to the Corinthians might be divided into at least 
eight separate epistles, marked off by the successive changes of subject. 

58] 


. 


§u.] CIRCUMSTANCES, &c., OF WRITING. [prorecomena. 


SECTION ILI. 
CIRCUMSTANCES, PLACE, AND TIME OF WRITING. 


1. At the time of writing this Epistle, Paul had recently left Asia 
(2 Cor. i. 8): in doing so had come by Troas (ii. 12): and thence had 
sailed to Macedonia (ibid.; ef. Acts xx. 1, 2), where he still was (ch. viii. 
1; ix. 2, where notice especially the present cavydmar,—ix. 4). In Asia, 
he had undergone some great peril of his life (2 Cor. i. 8, 9), which (see 
note there) can hardly be referred to the tumult at Ephesus (Acts xix. 
23—41)',—but from the nature of his expressions was probably a 
grievous sickness, not unaccompanied with deep and wearing anxiety. 
At Troas, he had expected to meet Titus (2 Cor. ii. 13), with intelli- 
gence respecting the effect produced at Corinth by the first Epistle. In 
this he was disappointed (ii. 13), but the meeting took place in Mace- 
donia (vii. 5,6), where the expected tidings were announced to him 
(vii. 7—16). They were for the most part favourable, but not alto- 
gether. All who were well disposed had been humbled by his reproofs: 
but evidently his adversaries had been further embittered. He wished 
to express to them the comfort which the news of their submission had 
brought to him, and at the same time to defend his apostolic efficiency 
and personal character against the impugners of both. Under these 
circumstances, and with these objects, he wrote this Epistle, and sent it 
before him to break the severity with which he contemplated having to 
act against the rebellious (ch. xiii. 10), by winning them over if possible 
before his arrival. 

2. The place of writing is no where clearly pointed out. There is no 
ground for supposing it to have been Philippi, as commonly imagined *. 
Nay such a supposition is of itself improbable. In ch. viii. 1 Paul 
announces to the Corinthians the generosity which had been the result 
of God’s grace given éy tats éxxAyolas THS Maxedovias. It is hardly 
likely that he would make such announcement, if he had hitherto been 
stationary at Philippi, the jirst of those churches on his way from Asia. 
All that we can say is, that the Epistle was written at one of the Mace- 
donian churches; more probably at the last which he visited than at the 
first. The principal of those churches were at Philippi, Thessalonica, and 
Berea. We know from 1 Thess. ii. 17, 18, how anxious the Apostle was 


1 J cannot help being surprised that any one who has studied the character and his- 
tory of the Apostle should still refer this passage to that tumult. The supposition lays 
to his charge a meanness of spirit and cowardice, which certainly never characterized 
him, and to avew which would have been in the highest degree out of place in an 
Epistle, one object of which was to vindicate his apostolic efficiency. 

2 The common subscription assigns Philippi: but whether from tradition, or mere 
hasty inference, is quite uncertain. 


59] 


PROLEGOMENA. | 2 CORINTHIANS. [ on. Iv. 


again to visit the Thessalonian church: and in the absence of all detail 
respecting this journey in Acts xx. 1,2, we may well believe that he 
would have spent some time at Thessalonica. If then Philippi from its 
situation is improbable, it would seem likely that Thessalonica was the 
place. But all is conjecture, beyond the fact that it was written from 
Macedonia. 

3. The time of writing is fixed within very narrow limits. About 
Pentecost A.D. 57 (see chronological table in Prolegg. to Acts) Paul left 
Ephesus for Troas: there he stayed some little time : thence went to 
Macedonia ; and sufficient time had elapsed for him to have ascertained 
the mind of the Macedonian churches and to have made the collection. 
Here falls in our Epistle : after which (Acts xx. 2) he came into Greece 
(Corinth) and abode there three months : and then is found, after tra- 
velling by land through Macedonia, at Philippi on his return at Easter, 
58. So thatthe Epistle was written in the summer or autumn of 57. 

4. Two questions belong to this part of our subject, which it is not 
very easy to answer. From 1 Cor. iv. 17, we learn that Timotheus had 
been sent to Corinth by Paul (see also Acts xix. 22, where he is said to 
have been sent with Erastus to Macedonia) to prepare the Corinthians for 
his own coming by reminding them of his ways and teaching. And in 
1 Cor. xvi. 10, 11, we find directions given to them for their reception of 
Timotheus and speeding his return: ‘‘for,” adds the Apostle, “I expect 
him with the brethren.” Here, however, some little uncertainty is 
expressed as to his visiting them, the words being éay d6€ €\On Tiofeos. 
Now at the time of writing this second Epistle, we find Timotheus with 
Paul in Macedonia (2 Cor. i. 1), without any hint given of his having 
been at Corinth, or of any tidings respecting the church there having 
come through him. Nay there is an apparent presumption that he had 
not been at Corinth: for in 2 Cor. xii. 18 where speaking of those 
whom he had sent to Corinth he mentions Titus by name, no allusion is 
made to Timotheus. Had he been at Corinth, or not ? 

I believe, in spite of these apparent obstacles to the view, that he had 
been there. The purpose of his mission, as stated in 1 Cor. iv. 17, is too 
plain and precise to have been lightly given up. And, as Meyer 
suggests, the relinquishing of the intended journey of Timotheus as well 
as that of the Apostle, would have furnished to the adversaries another 
ground for the charge of fickleness of purpose, which they would not 
fail to use against him. Had therefore the journey been abandoned, 
some notice and apology would probably have been found in this Epistle. 
That Timotheus is not mentioned in this Epistle as having gone to them, 
is easily accounted for by the circumstance that he is associated with the 
Apostle in the writing of the Epistle. 

Meyer believes that tidings had been brought by him from Corinth of 
an unfavourable kind respecting the effect of the first Epistle ; and that 

60 | 


§ ut] MATTER AND STYLE. [PROLEGOMENA. 


the state of the Apostle’s mind described in 2 Cor. ii, 12, vii. 5, is to be 
traced to the reception of these tidings, not merely to the anxiety of 
suspense. 

5. The second question regards the mission of Titus to Corinth, which 
took place subsequently to our first Epistle, and on the return from 
which he brought to the Apostle the further tidings of the effect of that 
letter, referred to 2 Cor. vii.6. The most natural supposition is that he 
was sent to ascertain this matter: and this is the view of De Wette and 
others. Bleek however, with whom agree Credner, Olshausen, and 
Neander, makes a totally different hypothesis, which is thus expressed by 
the latter, Pfl. u. Leit. p. 437: ‘ Timotheus had brought to the Apostle 
painful tidings which excited his anxiety, especially respecting the 
agitation caused by one individual, who insolently set himself against 
Paul and endeavoured to oppose his apostolic authority. (This latter 
view he defends by explaining 2 Cor. ii. 5, vii. 12, not of the incestuous 
person of 1 Cor. v. but of some adversary of the Apostle.) On this 
account Paul sent Titus to Corinth with a letter (now lost), in which 
he expressed himself very strongly on these circumstances ; so that after 
Titus had set out, his heart, full as it was of paternal love towards the 
Corinthian church, was distressed with fear lest he had written some- 
what too harshly, and been too severe upon them.” This ingenious 
conjecture, while it might serve to clear up some expressions in 2 Cor. 
ii. 1—4, which seem too strong for the first Epistle, can perhaps hardly 
be admitted in the absence of any allusion whatever of a clearer cha- 
racter. All we can say is, it may have been so: and after all that has 
been written on the visits of Timotheus and Titus, we shall —e 
arrive nearer the truth than a happy conjecture. 


SECTION III. 


MATTER AND STYLE. 


1. In no other Epistle are these so various, and so rapidly shifting 
from one character to another. Consolation and rebuke, gentleness and 
severity, earnestness and irony, succeed one another at very short inter- 
vals and without notice. Meyer remarks: “The excitement and in- 
terchange of the affections, and probably also the haste under which Paul 
wrote this Epistle, certainly render the expressions often obscure and 
the constructions difficult, but serve only to exalt our admiration of the 
great oratorical delicacy, art, and power, with which this outpouring of 
Paul’s spirit, especially interesting as a self-defensive apology, flows and 
streams onward, till at length in the sequel its billows completely over- 
flow the opposition of the adversaries. Erasmus strikingly says, Para- 


phr. Dedicat.,—‘ Sudatur ab eruditissimis viris in explicandis poetarum 
61] 


PROLEGOMENA. | APPARATUS CRITICUS. [cH. v. 


ac rhetorum consiliis, at in hoc rhetore longe plus sudoris est, ut depre- 
hendas quid agat, quo tendat, quid vetet : adeo stropharum plenus est 
undique, absit invidia verbis. Tanta vafrities est, non credas eundem 
hominem loqui. Nune ut limpidus quidam fons sensim ebullit, mox 
torrentis in morem ingenti fragore devolvitur, multa obiter secum 
rapiens, nunc placide leniterque fluit, nunc late, velut in lacum diffusus, 
exspatiatur. Rursum alicubi se condit, ac diverso loco subitus emicat, 
cum visum est, miris mzandris nunc has nunc illas lambit ripas, aliquoties 
procul digressus, reciprocato flexu in sese redit.? We may also apply 
to our Epistle the words in which Dionys. Hal., de admiranda vi dicendi 
in Demosthene, e. 8, designates the style of that orator,—peyadorper?, 
Lurjv: wepirti, arépittov: eéprXayperyny, cvvyby Tavyyupucyy, adnbury 
atorypyy, tbapav: civrovov, dveevnv? Hdetav, tixpav: 7Oucnv, TabytiKyv.” 

2. The matter of the Epistle divides itself naturally into three parts : 

1. ch. i. to vii. 16. Here he sets forth to them his apostolic walk and 
character, not only with regard to them, though he frequently refers to 
this, but 7m general. 

2. viii. 1 to ix. 15. He reminds them of their duty to complete the 
collection for the poor saints at Jerusalem. 

3. x. 1 to xiii. 10. Polemical justification of his apostolic dignity and 
efficiency against his disparagers. 


CHAPTER V. 


APPARATUS CRITICUS. 


SECTION I. 


1. Manuscripts written in uncial letters. 

A. The Copex ALEXANDRINUS, Cent. V. (See Vol. J.) 

B. The Copex Varticanus, Cent. 1V. (See Vol. I.) 

C. The Copex Eprurami, Cent. V. (See Vol. I.) 

D. (Of the Acts.) The Copex Brzam, Cent. V. or VI. (See Vol. I.) 

D. (Of St. Pauls Epistles.) The Copex CLaromontants in the Im- 
perial library at Paris, No. 107: a greco-latin MS., of, as Tischen- 
dorf believes, the sixth century. It contains all the Epistles of Paul, 
except Rom. i. 1 wavAos - . . . t0 ayamyrots Geov, ver. 7. Another 
hand, but an ancient one, has supplied 1 Cor. xiv. 13 d10 o AaAwy. . . 
to onpewov ecw, ver. 22. Similarly Rom. i. 27—30. Tischendorf 
remarks: “It is very difficult to distinguish the correctors who 
have at different times touched this codex. The second corrector (D*, 
about the eighth century), whom I have oftenest cited, found most of 

62 | 


§uJ- 


MANUSCRIPTS REFERRED TO. [pro_ecomena. 


the passages which he touched already corrected: hence D* denotes 
generally two persons, of whom the former (D**) seldom differs from 
the latter (D*), so that the difference can be noted. D* touched a 
few places, and correctors subsequent to D* about asmany. Some- 
times when it is hard to say which has corrected, I have marked it 
Der.” This codex was published by Tischendorf in 1852, “It 
is one of the most valuable MSS. extant: none of the texts pub- 
lished by Tischendorf is so important, with the single exception of 
the palimpsest Codex Ephremi.”—Tregelles. Horne’s Introd. iv. 
p- 193. 


E. (Of the Acts.) The Copex Lavpianus (greco-latin: the latin being 


[E. 


in the left hand column, the greek in the right hand) in the Bod- 
leian library at Oxford. It is written without accents, in rather 
clumsy uncial letters, by a Greek scholar, but probably among the 
Latins. Its place of writing has been imagined to have been 
Sardinia, from the preamble of an edict, which is written at the 
end: ®ddvios Hayxpatws civ bed droerdpywv dov§ Sapdwias djra 
Too Ta vroteraypéeva: but this, as Dr. Tregelles remarks, only 
shews it to have been in that island during the period of the duces. 
Now the Duces of Sardinia were first constituted by Justinian in 
534 (Wetst.): and if, as Michaelis infers from the writing (see 
also Marsh’s note), the MS. is more ancient than this Dux Sar- 
diniw, its date might be at the earliest the end of the fifth or 
beginning of the sixth century. But Bp. Marsh (note, as above) 
has shewn by the writing that it is more recent than the Codex 
Bezz : which circumstance, if the date now usually assigned to the 
Codex Bezzx be correct (the middle of the sixth century), would 
bring it down about a century later. It was brought to England 
from Sardinia, became, it is supposed by Wetstein, the property of 
the Venerable Bede, as it, and no other Greek MS., contains the 
various readings which he has noted in his commentary in the 
Acts. It was lost sight of for a long time, till Abp. Laud became 
its possessor, and gave it to the Bodleian library. Michaelis cha- 
racterizes it as a MS. of the utmost importance, and ascribes to it 
the merit of having decided him against the notion that the 
greco-latin MSS. have been corrupted from the latin. See 
Michaelis, Marsh’s ed. vol. ii. pt. i. pp. 269—274 ; Horne’s In- 
trod. vol. iv. pp. 187—189, where there is a facsimile of the 
ereek and latin of this MS. It was published by Hearne in 
1715, but the edn. is, very scarce, only 120 copies having been 
printed. Tischendorf has re-examined the MS. and is going to 
republish it. 

(Of St. Paul’s Epistles.) The CoprEx SANGERMANENSIS, now 
Petropolitanus (having been rescued from the fire of the abbey of 

63 | 


PROLEGOMENA. | APPARATUS CRITICUS. [cH. v. 


St. Germain near Paris and taken to St. Petersburg), appears to 
be only a copy, and that a faulty one, of D, the Codex Claro- 
montanus, with its occasional corrections. It abounds with mis- 
takes, and has some monstrous readings made up of the various 
corrections of D: Tischendorf instances dixacwownv, Rom. iv. 25; 
pera taverta Tos dwevdexa, 1 Cor. xv. 5 ; vidilopevo Oearpilopevor, 
Heb. x. 38. “Probably not older than the ninth or tenth cen- 
tury.” (Tregelles.) Only quoted in the lacune of D.] 

F. The Coprx AvuGrensts, now in the library of Trinity College, Cam- 
bridge. It is a graeco-latin MS., which formerly belonged to the 
Monastery of Augia Major in Switzerland, and was probably written 
in the latter half of the ninth century (Tregelles thinks, the eghth). 
Published by Scrivener in 1859. 

G. The Coprex BoErRNERIANUS, also a greco-latin MS., now in the 
Royal library at Dresden. This MS., which was also written in 
the ninth century, has a singular affinity with the Codex Augiensis, 
without being a copy of it. “It may be deemed certain that the 
Greek of each of these MSS. was a copy (mediate or immediate) 
of a more ancient codex ; from which the copyist of each of these 
departed at times by mere error. The general description of the 
Codex Sangallensis (A of the Gospels) applies equally to this MS., 
to which it was once joined: and whatever shews the history of 
the one will apply equally to that ofthe other. ... . This MS. of 
course is not a distinct authority from F as to the readings of 
St. Paul’s Epistles : together, however, they are valuable as a united 
testimony to the readings of the ancient and valuable codex from 
which they must have alike sprung.” (Tregelles.) In this edition 
we have only quoted this MS. when it differs from F, or when F 
is defective. 

H. (Of the Acts.) “The Codex Mutinensis 196: of the ninth century. 
It begins ch. v. 28, kar BovrerGa : is deficient from ac xypat, ch. ix. 
39, to wov, ch. x. 19: from wd.a, xiii. 86, to repara, xiv. 38. From 
kaxeiev, XXVii. 4, to the end, is supplied in uncial letters by some 
hand of about the eleventh century. The other omissions have 
been supplied by a more recent hand, in the fifteenth or sixteenth 
century.” It was collated by Scholz, and since then more com- 
pletely by Tischendorf and by Tregelles. 

H. (Of St. Paul’s Epistles.) The Copex Cotsiinianus No. 202 in 
the Royal library at Paris, apparently (Tischdf.) of the s¢rth century. 
It once contained 14 leaves, but, as is noted in the codex itself,— 
“post incendium librorum impressorum et subitaneam translatio- 
nem manuscriptorum non inventa sunt nisi xii folia.” The two 
missing leaves are in the Imperial library at St. Petersburg. Edited 
by Montfaucon and accurately transeribed by 'Tischendorf, 

64 | 


§ 1] MANUSCRIPTS REFERRED TO. [PRoLecomena. 


I. Fragmenta Palimpsesta Tischendorfiana, Cent. V. to VII. (See 
ol. 7.) 

K. Codex Mosquensis, Library of the Holy Synod No. xeviii. Cent. IX. 
(Matthei’s g). Formerly belonged to the monastery of St. Dio- 
nysius on Mount Athos. Contains the Catholic Epistles with a 
catena and the Epistles of Paul with scholia by Damascene. It is 
on parchment and in folio. Each page is divided into two columns ; 
the text being written in large square uncials ; the commentary, in 
round letters joined to one another. Collated by Matthxi, who 
gives a facsimile of part of the text in the volume of his Gr. Test. 
which contains the Cath. Epistles, and describes it in that con- 
taining the Ep. to Rom. pp. 265-7. Scholz inserted this MS. by 
mistake in his list of Cursives, as Acts 102, Epp. Paul 117. 

L. Codex Angelicus Romanus, a MS. in the Angelican library of Augus- 
tinian monks at Rome, formerly the property of Cardinal Passionei. 
Tt contains the Acts, beginning viii. 10, pus tov Geov,—the Catholic 
Epistles, and the Epistles of Paul to Heb. xiii. 10. ‘It cannot 
have been written,” says Tischendorf, “before the middle of the 
ninth century.” Formerly called G of the Acts—J of St. Paul’s 
Epistles. 

M. The Codex Uffenbachianus, Cent. X. Consists of fragments at 
Hamburg and in the British Museum. The former contains the 
beginning and end of the Epistle to the Hebrews. Published by 
Tischendorf in his ‘ Anecdota Sacra et Profana.” 

P. Codex Porphyrianus, Cent. IX. Published by Tischendorf, who 
found it in the possession of the Russian Archimandrite Porfiri, 
Monumenta Sacra inedita, Voll. V. VI. It contains the Acts, 
Epistles, and Apocalypse. The Acts has been collated for this 
edition, and the readings in 1 and 2 Cor. taken from Tregelles. 

N The Copex Srnaiticus, Cent. TV. (See Vol. I.) 

Frag. Coisl. In the scholia of a MS. of part of the O. T. in the Bene- 
dictine library at St. Germain, Wetstein found Acts ix. 24, 25, 
written by the transcriber of the MS., i. e. in the beginning of the 
seventh century. To this discovery Tischendorf has added several 
more passages; ch. iv. 33, 84: x. 13, 15: xxii. 22, and some from 
the Gospels. The MS. itself is called the Codex Coislinianus 1, 
from Coislin, Bp. of Metz, its earliest known possessor. See 
Wetstein, Michaelis, and Tischendorf. 

Frag. Tischdf. (See “I.” above.) 


Vor. IL—65] e 


PROLEGOMENA. | APPARATUS CRITICUS. [oH. v. 


2. Manuscripts written in cursive letters. 


Nore.—It is intended to include in this Table mention of those MSS. only which 
contain, and of those particulars which concern, the portion of the N.T. comprehended 
in this Volume. The missing numbers will be found in the Prolegomena to Vol. IV., 
pt. ii; those in the Acts column being designated Cath., and those in the Paul column 


Heb. 


a. 


b. 
. A manuscript once in the possession of Professor Carlyle; re- 


Lambeth No. 1182. ‘Dates from the twelfth century at the 
earliest 4.” 
Lambeth No. 1183. Written a.p. 1358. 


turned to the Patriarch of Jerusalem in 1817. It was numbered 
1184 in the Lambeth Catalogue. Mr. Scrivener gives its readings 
from “a scholarlike and seemingly accurate collation of it with the 
Greek text of Mill, made by the Rev. W. Sanderson of Morpeth, 
in or about the year 1804.” Ascribed to the fifteenth century. 


. Lambeth No. 1185. “Might also be considered a series of frag- 


ments in several different hands‘.” Assigned to the fifteenth cen- 
tury or somewhat earlier. 

in Acts, Lambeth 1255. Contains Acts and Past. Epp.—in Paul, 
( a. = of the Apocalypse,) Lambeth No. 1186. Contains the 
Pauline Epistles and the Apocalypse. Hleventh century. 

Codex Theodori. Bears date a.p. 1295. 

Codex Wordsworthianus. Zhirteenth century. 

(= b. of the Apocalypse.) Codex Butler 2. British Museum, 
Additional MS. No. 11837. It bears date a.p. 1157 °. 

Trin. Coll. Cantab. B. x. 16. Written a.p. 1316. 

(Scholz’s Act. 24, Paul. 29.) Chr. Coll. Cantab. F.i. 13. Writtca 
about the end of the twelfth century. 


. (Scholz’s Act. 31, Paul. 37.) Coprx Leicrestrrensis. Cited as 


“69” in the Gospels, and as “f” in the Apocalypse. (See Vol. I.) 
(Scholz’s Act. 58, Paul. 30.) Emm. Coll. Cantab. i. 4. 35. Of 
about the twelfth century. 

(Scholz’s Act. 61 and 111, Paul.61 and 221.) University Library, 
Cambridge, Mm. 6. 9. Of the twelfth or thirteenth century. 
(Tischendorf’s “lo#.”) Coprx Lonpinrensis TISCHENDORFIANUS. 
British Museum, Additional MS. 20,003. ‘Unquestionably the 
most valuable cursive MS. of the Acts yet known.” (Scriv.) 
“Can hardly be estimated too highly.” (Treg.) ‘ Haud dubie anti- 
quissimi codicis uncialis, qui ipse periit, exemplum est.” (Tischdf.) 


d Scrivener. The readings of mss. “a” to “o” are cited from the Appendix to 
Mr. Scrivener’s edn. of the “Codex Augiensis.” It has not been thought worth while 
to encumber the page with every various reading found in these manuscripts; but 
whenever any variation of the uncials is mentioned, the testimony of these accurately 
collated documents is added. 

€ Formerly Cod. Predicatorum S. Marci 701. 


66] 





a MANUSCRIPTS REFERRED TO. [PROLEGOMENA. 
Z| 83 Eulrs 
& |aée Designation. Cent. Collator, &c. 5 | 4 

il 1 | Reuchlini. Basle K. iii. 3 (late | X. Wetstein “bis atque accurate.” | 1 | — 
B. vi. 27). 
2 2 | Basle ee B. ix. ult.) XV. | Mill (B. 2). —|— 
3 3 | Corsendoncensis. Vienna, Theol. | XII. | Walker and Alter. 3] — 
5. (Kol. . 
4 4 | Basle ee B. x. 20). XV. | Mill S 3). Wetstein through- 
out Epp. —|— 
5 | - 5 | Paris 106 (formerly 2871). XII. | Stephens (5’) Wetst. Scholz. 5} — 
6 6 | Paris 112 (formerly 3425). XIII.|} Steph. (e’) Wetst. 6 | — 
Ae 7 | Basle (late B. vi. 17). XP | Readings given in Wetstein. 
Text surrounded by various 
Scholia from Gennad., (c., 
Sevrn., &c. On parchment. ty as 
[8] é — | Steph. ((’)=Acts50. Identified 
by some with 132 (Paul) below. | — | — 
7 9 | Paris 102 (formerly 2870). xX. Steph. (:’) Wetst. —|— 
[8]| [10]] Wot identified. — | Stephens (ta’). = 
9} 11] Cambridge Univ. Lib. MS. Kk. | XI. | Steph. (i/) Wetst. [Def. Acts 
6. 4 (also numbered Acts 112, iii. 6—17.] —|- 
Paul 225). 
10 | 12 | Paris 237 (formerly 2869). xX. Steph. (te’) Wetst. “de integro.” | — | 2 
11] .. | Paris 103 (formerly 2872). X. Wetstein (Acts). Reiche (Paul). 
[Def. Acts ii. 20—81; 1 Cor. 
xii, 17—xiii. 2.]= Paul 140. <= 
— brad See Vol. III. — 
[14]| See Vol. III. (= Acts 47.) XVI. 90 | — 
— | [15]) See Vol. III. = 
12 | 16 | Paris 219 (formerly 1886). XI. | Wetstein. =a} If 
13 | 17 | Paris 14 (CorpERTinus 2844). | XI. | Tregelles. 33 | —_ 
14 | 18 | Paris, Coislinianus 199. XI. | Wetstein. 35 | 17 
15 | —| Paris, Coislinianus 25. XI. | Wetstein. 
16 | 19 | Paris, Coislinianus 26. ' XI. | Wetstein. 
—| 20] Paris, Coisl. 27 (formerly 247). | X. Wetstein. [mutilated.] 
17,| 21 | Paris, Coislinianus 205. XI. | Wetstein. [1 Cor. xvi. 17—2 
Cor. i. 7, &c., supplied in a 
later hand. } aa || US 
18 | 22 Paris, Coislinianus 202 A. XIII.| Wetstein. a) if de! 
19 | 23 | Paris, Coislinianus 200. XIII.| Steph. (6’) Wetst. 38) (an 
.. | 24] Bodleian, Misc. 186. Ebneri- | XII. | Described by Scheenleben, occa- 
anus. sionally quoted by Wetstein. 
=Acts 48. LOD | tae 
20 | 25 | Westmonasteriensis (935). Bri- | XIV.) Wetstein. ~ 
tish Museum. King’s Library 
ry 33h 
21 | 26 | Cambridge Univ. Lib. MS. Dd. | XIII.| [Def. Acts i—xii. 1; xiv. 23—xv. 
ills SiO), 10; Rom. xv. 14—16, 2426; 
xvi. 4—20; 1 Cor. i. 15—iii. 
12, &c. | —|— 
92 British Museum Additional MSS. | 1826?] (Epp., Cent. xii., Scrivener) 
5115-7. “‘ Obiter inspectus a Wetstenio. 
Lectiones cap. xx. Act. mecum 
communicavit Rey. Paulus.” 
(Griesbach.) = Paul '75. O95 |e 
23 | 28 | Bodleian, Baroccianus 3. XIII.| Mill (Baroe.). [Def. up to Acts 
xi. 13.] 1 Cor. xv. collated by 
Griesb. —| 6 
24 | 29) See above, “1.” 
ais 30 | See above, “n.” 
25 | 31 | Brit. Mus. Harleian 5537. 1087 | Mill. (Cov. 2.) Acts xiv.—xviii. 
Rom. i.—iv. collated by Griesb. | — 7 











e2 








} 

| 
28 | 34 
29) 35 
30 | 36 
31| 37 
32 | 38 
33 39 
34; 40 
35} 41 
36) — 


| 
I hecag | 


43 49 
-- | (50) 
[44]] [511 
45 | 52 
(46)| -- 
—|} 53 
eA 
[a7] 
48| . 
= 55 
— HW bei 
-- | 57 
[50]; -- 
—) 58 
—| 59 
— | [60) 
61 


PROLEGOMENA. | 


Brit. Mus. Harl. 5557. 


Brit. Mus. Harl. 5620. 


Brit. Mus Harl. 5778. 
Geneva 20. 
Bodleian, Mise. 74. 


See above, “m.” 
Bodleian, Land. 31. 


Lincoln Coll. Oxford, 82. 


Trin.Coll Dubin. Montfortianns. } 
Magdalen Coll. Oxford, 9. 
New Coll Oxford, 58. 


Magdalen Coll. Oxford. Has | 
been ascertained to be part of | 
the same MS. as Paul 27. See 
Vol. TIL. 

New Coll. Oxford, 59. 

Leyden 77, Voss. 

Situation unknown. 


Vatican Alex. 179. 
Vatican 2080. 


Bodleian, Roe. 2. 
Frankfort on the Oder. Seide- 
lianus. 


Vienna. Theol. 300 (Nessel.). 
See Vol. ITT. 


| See Vol. IIL 


Hamburg. Uffenbachianus. 
Mnunich 375 (= Paul 55). 


See abore, “ML” 
Munich 412 (formerly Augsburg 


5). 

The same MS. az Paul 14 abore. 
The same MS. az Paul 24 abore. 
The same MS. as Acts 46 abore. 
See Vol. TT. 

Vienna. Theol. 23 (Nessel). 
The same MS. az Paul 8 abore. 
Vatican 165. 


Paris Coisl. 204. 
Sze Vol. II. 
See above, “0.” 


APPARATUS CRITICUS. 








cee ee BREA 


be 
a 


XIIL 

















Collator, &c. 


Mill. (Cor. 3.) Readings of Acts 
i—iii. in Griesb. [Def. Acts i 
1—11. 1 Cor. xi. 7—xy¥. 56.] 

Mill. (Cov. 4.) Perhaps a copy 
of 29. 

Mill. (Sin.) [Def. Actsi. 1—20.] 

Mill ( Gener.) 

Mill. (Huné. 1.) Begins Acts xv. 
19. “Perlegi Rom. v., vii; 
1 Cor. xv. .. .” (Griesbach). 


Mill. (Laud. 2.) Rom. i—v. re- 
examined by Griesb. 

Mill. (Zin. 2.) Acts collated by 
Dobbin. [Def. Rom. i 1—20.] 

Barrett and Dobbin. 

Mill (Hagd. 1.) 

Mill. (¥. 1) Apparently the 
MS. from which Cramer’s 
Catena is printed. 

Mill. (Magd. 2.) Contains only 
Rom. Corr. 


Mill (¥. 2.) 
Sarrau. MilPs Pe. 1. Weitstein. 
Sarrau. Mil’s Pet. 2.. Be- 
(with Pet. 1 and 3) to 
Panl Petavius. [Def. Acts i 
1— xviii. 22; 1 Cor. iti. 16—x. 


13.] 

Zacagni and Birch. Mills Pet.3. 

Inspected by Birch and Scholz. 
= Paul 194. 

Mill Rom. and 1 Cor. xiv. col- 
lated by Griesbach. Readings 
in 1 and 2 Cor. taken from Treg. 

Middeldorpf, in Rosenmiuller’s 
Comm. Theol. [Def. Acts i. 


3—34.] 
Mill ( Vien.) and Alter. 


Wetstein and 
Bengel (Aug. 6). (Ec.’s comm. 
[Does not contain the Acte.] 


Bengel. 


7—xvi. 


[Contains only Rom. vii. 
J . 


218 


Edited by Alter.— Acts 65. 
Edited by Zacagni. Called 
Cryptoferratensis. 

Inspected. Catena. — 


Mill’s Hal. 





89 


Paris 56. 


MANUSCRIPTS REFERRED TO. 


Designation. 


The same MS. as Paul 50 above. 
See above, “n.” 
Paris, Arsenal 4. 


Bodleian, Clark 4. 
Copenhagen 1. 
Bodleian, Clark 9. 
Brit. Mus. Harl. 5588. 


Brit. Mus. Harl. 5613. 


See above, “0.” 

See above, “ M.” 

Paris 60. 

See Vol. III. 

Vienna. Theol. 302 (Nessel.). 
Vienna. Theol. 313 tN essel.). 
Vienna. Theol. 303 (Nessel.). 
The same MS. as Paul 57 above. 
The same MS. as Paul 67 above. 
Vienna. Theol. 221 (Nessel.). 
Vienna. Theol. 10 (Kollar). 


The same MS. as Acts 57 above. 
Upsala, Sparwenfeld 42. 


Wolfenbiittel xvi. 7. 

The same MS. as Acts 
above. 

Leipsic. 


22 


Vatican 360. 


Vatican 363. 
Vatican 366. 
Vatican 367. 
Vatican 760. 
Vatican 761. 
Vatican 762. 
Vatican 765. 
Vatican 766. 
Vatican 1136. 
Vatican 1160. 
Vatican 1210. 
Vatican, Palat. 171. 


Vatican, Alex. 29. 


90 | Vatican, Urb. 3. 


69] 

















[PROLEGOMENA. 


Apoc. 


a 
Cent. Collator, &c. 5 
XII. | Inspected by Scholz.=Paul 133. | — | 52 
XI. | Inspected by Simon and Scholz. 
=Paul 130. 43 
XII. | Inspected by Scholz.= Paul 227. 
1278 | Hensler in Birch.=Paul 72. 234, 
XIII.} Inspected by Scholz.= Paul 224. | — 
XIII.| Acts xi. xii. xili., Rom. and 1 
Cor. i.—vii., collated by Gries- 
bach. 
1407 | Actsi.—viii., Rom.,1 Cor., 2 Cor. 
iii.,—collated by Griesbach. — 
XIV. | Inspected by Griesbach and Scholz. 
XII. | Alter and Birch.=Acts 66. — 
XIII.} Alter and Birch. 
XIIi.| Alter and Birch. 
1331 | Alter and Birch. 
XII. | Alter and Birch. [Def. Rom. i. 
1—9, &e.] 
XII. | (2 Cor. XIth cent.) Aurivillius. 
[ Def. up to Acts viii. 14. 1 Cor. 
xili. 6—xv. 38 twice over. ] — 
XII. | Knittel. in Matthzi. _— 
XIII.| Matthzi. Contains Rom., 1 Cor. 
up to v. 3, . with Thl’s 
comm. : 
xT, “Rom., 1 Cor. i.—iv. accurate 
examinavi; reliquacursim modo 
perlustravi.” Birch. 131 
XI. | Birch (cursorily inspected). 133 
XIII.| Birch (cursorily inspected). — 
XI. | Birch (“ Per omnia contuli ”) — 
XII. | A MS. of the Acts inspected by 
Birch and Scholz. Catena. — 
XII. | Inspected by Birch. (c.’s 
comm. — 
XII. | Inspected by Birch. Contains 
Rom., Corr., with Catena. — 
XI. | Inspected by Birch. Comm. on 
marg. — 
XII. | Inspected by Birch. Comm. on 
marg. — 
XIII.| Epp. inspected by Birch. — 
XIII.| Inspected by Birch and Scholz. {141 
XI. | Birch (Acts, Rom., al.,“exacte”). |142 
XIV. | Examined in select places by 
Birch. Zacagni. - 149 
XII. | Birch (“ Per omnia accurate ex- 
aminavi”’). [Def. 2 Cor. xi. 15 
—xii. 1.] 
XI. — 


Inspected by Birch. 


PROLEGOMENA. | 











3 aS F P 
2 ae Designation. 
80 91 | Vatican, Pio 50. 
81 — | Barberinus 377. 
82 | 92] Rome, Propaganda 250. 
83 | 93 | Naples 1. B. 12. (See below 
| Acts 173, Paul 211.) 
84 94 | Florence, Laur. Lib. iv. 1. 
85 | 95 | Florence, Laur. Lib. iv. 5. 
86 96 | Florence, Laur. Lib. iv. 20. 
87 97 | Florence, Laur. Lib. iv. 29. 
88 | 98 | Florence, Laur. Lib. iv. 31. 
89 | 99 | Florence, Laur. Lib. iv. 32. 
— | 100) Florence, Laur. Lib. x. 4. 
— | 101 | Florence, Laur. Lib. x. 6. 
— | 102 | Florence, Laur. Lib. x. 7. 
— | 103 | Florence, Laur. Lib. x. 19. 
91 | 104 | See above, “h.” 
92 | 105 | Bologna, Can. Reg. 640. 
93 | 106 | Venice 5. 
94, | 107 | Venice 6. 
95 | 108 | Venice 10. 
96 | 109 | Venice 11. 
97 | —| Wolfenbiittel. Gud. Gr. 104A. 
98 | 113 | (Moscow ?) (Cod. Stauronicet.) 
99 | 114 | Moscow 5. 
100 | 115 | Moscow 334. 
101 | 116 | Moscow 333. 
102 | 117 | The WS. called “K” above. 
103 | 118 | Moscow 193. 
— | 119 | Moscow 292. 
104 | 120 | Dresden. (Cod. Matth.) 
105 | 121 | Moscow 380. 
106 | 122 | Moscow 328. 
— | 123 | Moscow 99. 
— | 124 | Moscow 250. 
(108)| .-- | Escurial x. iv. 17. 
(109) | «+ | Escurial x. iv. 12. 
{110} Camb. Univ. Lib. MS. Nn. 5. 27. 
[111] Thesame MS.as“‘o0” and61 above. 
[112]| .. | The MS. numbered Acts 9 above. 
— | 125 | Munich 504. 
— | 126 | Munich 455. 


— |{127]| Munich 110. 


128 | Munich 211. 
129 | Munich 35. 


70] 


| 


| 





1387 
XIV. 
XVI. 


XI. 
XVI. 


APPARATUS CRITICUS. 


Collator, &c. 


. | Birch (* Per omnia diligenter bis 


collatus ””) 


Inspected by Birch. 
Zoega in Birch. 
Inspected by Birch. 


Inspected by Birch. 
Inspected by Birch. 
Inspected by Birch. 
Inspected by Birch. 
Inspected by Birch. 
Inspected by Birch. 


Inspected by Birch. Comm. 
Inspected by Birch. Comm. 
Inspected by Birch. Var.comm. 
Inspected by Birch. Catena. 
Inspected by Scholz. 

Rinck. 

Rinck. 

Rinck. 

Rinck. [Def. Acts i. 1—12; 


xxv. 21—xxvi. 18.] 
(Scholz ?) [Def. Acts xvi. 39— 
xvili. 18.]= Paul 241. 
Matthzi (a). 
Matthzi (c). 
Matthei (d). 


.| Matthei (f). 


Matthzi (h). Scholia, but Acts 
i. 1—ix. 12 given continuously. 

Matthexi (i). Contains 1 and 
2 Cor., with Thl.’s comm. 

Matthei (k). 

Matthei (1). 

Matthzi (m). 

Matthzi (n). Scholia. 

Matthzi (q). Contains Rom. i.— 
xiii. with Thl.’s comm. 


Moldenhauer. See Birch, Gos- 
pels.= Paul 228. 
Moldenhauer. See Birch, Gos- 


pels. = Paul 229. 

A folio copy of the Greek Bible 
printed ‘ Basilee per Joan. 
Hervagium 1545.” <A few 
notes are written on the mar- 
gin.= Paul 222. 


Inspected by Scholz. 

Inspected by Scholz. Prob. 
copied from the same MS. as 
preceding. 

A transcript of Rom. vii. 7—ix. 
1, as written in MS. Paul 54. 
Inspected by Scholz.=Acts 179. 
Inspected by Scholz. Thl.’s 

comm. (So Hardt.) 


ra 
Q 
es 
“ 


| Gosp 


iS | 3 | Apes 
-. 


1 


leis te licteileels | rs) 


bo be to 
o°o°e 
CO DOr 


47 
48 


& | 
to 





§ 1] MANUSCRIPTS REFERRED TO. | PROLEGOMENA. 
2|é3 =e 2 
cae isin Designation. Cent. Collator, &c. ch ee 
:» | 130 | The same US. as Acts 54 above. 

-- | 131 | Paris, Coisl. 196. XI. | Inspected by Scholz.= Acts 132. |330 | — 
113 | 132 | Paris 47. 1364 | Reiche.  ~ 18 | 51 
.. | 13838 | The same MS. as Acts 51 
above. 
114 | 134} Paris 57. XIITI.} Reiche. 
115 | 135 | Paris 58. XIII.| Inspected by Scholz. [Def. Acts 
i. 1—xiy. 27. ] 5 || Ee 
116 | 186 | Paris 59, XVI. | Inspected by Scholz. BY || 
117 | 137 | Paris 61. XIII.} Reiche. 
118 | 138 | Paris 101. XIII.| Parts collated by Scholz. [Def. 
Acts xix. 8—xxii. 17. | =|! Be 
119 | 139 | Paris 102 A. X. Inspectedby Scholz. [Def.2Cor. 
i. 8—-ii. 4.] — | 56 
140 | The same MS. as Acts 11 
above. 
120 | 141 | Paris 103 A. XI. | Scholz. [Def. Acts xxviii. 23 — 
Rom. ii. 26.] —|— 
121 | 142 | Paris 104. XIII.| Inspected by Scholz. —|— 
122 | 143 | Paris 105. XI. | Scholz. Contains only (in this 
vol.) Acts xiii. 48—xv. 22; xv. 
29—xvi. 36; xvii. 4—xviil. 26; 
xx. 16—xxviii. 17; Rom. i. 1— 
iv. 16. a 
123 | 144 | Paris 106 A. XIV.| Inspected by Scholz. ee ee 
— | 146 | Paris 109. XVI.| Inspected by Scholz. Contains 
; Rom., 1 Cor. — || — 
— | 147 | Paris 110. 1511 | Inspected by Scholz. Contains 
1 and 2 Cor. —|j— 
124 | 149 | Paris 124. XVI. | Inspected by Scholz. — | 57 
125 | 150 | Paris 125. XIV.| Inspected by Scholz. 
— | 151 | Paris 126. XVI.| Inspected by Scholz. —|— 
126 | 153 | Paris 216. X. Inspected by Scholz. 
127 | 154 | Paris 217. XI. | Inspected by Scholz. Reiche. 
Thdrt.’s comm. on Epp. Paul. 
128 | 155 | Paris 218 XI. | Inspected by Scholz. Catena. | — | — 
129 | 156 | Paris’220, XIII.} Inspected by Scholz. Comm., 
txt often omitted. —|]— 
130 | —| Paris 221. XII. | Inspected by Scholz. [Def. Acts 
xx. 38—xxil. 3. | — | — 
ew LD almeatis 222: XI. “Coll. magna codicis pars,” 
Scholz. [Def. Rom. i. 1—1I1, 
21—29, iii. 26—iv. 8, ix. 11— 
22; 1 Cor. xv. 22—43.] a 
131 | 158 | Paris 223. XII. | Inspected by Scholz. [Epistles 
A.D. 1045. | —|— 
— | 159 | Paris 224. XI. | Inspected by Scholz. Catena. | — | 64 
—- | 160 | Paris 225. XVI.| Inspected by Scholz. Fragments 
with Thl.’s comm. —= || — 
—- | 161 | Paris 226. XVI.| Inspected by Scholz. Contains 
Rom., with comm. —}|— 
— | 162 | Paris 227. XVI.| Inspected by Scholz. Contains 
1 Cor. xvi., with Cat. —|— 
— | 164 | Paris 849. XVI.} Inspected by Scholz. Thdrt.’s 
comm., with text on marg. 
132 The same MS. as Paul 1381 
above. 
133 | 166 | Turin C. i. 40 (285). XIII.) Scholz, “ accurate coll.” — | — 
134 | 167 | Turin C. ii. 17 (19). XI. | Colld. Acts iiii—viii.; Rom. x., 














seq., by Scholz. [ Def. Actsi., ii. ] 








PROLEGOMENA. | APPARATUS CRITICUS. free-y: 
3 BS Designation. Cent. Collator, &c. S ie 
-_|—- —_— SESE -_————q— |—__|____ 
— | 168 | Turin C. ii. 38 (325). XII. | Inspected by Scholz. Comm. 
(Def. Rom. i. 1—iii. 19.] — | — 
135 | .. | Turin C. ii. 5 (302). XII.| Inspected by Scholz.=Paul 170. |339 | 83 
136 | 169 | Turin C. ii. 31 (1). XII. | Inspected by Scholz. —|— 
«» | 170 | The same WS.as Acts 135 above. 
— | 171 | Ambros. Lib. Milan 6. XIII.| Inspected by Scholz. Rom., 
1 (Cor., 2. Cor.) (i: Iva a9; 
written by a later hand. —|}— 
— | 172 | Milan 15. XII. | Inspected by Scholz. Comm. 
after Chr. —}— 
137 | .. | Milan 97. XI. | Inspected by Scholz.= Paul 176. 
138 | 173 | Milan 102. XIV.| Inspected by Scholz. —|— 
139 | 174 | Milan 104. 1434 | Inspected by Scholz. —|— 
— | 175 | Milan 125. XV. | Inspected by Scholz. Continuous 
comm. —|— 
-- | 176 | The same MS.as Acts 187 above. 
140 | .. | Venice 546. XI. | (Part Cent. xiii.) Inspected by 
Scholz. Catena.= Paul 215. — | 74 
141 Florence, Laur. Lib. vi. 27. XII. | Inspected by Scholz. = Paul 
239. 189 | — 
177 | Modena 14. (MS. II. a. 14.) XV. | Inspected by Scholz. 
142 | 178 | Modena 243. (MS. III. 8.17.) | XII.'| Inspected by Scholz. 
179 | Part (written in cursive letters) 
of the MS. called “H of the 
Acts.” 
144 | 180 | Florence, Laur. Lib. vi. 13. XIII.} Inspected by Scholz. 363. | — 
145 | 181 | Florence, Laur. Lib. vi. 36. XIII.} Inspected by Scholz. 365 | — 
146 | 182 | Florence, Laur. Lib. 2708 (?). 1332 | Inspected by Scholz. Bioygl | 
147 | 183 | Florence, Laur. Lib. iv. 30. XII. | Inspected by Scholz. — | 76 
148 | 184 | Florence, Laur. Lib. 2574 (?). 984 | Inspected by Scholz. —|— 
150 | .. | Florence, Riccardi Lib. 84, XV. | Inspected by Scholz.=Paul 230 
= lect. 37. 368 | 84 
151 Vatican, Ottob. 66. XY. | Inspected by Scholz.=Paul 199. |386 | 70 
[152] Camb. Univ. Lib. MS. Nn. 3. A copy of theprinted Greek Test. 
20, 21. 8vo. London, 1728, interleaved 
and bound up in two volumes; 
contains MS. notes by John 
Taylor.= Paul 223. 442 | — 
153 | .. | Brit. Mus. Harl. 5796. XV. | Inspected by Scholz.= Paul 240. [444 | — 
-- | 185 | Rome, Vallicella Lib. E. 22. XVI. | Inspected by Scholz.=Acts 167. (3893 | — 
-- | 186 | Rome, Vallicella Lib. F. 17. 1330 | Inspected by Scholz.=Acts 170. |894 | — 
154 | 187 | Vatican 1270. XV. | Inspected by Scholz. Comm. 
contains (of St. Paul) only 
Rom., 1 Cor. ee | 
155 | 188 | Vatican 1430. XII. | Inspected by Scholz. —}|— 
— | 189 | Vatican 1649. XIII.} Inspected by Scholz. Thdrt.’s 
comm. —|— 
156 | 190 | Vatican 1650. 1073 | Inspected by Scholz. [Def. Acts 
i. l—y. 4. Comm. on Epp. 
Paul. ] ; 
157 | 191 | Vatican 1714. XII. | Inspected by Scholz. Contains 
fragments of Acts, Rom., and 
1 Cor. —|— 
158 | 192 | Vatican 1761. XI. | Inspected by Scholz. —|— 
159 | — | Vatican 1968. XI. | “Cursim coll. Cod. integer,” 
Scholz. [ Def. Acts i. 1—v. 28, 
vi. 14—vii. 11.] —}|— 
160 | 193 | Vatican 2062. XI. | Inspected by Scholz. Scholia. 

















194 | The same MS. as Acts 41 above. 


72 














Begins Acts xxviii. 19. 
































§ 1.] MANUSCRIPTS REFERRED TO. [ PROLEGOMENA. 
2 | 83 tale. elie 
q |ac Designation. - Cent. Collator, &c. Bh et 
— | 195 | Vatican, Ottob. 31. X. | Inspected by Scholz Comm. 

[ Def. Rom. and greater part of 
1 Cor.] —|— 
— | 196 | Vatican, Ottob. 61. XV. | Inspected by Scholz. —|— 
— | 197 | Vatican, Ottob. 176. XV. | Inspected by Scholz. les 
161 | 198 | Vatican, Ottob. 258. XIII.| Inspected by Scholz. Latin 
Version. Begins Acts ii. 27. — | 69 
.. | 199 | Zhe same IS. as Acts 151 above. 
162 | 200 | Vatican, Ottob. 298. XY. | Inspected by Scholz. Latin Ver- 
sion. a 
163 | 201 | Vatican, Ottob. 325. XIV.| Inspected by Scholz. [Def. Acts 
iv. 19—v. 1.] 
— | 202 | Vatican, Ottob. 356. XY. | Inspected by Scholz. Contains 
Rom. with Catena. —|— 

164 | 203 | Vatican, Ottob. 381. 1252 | Inspected by Scholz. 390 | 71 

166 | 204 | Rome, Vallicella Lib. B. 86. XIII.| Inspected by Scholz. — | 22 

167 .. | Lhe same MS.as Paul 185 above. 

168 | 205 | Rome, Vallicella Lib. F. 13. XIV. | Inspected by Scholz. —|— 

169 | 206 | Rome, Ghigi Lib. R. v. 29. 1394 | Inspected by Scholz. —|— 
— | 207 | Rome, Ghigi Lib. R. v. 32. XV. | Inspected by Scholz. Comm. — | — 
— | 208 | Rome, Ghigi Lib. R. viii. 55. AE Inspected by Scholz. Thdrt.’s 

comm. = |) 

170 | .. | Thesame MS. as Paul 186 above. 

171 | 209 ioe MSS. in the Library of {| XVI.| Inspected by Scholz. —|— 

172 | 210 the Collegio Romano. \| XVI.| Inspected by Scholz. —|— 

[173]|[211]| Naples (no number). Appa- 

rently the same MS. as Acts 
83, Paul 93 above. — | Inspected by Scholz. —|— 

174, | 212 | Naples 1, C. 26. XV. | Inspected by Scholz. —|}— 
— | 213 | Rome, Barberini Lib. 29. 1338 | Inspected by Scholz. Scholia. | — | — 
— | 214 |} Vienna 167 (Lambec 46). XV. | Inspected by Scholz. Contains 

Rom., 1 Cor., with comm. = |) — 
.. | 215 | Thesame MS. as Acts 140 above. 
175 | 216 | Mon. of S. Bas. Messana, 2. XII. | Inspected by Munter. —-|— 
— | 217 | Palermo. XII. | Inspected by Scholz. Begins 2 

Cor. v. 1. || — 

176 | 218 | Syracuse. XII. | Inspected by Munter. 421 | — 
177 | 219 | Leyden. Meermann 116. XII. | Dermout. [Def. Acts i. 1—14, 
xxi. 14—xxii. 28; Rom. i. 1— 

vii. 13.] 122 | — 

178 Middlehill, Worcestershire 1461. | XI. | (Inspected by Scholz?) Once 

See “ Apoc. m,” Vol. IV. Meermann 118.=Paul 242. — | 87 

179 The same MS. as Paul 128 above. ; 

180 Strasburg. Molsheimensis. XII. | Readings of Acts and Epp. com- 

municated toScholz.= Paul238. |481 | — 

181 | 220 | Berlin, Diez. 10. XV. | [Def. Acts i. 11—ii. 11; Rom. i. 

1—27; 1 Cor. xiv. 12—xv. 46; 
2 Cor. i. 1—viii. 5.] 400 | — 
.. |[221]| ThesameMS.as“o”and61 above. 
[222]| See Acts [110] above. 
.. |[223]| See Acts [152] above. 
224 | The same MS. as Acts 58 above. 
[225]| The same MS. as Acts 9, Paul 
11 above. 
.. | 227 | The same MS. as Acts 56 above. 
.. | 228 | Thesame MS. as Acts 108 above. 
.. | 229 | Thesame MS. as Acts 109 above. 
.. | 230 | The same US. as Acts 150 above. 
182 .. |\ Two MSS. in a Monastery onf| XII. |) a oa ten 
iszal .. \ ths Telinid of Patios: y { XUL|s Inspected by Scholz.= Paul 243. 














PROLEGOMENA. | APPARATUS CRITICUS. [ CH. v. 
Sele ae 2 | 2 
a | aim Designation. Cent Collator, &c. Salies 

183 | 231 | Gr. Mon. Jerusalem 8. XIV. | Inspected by Scholz. a ea 
184 | 232 | Gr. Mon. Jerusalem 9. XIII.} Inspected by Scholz. Comm. — | 85 
185 | 233 | Mon. S. Saba, nr. Jerusalem 1. | XI. | Inspected by Scholz. — | — 
186 | 234 | Mon. S. Saba, nr. Jerusalem 2. | XIII.| Inspected by Scholz. AAS 7f || 
187 | 235 | Mon. S. Saba, nr. Jerusalem 10. | XIII.} Inspected by Scholz. 462 | 86 
188 | 236 | Mon. S. Saba, nr. Jerusalem 15. | XII. | Inspected by Scholz. a 
189 | 237 | Mon. S. Saba, nr. Jerusalem 20. | XIII.| Inspected by Scholz. 466 | 89 
.. | 288 | The same WS. as Acts 180 above. 
.. | 289 | Thesame MS. as Acts 141 above. 
. 240 | The same MS. as Acts 153 above. 
-. | 241 | The same MS. as Acts 97 above. 
2 242 | The same IWS. as Acts 178 above. 
af Bae \ Thesame MSS. as Acts 182 above. 
190 | 244 | Christ Church, Oxford, Wake 34 | XI. | Acts xviii.—xx. collated by 
(2 Scholz). Scholz. — | 27 
191 | 245 | Christ Church, Oxford, Wake 38 | XI. Def. Acts i. 1—11. 
(3 Scholz). 
192 | 246 | Christ Church, Oxford, Wake 37 | XI. Def. Acts xii. 4—xxill. 32. 
(4 Scholz). 
8-pe| 8-pe| St. Petersburg xi. 1. 2. 230. XII. | Muralt. 8-pe 
The following is a List of Lectionaries. 
Designation. Date. Name of Collator, and other information. 
lect-1 | Leyden 243. Scaligeri. XI. | Wetstein and Dermout. Contains (of 
this Vol.) Acts i. 15—26 ; ii. 22—47; 
iii. 12, 18; 18; iv. 1—21; id. 23— 
31; x. 34—43; xiii. 34—42 ; xxvill. 
11—31; Rom. v. 6—19; 1 Cor. xi. 
25—32; xv. [= ev-6] 
lect-2 | Brit. Mus., Cotton Vesp. | XJ. | “Contains the portions of Acts and 
B. 18. Epp. appointed to be read through- 
out the whole year. Casley collated 
it in 1735, and Wetstein inserted his 
extracts.” (Michaelis.) Mutilated 
at beg. and end. 
lect-8 | Bodleian, Baroc. 202 ? 995 
lect-4 | Brit. Mus., Harl. 5731. XIV.| Griesbach. Contains the following 
fragments :—Acts vi. 8—vii. 5; vil. 
47—60 ; 1 Cor. i. 18—24; iv.9—16; 
xii. 27—xiiié 8. [= Gosp. 117] 
lect-5 | Bodleian, Cromwell. 11. 1225 | Griesbach, who says “ Variantes lec- 
[Olim 296.] Aliturgy | ~ tiones collegi e Rom. vi. 3—11; xiii. 
book, containing 5thly 11—xiv. 4; xiv. 19—23; xvi. 25— 
(pp. 149—290), evay- 27; 1. Cor. i. 18—24; ix. 19—x. 4; 
yeroaTtoatéAwy Tay xi. 23—32, &e.” 
peydAwy éEwptarv. 
lect-6 | Géttingen (C. de Missy). XV.| Matthei (v). See his appendix to 
Thess. Contains a large number of 
the usual lections, 
lect-7 Copenhagen 3. XV. | Hensler in Birch. = ey-44] 
lect-9 | Paris 32. XII. | Inspected by Scholz. = ey-84] 
lect-10 | Paris 33. XII. | Inspected by Scholz. [= ev-85] 




















74] 




















§ 1] 


lect-11 
lect-12 
lect-13 
lect-14. 
lect-16 


lect-17 
lect-18 


lect-19 


lect-20 


lect-21 
lect-22 
lect-23 
lect-24 


lect-25 
lect-26 
lect-27 
lect-28 
lect-29 


lect-30 
lect-31 
lect-32 


lect-33 


lect-34 
lect-35 
lect-36 
lect-37 
lect-38 
lect-39 
lect-40 
lect-41 


lect-42 
lect-43 


lect-44 
lect-45 
lect-46 
lect-47 
lect-48 
lect-49 


75] 


LIST OF LECTIONARIES. 


Designation. 


Paris 34. 


Paris 375. 

Moscow Synod, 4. 
Moscow Synod, 291. 
Moscow Synod, 266. 


Moscow Synod, 267. 
Moscow Synod, 268. 


Moscow, Typogr. 47. 


Moscow, Typogr. 9. 


Paris 294. 
Paris 304. 
Paris 306. 
Paris 308. 


Paris 319. 
Paris 320. 
Paris 321. 
Bodleian, Selden 2. 
Paris 370. 


Paris 373. 
Paris 276. 
Paris 376. 


Paris 382. 


Paris 383. 

Paris 324. 

Paris 326. 

Riccardi Lib. Florence 84. 

Vatican 1528. 

Vatican, Ottob. 416. 

Barberini Lib. Rome 18. 

Barberini Lib. Rome (no 
number). 

Vallicella Lib. Rome, C. 46. 

Riccardi Lib. Florence 
2742. 

Glasgow (Missy BB). 

Glasgow (Missy CC). 

Ambros. Lib. Milan 63. 

Ambros, Lib. Milan 72. 


Laur. Lib. Florence 2742(?). 
Mon. St. Saba, nr. Jerus.,16. 





[PROLEGOMENA. 


Date Name of Collator, and other information. 
XII. | Inspected by Scholz. 
1022 | Scholz. An important MS. [= ev-60] 
X. Mattheei (b). 
XII. | Matthei (e). 
XV. | Matthei (é). Contains Acts xiii. 25— 
32; xix. 1—8; Rom. v. 6—9; vi. 
18—23; 1 Cor. iv. 9—16; x. 1—4; 
xii. 27—xiil. 7. [= ev-52] 
Contain seve- 
ral lections 
in Acts, and 
XV. | Matthei(x)} some in | [=ev-53] 
1470 | Matthei(y)) Rom.; 1/([=ev-54] 
Cor.; in 2 
Cor. only xi. 
21—xii. 9. 
1602 | Matthei (w). Contains Acts xii. 1— 
11; xiii. 25—32 ; xxvi. 1—20; Rom. 
xiii, 11—xiv. 4; xv. 1—7; 1 Cor. 
i, 18—ii. 1; iv. 9—16; ix. 2—12; 
x. 1—4; xii. 27—xiii.7; xv. 1—11; 
2 Cor. i. 8—11; xi. 21—xii. 9. 
[= ev-55 ] 
XVI.| Matthei(16). Contains Acts ii. 1—11. 
[= ev-56] 
XI. | Inspected by Scholz. [= ev-83] 
XIII.| Inspected by Scholz. 
XII. | Inspected by Scholz. 
XIII.| Mostly O. T. lections; only a few from 
N. T. 
XI. | Inspected by Scholz. 
XII. | Inspected by Scholz. Mutilated. 
XIII.| Inspected by Scholz. Defective. 
XV. | Griesbach. [= ev-26] 
XII. | Some lections from Gospp. and Epp. 
[= ev-94] 
XIII 
XV. | Inspected by Scholz. [= ev-82] 
XIII.| Entered in list of MSS. of Gospels as 
324. 
XIII.| “Cursim coll. magna codicis pars.” 
Scholz. 
XV. | Inspected by Scholz. 
XIII.| Inspected by Scholz. [= ev-92] 
XIV.| Inspected by Scholz. [= ev-93 | 
XV. | See Acts 150, Paul 2380 above. 
XV. 
XIV. [= ev-133] 
XIV.| Some parts of Cent. X. 
XI. | The first 114 leaves are lost. 
XVI. 
? (Inspected by Scholz ?) 
? Manuscript collations by Missy were 
1199 once in Michaelis’ possession. 
XIV.| Inspected by Scholz. : 
XII. | Inspected by Scholz. [= ev-104] 
XIII.| Inspected by Scholz. [= ev-112] 


(Inspected by Scholz ?) 


PROLEGOMENA. | APPARATUS CRITICUS. [ cH. v. 






































Designation. Date. Name of Collator, and other information. 
lect-50 | St. Saba 18. XV. | Inspected by Scholz. 
lect-51 | St. Saba 26. XIV. | Inspected by Scholz. 
lect-52 | St. Saba (no number). 1059 | Inspected by Scholz. 
lect-53 | St. Saba (no number). XIV.| Inspected by Scholz. [= ev-160] 
lect-54 | St. Saba (no number), XIII. 
lect-56 | Frankfort on Oder, Seideli. A leaf of a lectionary bound up with ms. 
Acts 42, Paul 48. Contains 1 Cor. ix. 
2—12. 
lect-57 | Ch. Ch. Oxf., Wake 12 (1 | XI. | (= ms. 26 Apoc.) 
Scholz). 
lect-58 | Ch. Ch. Oxf., Wake 33 (5 | 1172 
Scholz). 


SECTION II. 
ANCIENT VERSIONS REFERRED TO IN THIS VOLUME. (VSS.) 


The Latin Versions (latt). 
vulg. The vulgate, usually quoted from the Clementine edition 
(vulg-ed.). The Sixtine edition (vulg-sixt.) is occasionally cited 
when it differs from the others ; as also are the following mss. :-— 
am. amiatinus, written about A.p. 54]. Tischendorf has 
edited it, and considers it the oldest and most valuable 
extant. 
demid. demidovianus. Published by Matthei. Written 
in the XIIth century. 
fuld. fuldensis. Readings given in Lachmann’s N. T. 
Written in the VIth century. 
flor. floriacensis. 
harl. harleianus, No. 1772. Collation given by Griesbach 
Symb. Crit. 
lux. luxoviensis. A lectionary cited by Mabillon and Sa- 
batier. 
tol. toletanus. A collation was published by Blanchini in 
his “ Vindicie Can. Script.” 
F-lat. The Latin column of the Codex Augiensis. Cent. 
IX. 
old-lat. The Old Latin Version in use before Jerome’s revision is 
cited from the following manuscripts :— 
D-lat. (Acts.) The Latin of the Codex Beze. Cent. VI. 
D-lat. (Paul.) The Latin of the Codex Claromontanus. 


Cent. VI. 
E-lat. (Acts.) The Latin of the Codex Laudianus. Cent. 
Vi. 


§ 11] VERSIONS REFERRED TO. _ [pronEcomena. 


G-lat. The Latin written word by word over the correspond- 
ing Greek words in the Codex Boernerianus. 
fri. Fragments of St. Paul’s Epistles in the covers of certain 
Codices Frisingenses at Munich. Written Cent. V. or VI. 
Deciphered by Tischendorf. 
guelph. Fragmenta guelpherbytana. Fragments of the Ep. 
to Rom. in Knittel’s Wolfenbiittel Gothic palimpsests. 
Edited by Tischdf. in his “ Anecdota sacra.” 
spec. Mai’s Speculum. 
The Syriac Versions (syrr). 
Syr. The Peschito. Supposed to have been made as early as the 
second century. 
syr. The later or Philoxenian. Cent. V. Revised by Thomas 
of Harkel, a.p.616, who probably introduced the asterisks and 
obeli’, and the notes in the margin. 
The Egyptian or Coptic Versions (coptt). 
copt. The Coptic or Memphitic. 
copt-dz. Codex Diez. Written about the tenth century. 
copt-schw. Schwartze’s edition. 
copt-wilk. Wilkins’ edition. 
sah. The Thebaic or Sahidic. 
sah-ming. Mingarel’s edition. 
sah-mnt. Munter’s edition. 
sah-woide. Woide’s MS. Publishedin the Appendix to Cod. Alex. 
basm. The Bashmuric so closely follows sah as to be of no critical 
value except where sah is deficient. 
The Goruic version (goth): made from the Greek by Uphilas about 
the middle of the fourth century. 
The /ErHioric version (2th): assigned to the fourth century. 
eth-rom. The edition given in the Roman polyglott. 
zth-pl. Pell Platt’s edition. 
The ARMENIAN version (arm): made in the jfi/th century. 
arm-use. Uscan’s edition. 
arm-zoh. Zohrab’s edition. 


1 Jt is Mr. Pusey’s impression that many of the readings thus marked correspond to 
the words in Italic characters in our English version, indicating a necessity of the 
idiom. The same remark applies to certain of the readings of the Syriac versions 
which we have enclosed in brackets. 


77] 


PROLEGOMENA. | 


APPARATUS CRITICUS. 


[CH. Vv. 


SECTION III. 


FATHERS AND ANCIENT WRITERS CITED IN THE DIGEST OF THIS 
VOLUME ”. 


(N.B.—The abbreviation is designated by the thick type. In the remainder of the 
word or sentence Latin writers are described in italics.) 


Acacius, Cent’. IV. or V. (from 
Catenz. ) 

Acta Concilii Chalcedonensis, a.p. 
451 

Aleimus Ledicius <Avitus. (See 
Avit.) 

Ambrose, Bp.of Milan, a.v. 374— 
397 

Ambrosiaster, i. e. Hilary the Dea- 
con, fl. 884 

Ammonius of Alexandria, 220 

Amphilochius, Bp. of Iconium, 374 

Anastasius Sinaita, Cent’. VI. 

Andreas of Crete, 635 

Antiochus of Ptolemais, 614 

Antonius Monachus, b. 251, d. 356 

Apollinarius, Bp. of Laodicea, 362 

Archelaus of Mesopotamia, 278 

Arnobius of Africa, 306 

Athanasius, Bp. of Alexandria, 
326—373 

Athenagoras of Athens, 177 

Augustine, Bp. of Hippo, 395—430 

Avitus, Bp. of Vienne, 490—523 

Barnabas, Cent’. I. or II. 

Basil, Bp. of Caesarea, 370—379 

Basil of Seleucia, fl. 440 

Bede, the Venerable, 731; Bede- 
gr,a Greek MS. cited by Bede, 
nearly identical with Cod. “ E,” 
mentioned in this edn only when 
it differs from E. 








Cesarius of Constantinople, 368 
Cesarius, Episc. Arelatensis, 5|02— 
544 
Canons Apostolic, Cent’. III. 
Cassiodorus, b. 479, d. 575 
Chromatius, Bp. of Aquileia, 402 
Chronicon Paschale, Cent’. VII. » 
Chrysologus, Peter, Bp. of Ravenna, 
433—450 
Chrysostom, Bp. of Constantinople, 
397—407 ; Chr-mss as cited by 
Tischdf. from Matthi ; -montf, 
from Montfaucon;  Chr-wlf, 
Wolfenbiittel ms. of Chr written 
in Cent’, VI. 
Clement of Alexandria, fl. 194 
Clement, Bp. of Rome, 91—101 
Cosmas Indicopleustes, 535 
Constitutions, Apostolic, Cent’. IT. 
Cyprian, Bp. of Carthage, 248 —258 
Cyril, Bp. ef Alexandria, 412—444. 
Cyr-p denotes readings supplied 
by Mr. Pusey 
Cyril, Bp. of Jerusalem, 348—386 
Damascenus, Johannes, 7380 
Dialogue against the Marcionites 
printed amongst the works of 
Origen 
“Dialogi de Trinitate,” variously 
ascribed to Ath Thdrt Max 
Didymus of Alexandria, 370 
Diodorus, Bp. of Tarsus, 378—394 


Orig-c or Chr-cat means Orig or Chr as given in Cramer’s Catena. Orig-schol, 
scholium ascribed to Origen. Chr, Chr hoc loco. Hippolytus is cited sometimes as 
Hip, sometimes as Hippol ; Gregory of Nyssa, as Nys, Nyss, and Nyssen: in all cases 
the abbreviation marked in the above list is the shortest used in this volume. 


78] 


-_ 


§ m.] 


Dionysius, Bp. of Alexandria, 247 
—265 

Dionysius Areopagita, CentY. V. 

Ennodius, Bp. of Pavia, d. 521 

Ephrem Syrus, b. 299, d. 378 

Epiphanius, Bp. of Salamis in Cy- 
prus, 868—403 

Eucherius, Bp. of Lyons, 434—454 

Eulogius, Bp. of Alexandria, 581— 

~ 608 

Eusebius, Bp. of Cesarea,315—320 

Eustathius, Bp. of Antioch, 323 

Euthalius, Bp. of Sulci, 458 

Eutherius, Bp. of Tyana, 431 

Euthymius Zigabenus, 1116 

Faustinus, 383 

Fulgentius, Bp.of Africa, 508—583 

Gaudentius, Bp. of Brescia, 387 

Gennadius, Bp. of Constantinople, 
458—471 

Gildas, fi. 581 

Helvidius (cited by Jer.), 383 

Hesychius of Jerusalem, Cent’. IV. 
acaV I. 

Hilary, Bp. of Poictiers, 354—368 

Hippolytus,disciple of Irenzeus, 220 

Homilies ascribed to Clement, 
Cent’. ITI. 

Idacius, the name under which Vig. 
published his work “de Trini- 
tate” 

Ignatius, Bp. of Antioch, d. 107 

Ireneus, Bp. of Lyons, 178 

Isidore of Pelusium, 412 

Jacobus, Bp. of Nisibis, cir. 320— 
340 

Jerome, fl. 8378 —420 

Julian, Emperor, 331—363 

Julian (cited by Aug.), Pelagian 
Bp. in Italy, 416 

Justin Martyr, fl. 140—164 

Leo, Bp. of Rome, 440—461 

Leontius Scholasticus, 580 

Lucifer, Bp. of Cagliari, 354—867 

79] 


ANCIENT WRITERS CITED. 





[PROLEGOMENA. 


Macarius of Egypt, 301—391 

Manes, cited by Epiphanius 

Marcellus, cited by Eus. 

Marcion, 130 ; fragments in Epiph. 
(Mcion-e) and Tert. (Mcion-t) 

Marcosii, cited by Iren. 

Marcus Monachus, 390 

Marius Mercator, 418 

Martyrium Clementis 

Maximus Taurinensis, 430—466 

Maximus Confessor, fl. 630—662 

Maximin, the Arian, cited by Aug. 

Meletius, Bp. of Antioch, 381 

Methodius, fl. 290—312 

Michael Psellus of Constantinople, 
d. 1078 

Nazianzum, Gregory, Bp. of, fl. 
370—389 

Nestorius, Bp. of Constantinople, 
428—431 

Nonnus of Panopolis, Cent’. V. 

Novatian, 251 

Nyssa, Gregory, Bp. of, 371 

(cumenius of Tricca in Thrace, 
Cent’. XI. ? 

Origen, b. 185, d. 254 

*‘Questiones et Responsiones ad 
Orthodoxos” ascribed toJustinM. 

Orosius, 416 

Orsiesius the Egyptian, 345 

Pacianus, Bp. of Barcelona, 370 

Palladius, Bp. of Hellenopolis, 368 
—401 

Pamphilus of Palestine, fl. 294 

Paulinus, Bp.of Aquileia,776—804 

Pelagii Ep. ad Demetr. 417 ? 

Peter, Bp. of Alexandria, 300—311 

Philasir’us, Bp. of Brescia, fl. 380 

Philo Carpasius, 400 

Photius, Bp. of Constantinople, 
858—891 

Photinus, Bp. of Sirmium (cited 
by Epiphanius), d. 379 

Polycarp, Bp. of Smyrna, d. 169 


PROLEGOMENA. | 


Porphyry, d. 304 

“ Preedestinatus.” A work ascribed 
to Vincent of Lerins (434) 

Primasius, Centy. VI. 

Proclus, Bp. of Constantinople, 434 

Procopius of Gaza, 520 

“ De Promissionibus dimid. temp.” 

“ Queestiones ex vet. et nov. Testt.” 
Printed among the works of Aug. 

“ De Rebaptismate.” Among Cypr’s 
works 

Rufinus of Aquileia, 397 

Salvianus, 440 

Seduliws, 430 

Seniores, quoted by Iren., Centy. 
Tor EL: 

Serapion of Egypt, 345 

Severus of Antioch, Cent’. VI. 

Severianus, Bp. in Syria, 400 

“De Singularitate Clericorum.” 
Among Cypr’s works 

Smyrnzorum Epistola de Martyrio 
Polycarpi, 167 

Synopsis ascribed to Athanasius. 

Tarasius, Bp. of Constantinople, 786 

Tatian of Syria, 172 

Tertullian, 200 


APPARATUS CRITICUS. 





[cH. v. 


Thaumaturgus, Gregory, Bp. of 
Neocesarea, 243 

Theodore, Bp. of Heraclea, 394 

Theodore, Bp. of Mopsuestia, 399 
—428 

Theodore of the Studium, 795— 
826 

Theodoret, Bp. of Cyrus, 420—458 

Theodotus the Gnostic. Extracts 
made by Clement of Alexandria 

Theodotus of Ancyra, 433 

Pseudo Theodulus, Cent’. XII. 

Theophylact, Abp. of Bulgaria, 
1071; Thl-sif, as edited by Sifa- 
nius; Thl-fin, by Finettius, from 
a Vatican MS. 

Tichonius, 390 

Timothy, Bp. of Alexandria, 380 

Titus, Bp. of Bostra, cir. 360—377 

Victor Vitensis, an African Bp., 
Cent’. V. 

Victor of Antioch, 401 

Victorinus, 380 

Victor, Episc. Tununensis, 565 

Vigilius of Thapsus, 484 

Zeno, Bp. of Verona, 362—3880 

Zonaras of Constantinople, 1118 


To this list may be added the following ABBREVIATIONS USED IN THE 


DIGEST :— 
aft, after. 
al, alii. 
appy, apparently. 
bef, before. 
beg, beginning. 


comm, commentary—when appended to the name of a Father, de- 
notes that the reading referred to is found in the body of his com- 
mentary, and not in the text (txt) printed at the head of the com- 
mentary. This last is often very much tampered with. 


corr, corrector. 

ctra, contra. 

def, defective. 

ed or edn, edition. 

elsw, elsewhere. 
80] 


corrd, corrected. 


§ m1.] ABBREVIATIONS. [PROLEGOMENA. 


elz, elzevir edition of the Greek Test. 

e sil, e silentio collatorum. 

exc, except. 

expr, expressly. 

follg or filg, the following words. 

gr, Greek. gr-lat-ff, Greek and Latin Fathers. 

ins, insert— ins car AB” means that the MSS. A and B insert cau. _ 

int, interpreter or interpretation—appended to the name of a Father 
means that the citation is made from a translation, not from the 
original. 

marg, margin. 

om, omit—‘*‘om xa. AB” means that the MSS. A and B omit the kau 
given in the text or inserted by other MSS. 

Ps, Pseudo—used in citing the spurious works ascribed to Ath. and 
other Fathers. 

pref, prefix. 

rec, the textus receptus, or received text of the Greek Testament. 
This is used when Steph and elz agree. 

rel, reliqui—means that all the other manuscripts named on the 
margin have the reading to which it is appended, 

simly, similarly. 

Steph, Stephens’ Greek Testament. 

transp, transpose. 

txt, text—when followed by a list of MSS., versions, &c., means that 
the reading adopted in this edition is supported by those MSS., 
versions, &c. (See also under comm above.) 

ver, verse. 

vss, versions. 

Vv, verses. 

The figures 2, 3, &c., inserted above the line to the right hand, imply 
a second, third, &c., hand in a MS. Thus Bt means the original 
seribe of B; C’, the first corrector of C; C’, the second; D', a 
recent scribe in D, by whom corrections were made or parts not 
originally in the MS. supplied. 

The same figures below the line, imply recurrence of the reading 2, 3, 
&c. times in the author mentioned; e. g. Aug), Orig;, Bas; : similarly 
are used the words spe, aliq, or alic (aliquoties or alicubi), ubique’*. 

Words printed in the digest in the larger type used for the text 

itself are to be taken as of equal authority with the reading printed in 
the text: the place in the text where such readings occur being indicated 
by an asterisk. 

2 -2-mss appended to the name of a Father means that the reading cited is contained 

in two mss. of that Father. 

Chr-5-mss; means that in 5 mss. of Chrysostom the reading cited occurs 3 times. 


Vou, sh] f 


PROLEGOMENA. | APPARATUS CRITICUS. [oH. v. 


Notice referred to on pp. 15, §e. 


amas would seem to be the true reading in 56 passages of the N. T., 
in only 14 however of these is it found without any variation in the 
uncial MSS. In the 42 remaining cases some one or more uncials haye 
substituted was. On the other hand zas occurs upwards of 1100 times, 
and in no more than 4, or at the most 10 cases have uncial mss. put 
azas in its stead—so that the tendency of the transcribers has clearly 
been to alter azas into 7as; on examination it also appears that this 
tendency has been alike yielded to by the seribes of the recent and of 
the ancient MSS. In cases, therefore, where the rarer word is sup- 
ported by any trustworthy MSS., however few in number and however 
great the array in favour of was, aras has been accepted as the true 
reading. 


SECTION IV. 


LIST, AND SPECIFICATION OF EDITIONS OF OTHER BOOKS QUOTED, 
REFERRED TO, OR MADE USE OF IN THIS VOLUME. 


N.B. Works mentioned in the list given in the Prolegg. to Vol. I. 
are not here again noticed. 


A.V. R. The Authorized Version revised by five Clergymen. Rom., 
1 and 2 Cor. London 1858-60. 

Biscogr, History of the Acts of the Holy Apostles confirmed &c., Oxf. 
1840. 

Bispine, Erklirung des Briefes an die Romer, Minster 1854. Rom. 
Catholic. 

Bornemann, Acta Apostolorum ad fidem codicis Cantabrigiensis &c., 
Grossenhain et Lond. 1848. 

CaTENA in Acta Apostolorum, ed. Cramer, Oxf. 1838. 

Curysostom, Opera, cited by Benedictine pages in Migne’s Patrologia 
Greea, voll. xlviii—lxiv. The homilies on the Acts and Rom. 
are in vol. ix. (Ix.), those on 1 and 2 Cor. in vol. x. (Ixi.), 

CoNnYBEARE AND Howson, Life and Epistles of St. Paul, with maps, 
plates, coins, &c., 2 voll. 4to. London 1850-52: 2nd edn., 2 voll. 
8vo., Lond. 1856. 

Davipson, Dr. S., Introduction to the New Testament, vol. ii., Aets— 
2 Thess.; Lond. 1849. 

Dr Werte, Exegetisches Handbuch u.s.w.—A postelgeschichte, 2nd edn., 
Leipzig 1841: Romer, 4th edn., Leipzig 1847: Corinther, 2nd 
edn., Leipzig 1845. 

Estius, Comment. in omnes Pauli Epistolas, 2 voll. folio, Douay 1614. 

82] 


§ 1v.] BOOKS QUOTED. [PROLEGOMENA. 


Ewsank, W. W., Commentary on the Ep. to the Romans, Lond. 1850. 
FRITZscHE, Pauli ad Romanos Epistola, 3 voll., Hale Sax. 1836. 
Hackett, Pror., Commentary on the Acts, Boston, U.S. 1852. 
HemseEn, Der Apostel Paulus us.w., Gottingen 1850. 

Hover, Pror. C., Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 3rd edn., 
London: The Religious Tract Society. 

Humeury, W. G., Commentary on the Acts, Lond. 1847. 

Jowett, Pror., The Epistles of St. Paul to the Thessalonians, Galatians, 
Romans: with critical Notes and Illustrations: Lond. 1856. (See 
Vol. III. Prolegg. ch. v. § i. par. 1, note.) 

LACHMANN AND ButrrmMann, Novum Testamentum grece et latine &c., 
vol. ii., Berlin 1850. 

Lewin, T., Life and Epistles of St. Paul, 2 vols., London 1851. 

Meyer, H. A. W., Kritisch-exegetischer Commentar iiber das Neue 
Testament :—Apostg., Gottingen 1835: 1 Corinth., 2nd edn., do. 
1849: 2 Cor., 2nd edn., do. 1850. 

Neanper, AuG., Geschichte der Pflanzung u. Leitung der christlichen 
Kirche durch die Apostel, 4th edn., Hamburg 1847. 

CEcuMENIvus, Commentaria, &c., in Migne’s Patrologia Greca, voll. 
GX Vill. Cxix. 

Patey, Hore Pauline: ed. Birks, Lond. 1850. 

Periz, Dr., Annotations on the Apostolic Epistles, vol. i. Rom.—Corr. 
Lond. 1848. 

Puiirert, Dr. F. A., Commentar tiber den Brief Pauli an die Romer, 
vol. i., Frankf. 1855. 

ScuravER, Der Apostel Paulus, u.s.w., 5 voll. Leipzig 1829-36. 

SmirH, James, Esq., On the Voyage and Shipwreck of St. Paul, Lond. 
1848 : 2nd edn., Lond. 1856. 

STanLey, Dean, The Epistles of St. Paul to the Corinthians: with 
Critical Notes and Illustrations *. 

Stier, Dr. Rupotr, Die Reden der Apostel, Leipzig 1829.—Andeu- 
tungen fiir gliubiges Schriftverstiindniss: zweite Sammlung, 
Leipzig 1828, 

Stuart, Moses, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, Lond. 
1838. 

TERTULLIANUS, in Migne’s Patrologia Latina, voll. i.—iii. 

THEODORET, Opera, in Migne’s Patrologia Greea, voll. lxxx.—lxxxiv. 

THEOPHYLACT, in Migne’s Patrologia Greea, voll. exxiiiicxxvi. 

Tuo .uck, Romerbrief, u.s.w., Halle 1842: 5th edn., 1856. 


3 The reader will observe that I have worked with Dean Stanley’s book in preparing 
this edition, and have often extracted from, and referred to it. It is a valuable contri- 
bution to the literature of these important Epistles: not so much in its scholarship, as 
in the power of illustration, and graphic description of usage and circumstance, which 
pervade the notes. The second edition is referred to in this present volume. 


83] f 2 


PROLEGOMENA. | APPARATUS CRITICUS. [ou. -v. 


TREGELLES, Dr., An Account of the printed Text of the Greek New 
Testament, London 1854; Greek Testament, Part iv., Rom.— 
2 Thess., 1869. 

Umereit, Dr., Der Brief an die Romer auf dem Grunde des Alten 
Testamentes ausgelegt, Gotha 1856. 

Winer, G. B., A Treatise on the Grammar of N. Test. Greek. 
Translated with additions, &c., by Rev. W. F. Moulton, M.A., 
Edinburgh. 

WorpswortH, BisHop, The Greek Testament, &c. Part ii., Lond. 
1857. 


Readings of the Codex Vaticanus (B) in the text of this volume, which have been 
ascertained by the Editor’s personal inspection of the MS. at Rome, February, 1861. 


Acts i. 11. ovros, not ovrws as Bentley. Acts vii. 39. adda, not add’ as Mai. This 


ii. 7. in araytes, the first ais written was wrongly extracted from 
over the line by 1. m. my notes of B in my last 
34. o bef xupios is added by 1. and edition. 
2. m. 47. ovxod. a prima manu. 
38. aft auapriay ins vuwy, not 51. kapdias, not -av as Bentley. 
nuwv as Beh. Vili. 25. evnyyeArLovto, not eveyyeAn. 
ili. 2, the ro after eBaora¢e is super- as Birch. 
added by 1. m. 28. tov mpod. yno., not no. Tov 
21. the twy before ar aiwvos is pop. as Birch. 
written in the margin by 34. tTovto is a prima manu. 
2.m. ix. 6. adda. 
iv. 4. ws, not wser, as in Mai. 13. cov is in codex, not omitted, 
6. o apxtepevs is the reading of as in Bentley. 
the codex. 25. after ca@nkev, avtToy, not -ov 
14. re@apam. and rebepar. are both as Bentley. 
from the 1. m. 26. es tepove., not ev as Birch. 
18. tov before maou is added by 36. Tis nv waé., not Tis pad. as 
1. m. and 2. m. Bentley. 
20. edapev: over the e: is written x. 45. my. Tov ay. not my. ay. as 
o by 1. m., over the a is Bentley. 
written o by 2. m. (not both xi. 3. eondAGev, not -es as Bentley. 
by Tischdf.’s B%). 12. diakpervavta, not -vovra as 
v. 2. guviduins, but e is written Bentley. 
over by 1. m. and 2. m. 13. arnyy., not avnyy. as Bentley. 
21. The codex has mapayevopevov 18. apa kat, not apa ye kot as Mai. 
@ prima manu, not -vov as 24. Tw kupiw is in margin a 2.m. 
Tischdf. (sic). 
25. prima manus has €bec@a. xii. 1. cuuewy, not cm. as Bentley. 
38. 7a is added by 1. m. and 2. m. 11. emecev, not eremecev as Mai. 
vil. 10. 2. m. has céeA., not efiA. as 13. avex@. is 1. m., not avaxé. as 
Bentley and Tischdf. Mai. 
11. yupicroy is in codex. 26. npiv, as in Mai ed. 1, not 
17. nyylev, not -icev as Birch. vuw, as in ed. 2. 
22. Noy. «. epy., not epy. K. Aoy. 29. mayta Ta ‘yeyp., not mavTa 


as Bentley. 


84] 


yeyp. as Bentley. 


§ 1v.] 


CODEX VATICANUS. 


Acts xiii. 39. ev vouw, not Tw vouw as 


xiv. 10. 


12. 
XV Ls 


xvi. 12. 


xvii. 7. 


20. 


34. 


IK 2 
ils} 


29. 
AO. 
xx. 4, 
16. 
23. 
26. 


32. 


56-06 Oy 


5 S30 GE 


4 Tischdf.’s “male M. in utraque ed. repetiit receptam” is altogether wrong. 


Birch. 

the 2nd xa is written over 
by 1. m. 

pev Bapy., not Bapy.as Bentley. 

mep.Ounte is 1. m., but the ad- 
dition is 1. m. also. (Tischdf. 
wrongly assigns it to his B3.) 
KkaketOev evs, as in Mai ed. 1, 
not k. Te evs, as in ed. 24, 

Aeyovtes etvar, not ew. Acy. 
as Bentley. 

OeAe1, not OeAor as Mai ed. 1. 

apeor. is 1, m., -w7. is 2. m. 

ovd,, not ovde as Mai. 

vpas, not wev vuas as Bentley. 
TNS ovyX., not cvyx. as Bent- 
ley. 

ov ov duyno. as Mai ed. 2, 
not ov duvync. as ed. 1. 
Bepotaios, not -poa- as Birch. 

kexper 1. m., kekpiker 2. m. 

Aeyov as Mai ed. 1, not -wy, 
as ed. 2. 

dior: as Mai ed. 2, not do as 
ed. 1. 

TV KAnpovomiay, not KAnp. 
as Muralto. 

avapavaytes is 2.m. So in 
my collation: but Tischdf., 
who has examined this place 
with care, says that B! 
wrote NA; then his B% 
wrote € upon the A, and 
afterwards placed an A over 
the line. So that it would 
now appear as if B! had 
read -evTes. 


. 1. m. repeats edeyay after 


TVEULATOS. 


. (6 ed. Vere.) mposevé., not 


-nvé. as Bentle¥. 


. @\AnAovs Kat, not Kar as 


Bentley. 


. o before mavaos is added by 


mM, 


. tupnocyta is 1. m. as Ru- 


lotta and Vercellone. 
1. m. has mpeoButepevoy: 2. 
m., -piov. 


has not printed the rec. in either edn. 
5 Supplied by the Rev. C. Cure. 
85 | 


28. 
SEIT Ge 


18. 
28. 


35. 


XXV.-2D» 


xxvii. 14. 


28. 


xxvii. 11. 


xiii. 2. 


ats 
xiv. 6. 


[PROLEGOMENA. 


Acts xxii. 24, avera€eo@a1, not -rTat- as 


Bentley. 

1. m. has moAeureiav. 

AaAouytos as Bentley, not 
-noavtos as Mai. This was 
wrongly extracted from my 
notes of B in my last edi- 
tion. 

oot is written over by 1. m. 

Kkatnyayov to avTwy is in 
marg. a 1. m. 

KeAcvoas, NOt KeAEvo'as TE AS 
Bentley. 

in avtov S€ Tov mavAov, mrav- 
Aov has dots over it a 1. m. 

1.m. decidedly wrote evpaxvu- 
ov: 2. m. placed v over the 
a, and A between the « and 
v, and altered the A to A, 
but in so doing, he has left 
the right foot of the A of 1. 
m. visible beyond the corner 
of his own A. 

eupoy opyuLas etkoo1, NOt ev- 
pov etkoot as Bentley. 

adekavipwa has ym written 
over the 1, but not by 1. m. 
as Rulotta, and Mai ed. 1. 


. ereTpamn, not -7er as Birch. 
. xv ww, not w xv as Mai. 

. 2.m. has ouvum., not ouy7. 

- exopevis 1. m.: exowey 2. m. 
. T® vou., Not TL vou. as mis- 


printed in Mai ed. 2. 


. GE amo, not aro. 
. Ta Tov mv. as Mai ed. 1, not 


Tov mv. as ed. 2. 


. tL is added by 1. m. 
. ovyyevoy is in the original 


text, there has been no era- 
sure: the words adeAdwy 
ov Twy are in the margin 
by the 2nd hand)é. 


- TovTeoTY oTt a 1. m. (oTt 


over the line). 

avéecr., not afeor. as mis- 
printed in Mai ed. 2. 

vuas, not nuas as Bentley. 
Kat o e08@., not o ec@. as 
Bentley. 


Mai 


PROLEGOMENA. | 


Rom. xv. 26. moinoac$e 1. and 2.m.: no 


Viste 
1Cor-1. 2: 


vii. 5. 
i7ie 

id. 

vill. 11. 
ze, $} 
xil. 24, 


xiv. 16. 


86] 


correction. 
yeyovay, not -aciv as Mai. 
Ty €kKA., not exkA. as Bent- 
ley. 


- fot is 1.m.: wou 2. m., not 


as Vere. 


. ddakTos, not -Tw. 

. Suvacbe, not cduv. 

. ouvepyo 1. m. 

. 1. m. yuuverr.: 2. m. -ver. 


This was wrongly extracted 
from my notes of B in my 
last edition. 


- eyevvnoa, not -evnj- as Bent- 


ley. 

There is no writing in the 
margin, as asserted by Woide 
from Mico. 

Meuepikey O KupLos, Noto Geos. 
OUTWS TepimaTelTW Kal, not 
omitted, as Bentley. 

© adeAdos, not adeAdos as 
Bentley. 

amTwAA., not amoAA. as Bent- 
ley. 

TL TepiaooTepoy, not TEepioco- 
Tepov as Bentley. 

evAoyns ev mvEevpmaTt, Not ev- 
Aoyns Tw myeupaTtt as Mai. 


APPARATUS CRITICUS. 


1 Cor. xiv. 39. pov is not expunged as Mai, 


but left faint (as 1. m. wrote 
it) by 2. m., with a dot 
over each letter. 


xv. 19. nAmukotes eopev povov, not 


as Bentley. 


2 Cor. i. 4. emt maon tH OAuver, not em 


maon OAuper as Bentley. 


lil. 15. avayewworntar, not -erat, as 


Mai. 


iv. 6. ott Oe0s, not ots o Geos as 


Mai. 


v. 15. ott evs, not ote ex evs as Mai. 
vil. 4. ev Tn Xapa, not Tn Xapa as 


Mai. 


ix. 2. mepvot, not mepiot as Mai. 


It was stated in my former 
table that 2. m. had cor- 
rected it to mepno. But 
this was wrongly copied 
from my MS. notes upon 
the codex, and refers to the 
next item. 


3. vuev is 1. m. 7 is written 


above the line by 2. m. 


x. 12. evxpervas and cvvKpeat,with- 


out any erasures of the e by 
1. m. as stated by Rulotta. 


xii. 1, de ov, with no punctuation 


as in Mai. 


THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES, 


THE EPISTLES TO THE ROMANS AND CORINTHIANS. 





Sse 
CD 


TIPAZELTS AITOSTOAQN. 


\ al 
I. 1 Tov 4 wev > rpdtov °Xoyor 4 érromoauny Trept TavTor, 


a (meV solita- 
rium) Rom. 
vii. 12 reff. 


2 , e a - 
® Ocogpirc, * av !ipEato “Incods Trovety Te Kal SiwddoKeLy v of iwo, Matt. 


28dypu & is ® nuépas " évrecNapevos Tois atroaToNoLs | bua 
v- qTvevpaTos aylov, ods é&edéEaTo, * avehnudpOn. 


xxi. 28, 31 
Heb. viii. 7. 
ix. 6. x..9- 
2 Kings 
xviii. 27. 

c = here only. 


3 ois Kal 


2 Macc. xv. 37. © “ev mpoT. Adyos Hv Nutv, & Oeddore, wept K.T.A. Philo. Q. om. prob. liber, } 1, 


vol. ii. p. 444. See 1 Chron. xxix. 29. 
Smoove ypaupara. Herodian vii. 6. 6. 
16. 2Cor.i.6. 1 John iii. 24. Gen. ii. 3. 
17. Marki.45. Luke xiii. 25. 
xiii. 47. John xiv. 31. 


Zeph. iii. 11. 
see Gen. ii. 3. 

i traject., see ch. xix. 4 al. 
xvi.19. 4 Kings ii. 9. (-Anmes, Luke ix. 51.) 


d= here only. Xen. Cyr.i.6.13. émoinoe 

e attr., Matt. xviii. 19. ver. 22. ch. ii. 22. iii. 25. vii. 
Winer, $ 24. 1. f = Matt. iv. 
g Luke i. 20. xvii. 27. h constr., ch. 
k = vy. 11, 22. Mark 


TITLE: rec ins twy ayiwy bef amoor., with ab d g hk 13 and the subscriptions of 
A?EGH ; tw m p Orig Chr Synop: om B D(-é&s): om arocroAwy also & and the mar- 
gins of B(Tischdf).—pref Aovra 0, AovKa evayyeAtoTou b 13. 40, mpatawocroAos uv bw 
TwY ayiwy amogToOAwy: AovKa Tov evaryyeAtoToU d, a g h.—apxn suv Oew mpakamtooTo- 


Aos f. 


Cap. I. 1. rec ins o bef ina. (the o of nptato was probably mistaken for the ar- 
ticle), with AEN p 13. 36 rel Constt: om BD. 


2. aveAnupén bef evte:tAauevos... 


On the title, see Prolegomena. 1—3. 
INTRODUCTION. | 1. Tov pév tp. A. ] 
The latter member of this sentence, Tavuv 
dé,...is wanting (see Winer, § 63, II. 
2, e), and the author proceeds at once to 
his narration, binding this second history 
to the first by recapitulating and en- 
larging the account given in the conclu- 
sion of the Gospel. adavtwv | What- 
ever latitude may be given to this word, it 
must at all events exclude the notion that 
Luke had at this time seen the Gospels of 
Matt.or Mark, in which many things which 
Jesus did and taught are contained, which 
he had noé related in his tp@tos Adyos. 
On Theophilus, see notes, Luke i. 3. 

@v jnpgato “Inc.| I cannot think #ptaro 
here to be merely pleonastic. Its posi- 
tion here shews that it is emphatic, and 
the parallel cases (see reff.) all point to a 
distinct and appropriate meaning for the 
word. That meaning here seems to be, that 
the Gospel contained the apxas, the out- 
set, of all the doings and teachings of our 
Voz. II. 


eteAcéato D. 
gew To evayyedtov D syr-mg Aug, simly sah. 


at end add rat exeAevoe Knpuc- 


Lord, as distinguished from this second 
treatise, which was to relate their sequel 
and results. Meyer understands it—which 
Jesus first of all men did, &c. But this 
introduces a meaning irrelevant to the 
context, besides not giving the emphasis to 
Hptatro, but to *Incots. The position of 
emphasis given to the verb shews, that the 
beginning of the doing and teaching of 
Jesus must be contrasted with the con- 
tinuance of the same, now about to be 
related. 2. évretd. T. ar. | See Luke 
xxiv. 48 ff., and ver. 4 below. dua. Tv. 
ay. may be joined either with évre- 
Aduevos (as in vulg copt Chr Thl) ; or with 
éteActaro (as in syrr eth Cyr Aug Vig). 
In the former case, our Lord is said to 
have given His commands to the Apostles 
through, or in the power of, the Holy 
Ghost. Similarly He is said, Heb. ix. 14, 
Sia mwvevpatos aiwviou éaurdy mposevey- 
kat Guwpov TG Ged. In the latter, He is 
said to have chosen the Apostles by the 
power of the Holy Ghost. see inch. 


2 


1 = ch. ix. 41. 
Rom. vi. 13, 
16,19. xii. 2. 
2 Cor. xi. 2. 
Gen. xlvii. 2 
(Ald.). 

m abs., Luke 
xxil. 15. 
(xxiv. 46.) 
ch. iil. 18. 


TIPABEIZ ATIOZTOAQN. q; 


lrapéotnoev Eavtov Cavta peta TO ™Trabeivy avTov ” év 
ToANos ° Texpnplors Pde HuepOv TEccEpaKovTa 4 oTTAa- 
vomevos avTois Kal éyov Ta Trept Tis *Bacirelas TOU 
Oeod. *xai Sovvadifopevos avtois ' mapyyyehev amo 
‘Tepocodvpav pu “yopifecOar, addrAa * Trepipévery THY 


Heb. ix. 26 al. 
n = Matt. vi. 7. 


1 Cor. iv. 4. w2 / co \ x o > , Lx 5 ov it ‘ 

° hese enly.t- eTayyéXLav TOU TTATPOS nv NKOVOATE ov, OTL @MayV- 
yisd. v. 11. 
xix. 13. 3 Macc. iii. 24. Xen. Mem.i. 1. 2. p = Heb. ii. 15. (ch. v. 19. xvi. 9. xvii. a q here 
only. 3 Kings viii. 8. Tobit xii. 19 only. r Luke ix. 11. ch. viii. 12. xix. 8. shere only+. (Ps. 
exl. 5 alius in Hexapl.) Herod. i. 62. Xen. Anab. vii. 3. 48. ouvavaAcc., Prov. xxii. 24. t = Luke 
viii. 56. ch. iv. 18. v. 28,40. 1 Kings xxiii. 8. u = ch. xviii. 1,2. 1 Chron. xii. 8. vy here 
only. Gen. xlix. 18. Wisd. viii. 12 only. w = Luke xxiv. 49. ch. ii. 33. Gal. iii. 14, 22. Eph. iii.6. Heb. 


iv. let passim. Amos ix. 6. 


x constr., Matt. vii. 24,26. 7ade pov akovgor, Lucian Dial. Deor. 
xx.13. Winer, $ 30.7. 


8. reac. bef nuep., omg dia, D(d: is written over the line by D-corr!). _ 
pevots D}. tas Dt. 

4. cuvadioxouevos D': cuvadioyouevos D8: cuvavaCouevos b? ¢ d! e m 36}. 40, the 
Greek fathers are confused between this reading and txt (see Tischdf): convescens vulg 
E-lat? Jer Bede: convivens D-lat. aft ouvad. ins wet avtay D. rec mapnyy. bef 
autos, with B D(see above) & re] 36 vulg copt Phot Gc Thl Hil Aug: txt ACE Chr. 
—mapnyyedAev E-gr b d. nv nrovaoa (-cate D3) pnow 61a tov cTomatos wou D 
vulg «th Hil Aug Jer; am D-lat om gnow; and in D-gr pow dia Tov otouaros are 


OTT aVvo-~ 


marked for erasure by a later hand. 


xx. 28, Paul tells the Ephesian elders, that 
the Holy Ghost had made them overseers in 
the Church of God. The former construc- 
tion however appears much the best, as ex- 
pressing not, as might at first seem, a mere 
common-place, but the propriety of the 
fact, —that His last commands were given 
in the power of (see John xx. 22) the 
Holy Ghost. To take Sia my. ay. with 
averAhupén (see Olsh. i. 629) seems to me 
inm2missible ; as also is Dr. Burton’s ren- 
dering, “having told His Apostles that 
His commands would be more fully made 
known to them by the Holy Ghost.” 

avednpo. | avepépeTo eis TOV 
ovp., Luke xxiv. 51. The use of the verb 
in this abbreviated form, without the eis 
rT. ovp., testifies to the familiarity of the 
apostolic church with the Ascension as a 
formal and recognized event in our Lord’s 
course. 3. év mw. Texp.] See Luke 
xxiv. 31, 39,48. The ev isin its significa- 
tion of investiture, in which it introduces 
the element or condition in which, and thus 
the means by which, an agent operates. 

émrtavépevos|] ov yap &smep mpd 
THs avactdoews &s ael pet? avTay Fv, 
oltw Kal TéTe ov yap elme TeTOEpaKovTA 
Hpépas, GAAG BL Apep@v TeroepakovTa 
éploraro yap Kal aplorato mddw, Chry- 
sostom. This is the only place where the 
interval between the Resurrection and the 
Ascension is specified. 7a. Trep. T. B. 
+. 0.| 7a, in the widest sense ; not pjuara 
merely :—the matters. The article has 
been taken to imply (and so in some of my 
earlier editions), that during this period 
they received from our Lord the whole 
substance of the doctrine of ‘the Kingdom 


of God.’ But this remark seems to lose its 
propriety owing to the present participle 
Aéywyv. Both the participles, érravéuevos 
and A€éywy, carry with them a ratiocinative 
force, in dependence on texunplois: “proofs, 
consisting in this, that He” &e. And 
thus the art. ta gives the sentence the 
meaning, “and inasmuch as the things 
which he said were those pertaining to 
the Kingdom of God ;” thus serving only 
to define Aeydueva. 

4—14.] Tur LAST DISCOURSES AND 
ASCENSION OF THE LorD. RETURN OF 
THE APOSTLES TO JERUSALEM; RECA- 
PITULATION OF THEIR NAMES. 4, 
ovvadil.| not middle, ‘ assembling them,’ 
as Caly. (congregans eos), Grot., Olsh., 
and others, whichis without example ; but 
passive, = osvvadiobets, Hesych., as E. V. 
Chrys., the Vulg., &c., interpret it ‘ eating 
and drinking ;’ so EK. V. marg., Thi., Gc., 
&e., Kowwvey addy, mistaking the ety- 
mology. The conjecture of Hemsterhuis, 
cvvadtCouevots (which however is found 
in Didymus), is quite unnecessary. 
amd ‘Iep. pm xwp.| See Luke xxiv. 49. 
‘Simul manere jussi sunt, quoniam uno 
omnes Spiritu donandi erant. Si fuis- 
sent dispersi, unitas minus cognita fuisset.’ 
Calvin. mepip.| to await, i.e. wait 
till the completion of: the zep: implies 
this. The ancient idea mentioned by 
Wordsw. that our Lord commanded the 
Apostles to remain at Jerusalem for twelve 
years after the Ascension, is sufficiently 
refuted by His own words here, and by 
the subsequent history: ef. ch. viii. &e. 
That, in the main, they confined them- 


selves to circuits in Palestine for some 


ABCD 
Ex ab 
dfgh 
mop! 


4—7, 


TIIPAZEIS ATIOSTOAQN. 3 


\ ’ / - a \ / see 
mys pev éBarricev boars, tpels de ¥ ev mvevpate ¥ Barr Ni i, 


al / al e / > \ x Z / ¢€ / 
tTiaGnaecGe ayiw ov peTa TrOANAaS * TaUTAaS NMEpas. 
\ 5 a Qo b > / > \ / 4 
fev ody *avvedOovtes » jpwTwv avTov eyovTes Kupte, 
c > > fal d / 4 e > s \ / 
€l EV TO “YX pOV@ TOVTW aToxatiotraves THY Bacthelav 
n I ~ < Fi s oe X > \ O > £u¢ a ? 32 
To Tpana;,; ELTTEV € Wpos AvTOVS LUX ~UL@VY EGOTLY *-. 


6 7f i. 33. 
OU z constr., here 
only. see 
note, and 
Exod. li. 23. 
a = ch. ii. 6. 
y. 16. x. 27. 
xvi. 13. xix. 
1 Cor. xi. 


17 al. Ezek. 


- eee ; s 
yvavat ® ypovous %) ® Karpods ods 0 matip | EBeTo iev TH y Metis 2 


c = Matt. xii. 10. ch. vii. 1. xix. 2. xxi. 37 al. 
iii, 5 |j. viii. 25. ix. 12 || Mt. 
iii. 2. see Matt. xx. 23. 


1. see ch. xiy. 17. i=ch.v. 4. 


3 Kings i. 27 
Heb. xiii. 19 only. 

g 1 Thess. v. 1: 
Hag. ii. 19, see Luke ix. 44. xxi. 14. ch. v. 4. xix. 21. 


Xxxiili. 30. 
al. fr. 
d = Matt. ii. 7 al. e Mark 
Ley. xiii. 16. pres., Matt. xi. 3. f gen., 2 Thess. 
Dan. ii. 21. h = Matt. xvi. 3. 2 Tim. iil. 


5. rec Bawric9. bef ev mvevu., with ACEN? 13. 36 rel Orig Gc Thl Ambr Rebapt 
Gaud: mv. ay. Bart. D Did Hil Victorin Aug: txt BX! p.—add ra: o weAAeTe AapBavew 


D!(and lat) tol Hil Aug. 
Aug. 

6. for cuved8., ceABovTes KN}. 
13: txt ABC! Chr-comm. 


aft nucpas add ews tTns mevtnkooTys D}(and lat) sah 


rec emnpwrwy, with C2DE rel 36 Me, -tovy C, -rov d 
amokatactaves es THY B. Tov top. D: om es D8(and 


lat) ; for rov, tw D§(appy): Aug has sometimes representaberis? et quando regnum 
Israel? sometimes presentabis regnum Israel. 


7. e:mev, omg Se, B! Syr sah: evrey ovy B-corr: o Se ermevy C Aug: 
de amwoxpiders ecm. EH eth: txt AN rel vulg syr copt Thl. 


vulg coptt. 


years, appears to be true ; but surely would 
no}; be in compliance with such a command. 
7. éwayy. T. watpés | See note on 
Luke xxiv. 49. 5.| The Lord cites 
these words from the mouth of John him- 
self, reff. Matt.;—and thus announces to 
them that, as John’s mission was accom- 
plished in baptizing with water, so now 
the great end of His own mission, the 
Baptism with the Holy Ghost, was on 
the point of being accomplished. Calvin 
remarks, that He speaks of the Pentecostal 
effusion as being the Baptism with the 
Holy Ghost, because it was a great repre- 
sentation on the whole Church of the sub- 
sequent continued work of regeneration on 
individuals: ‘Quasi totius Ecclesize com- 
munis baptismus.? I may add, also be- 
cause it was the beginning of a new period 
of spiritual influence, totally unlike any 
which had preceded. See ch. ii. 17. 
#dart and év my. ay. are slightly distin- 
guished. ‘The insertion of the preposition 
bef. mv. ay. seems to give a dignity which 
the mere instrumental dative, #5a71, wants. 
Tavtas serves to bind on the ov 
TOAA. 74. to the day then current; as we 
say, ‘one of these days.’ See Winer, 
§ 23. 5, who instances ‘ante hos quinque 
dies’ in Lat., and quotes mpd moAA@v 
Tavs jucpay, from Heliod. ii. 22. 97. 
‘Numerus dierum non definitus exercebat 
fidem discipulorum,’ Bengel. 6.] This 
suveA@dvtes does not belong to another 
assembling, different from the former ; 
but takes up again the cuvadr(duevos of 
ver. 4. Olsh. has mistaken the sense of 
the pév ody, which refers, not to another 


kat exrey D, o 
for mp. avtous, avtois E 


incident, but to other actors ; they, as dis- 
tinguished from Him who had been speak- 
ing. Kupte, et... |] The stress of 
this question is in the words, prefixed for 
emphasis, é€v T@ ypdv@ TovTw. That the 
Kingdom was, 7 some sense, and at some 
time, to be restored to Israel, was plain ; 
nor does the Lord deny this implication 
(see on ver. 8). Their fault was, a too 
curious enquiry on a point reserved among 
the arcana of God. Lightfoot’s idea, that 
the disciples wondered at the Kingdom 
being about to be restored to the ungrate- 
ful Jews, at this time, now that they had 
crucified Him, &¢., would make our Lord’s 
answer irrelevant. See Micah iv. 8, 
LXX. Meyer would refer é€v 7G xp. 
tov. to the interval designated by od wera 
TOAA. Tav. Hu., ‘during this time. But 
this does not seem natural: I should rather 
understand it, at this present period,— 
now. The pres. amoKxaftotavets, is that 
so often used in speaking with reference 
to matters of prophecy, importing fixed 
determination: as in 6 épxduevos (ref. 
Mt.) and the like. So that we must not 
render, “Art thou restoring ?” but “‘w2l¢” 
or ‘‘dost thou restore?” As to the word 
itself, kabiotdyw (= ornpt) is to establish 
or set up, and a7é gives the sense of com- 
pleteness, or the cognate one of entire 
restitution. See Wordsw.’s note. 

7.| This is a general reproof and asser- 
tion, spoken with reference to men, as for- 
bidden to search curiously into a point 
which Omniscience has reserved—the 
times and seasons of the future divine 
dealings. But it is remarkable that not 


B 2 


4 TIPABEIS ATIOZTTOAQN. 3 
‘piu, lola eEovcias § adra AnprpedOe * Suva | éreNOovTos TOD 
Ps. Ixvii. 35. cea , 399 ‘en a” bé m , ” 
ILukei.%.  @ylou mvevpatos eb vas, Kai EcecE ou ™ wapTtupes Ev 
Ings Xl. /. 

ma Lukexv re “lepovaadn Kat [ev] aon lovdaia cal Lapapela ral 
passim. 1Pet. " Gag 2° grydh ns ™yhs. Kal Tadta eirw@v PreTOVTMY 
passim. 1Pet. " €ws ™ €ayatou Ths ys. % Kat TadTa elroy 


xliii. 10. 
n ch. xiii. 47 
only, from Isa. xlix. 6. 
50. John xiii. 18 al. met.,2Cor.x.5. Prov. iii. 5. 
r = Luke xxiv. 31. 


© constr., see Heb. i. 2. 


rn > \ rn 
avuTov ? épOn, Kal vebédrn YbrédaBev adtov ‘ato TOV 


p Luke xxiv. 


1 Pet. i. 20. Jude 18. x 
Ps. xxix. 1. 


q = here (ch. ii. 15 reff.) only. 


8. rec wou (corr to the common constr ececbe wor), with E rel 36 Orig, Epiph Chr 


Thl: txt ABCDN Orig,. 


9. exmovtwy X! m. 


amo (ins twy D*) of. aut. D, simly sah Augaig ; et hee D-lat. 


tovtTwy B. 


eds, but 6 rar2}y, is here used; and this 
cannot fail to remind us of that saying 
(Mark xiii. 32), wep) 5¢ ris jucpas exelvys 
}) THs Spas ovdels oldev, ovde Byyedos ev 
ovpaya, ovbdé 6 vids, eb py 6 wathp. It 
may be observed however, that the same 
assertion 7s not made here : only the times 
and seasons said to be in the power of the 
Almighty Father, Who ordereth all things 
Kata thy BovAhy tov OeAnuaros aiTod. 
The Knowledge of the Son is not here in 
question, only that of the disciples. Itis 
an enquiry intimately connected with the 
interpretation of the two passages, but 
one beyond our power to resolve, how far, 
among the things not yet put under His 
feet, may be this very thing, the knowledge 
of that day and hour. _ Bengel attempts 
to evade the generality of the obx tua 
€oTw :—‘ que apostolorum nondum erat 
nosse, per Apocalypsin postea sunt signifi- 
cata.’ But signified 4o whom? What in- 
dividual, or portion of the Church, has ever 
read plainly these xpdévovs 4} katpods in 
that mysterious book? There is truth in 
Olsh.’s remark, that the Apostles were to be 
less prophets of the future, than witnesses 
of the past ; but we must not so limit the 
buav, nor forget that the yyavar xpdvous 
7) kaip. has very seldom been imparted by 
prophecy, which generally has formed a 
testimony to this very fact, that God has 
them in His foreknowledge, and, while He 
announces the events, conceals for the most 
part in obscurity the times. xp. F 
katp.| not synonymous; as Meyer ob- 
serves, kaipds is always a definite limited 
space of time, and involves the idea of 
transitoriness. See also Tittmann, N. T. 
Synonymes, pp. 39—45. 0. év TH id. 
é€.] Some (De Wette, al.) render ‘hath 
appointed by His own power ;’ I should 
rather take év ég. as in ch. vy. 4, in His 
own power, and understand by ero kept, 
‘(hath) placed,’ as E. V. But the aor. 
sense should be preserved: the period 
referred to being that of the arrangement 


om ev AC'D ah p 40 coptt Orig, Hil: ins BC’EX rel 
36 vulg syrr Orig, Sevrn-e Chr Did-int Thl. 


KavTa@ ELTovTOs avTov vepeAn uTEBaAdey avToy Kat amnpOn 


autwy bef BAe- 


of the divine counsels of Redemption. 
8.] ‘Quod optimum frenandz cu- 
riositati remedium erat, Christus eos revo- 
cat tam ad Dei promissionem, quam ad 
mandatum. Calvin. a\Xa, ‘antithe- 
ton inter id quod discipulorum erat, vel 
non erat ; tum inter id quod illo tempore 
futurum erat, et inter id quod in ulteriora 
reservatum erat.’ Bengel. Svvapuyv, 
that power, especially, spoken of ch. iv. 33, 
connected with their office of witnessing to 
the resurrection; but also all other spiritual 
power. See Luke xxiv. 49. wou, not 
emphatic, as Wordsw. here and often else- 
where: see note on Matt. xvi. 18. The 
emphasis would be extremely out of place 
here: it was not their subordination to 
Him, but their office as witnesses, which 
was the contrast to their ambitious as- 
pirings. paptupes| This was the 
peculiar work of the Apostles. See on 
vy. 21, 22, and Prolegg. Vol. I. ch. i. § 3.5. 
a at (Oat | By the exten- 

sion of their testimony, from Jerusalem to 
Samaria, and then indefinitely over the 
world, He reproves, by implication, their 
carnal anticipation of the restoration of the 
Kingdom to Zsrae/ thus understood. The 
Kingdom was to be one founded on pap- 
tupla, and therefore reigning in the con- 
victions of men’s hearts ; and not confined 
to Judza, but coextensive with the world. 
They understood this command only 

of Jews scattered through the world, see ch. 
xi. 19. De Wette observes, that these 
words contain the whole plan of the Acts : 
AnuwWecOe Sivauw x.7.A., ch. ii. 1—end; 
ev ‘IepovoaAny, ch. iii. l—vi. 7; then the 
martyrdom of Stephen dispersed them 
through Judea, vi. 8—viii. 3; they preach 
in Samaria, viii. 4—40; and, from that 
point, the conversion of the Apostle of the 
Gentiles, the vision of Peter, the preaching 
and journeys of Paul. In their former 
mission, Matt. x. 5, 6, they had been ex- 
pressly forbidden from preaching either to 
Samaritans or Gentiles. 9.| This ap- 


ABC! 
Exal 
dfgt 
mop 


8—12. 


IIPASEI> AIOZTOAON. 5 


lal lol . ‘ ? \ > 
opbarpav avtav. 0 Kat ws SateviGovTes oay Els TOV sw. cis, ch. 
iii. 4. vi. 15. 


> \ t , > - vu \ iS \ 5 on Vv 
ovpavoy ‘opevoyevou avTov, “Kal ov avopes Ovo ‘ Tap- 
a a \ tg 
etoTHKeLcav avtois év * éoOnoeow * Nevcatls, |! ot Kai eirrav 


vii. 55, xi. 6. 
xiii. 9. 2 Cor. 
ili. 7, 13. 

w. dat., ch. 
iii. 12 reff. 


vv al / , f > \ - = - Hy 
Avépes Taninaior, th éotyjxate ¥ éuBAerovtes els Tov Ps EE 


© 3 nr > \ > ’ e lal 
ovpavov; ovtos 6 “Inaods 6 * avadypplels ad ved eis 
\ ¢ a / ’ , 
Tov ovpavoy ovTws édevceTaL *Ov TpoTov eOeacacbe 
\ \ , ¢ Ld e / 
avtov ” cropevopevor eis TOV» ovpavov. |* ToTE © UTésTpEYrav 


esp. John 
XVie 7 

u red., Luke ii. 
21. vii. 12 
(ch. x. 17]. 

v ver. 3 reff. 
ch. xxvii. 23. 

w here (Luke 


xxiv. 4 rec.) only. 2 Mace. iii. 33 only. x = Matt. xvii. 2 ||. John xx.12. Eccl. ix.8. 2 Macc. 
xi. 8. y w. €ls, Matt. vi. 26. Isa. li. 1, 2. z = ver. 2 reff. a Matt. xxiii. 
37 ||. ch. vii. 28. 2 Tim. iii. 8 only. Gen. xxvi. 29. see ch. xv. 11. b 1 Pet. iii. 22. 


¢ ch. viii. 25 reff. 


10. rec cont: AevKn, with C3DE rel 36 syr Orig-int Chr Cosm Thl Aug: txt ABC! 


p vulg Syr coptt arm (Eus). 
11. [e:rayv, so ABC!DX p. | 


Bderovtes BEN! dg k o p13 Kus Thart, Thl-sif: 


Chr-mss vary: txt ACDN% rel 36(sic) Thdrt, Thl-fin, aspicientes vulg E-lat Augatiq, 
om 2nd es Tov ovp. D 331-4, 105 tol Aug, Vig Avit. 


pears (see Prolegg. Vol. I. ch. iv. § 4. 2) to 
be an account of the Ascension given to 
Luke subsequently to the publication of his 
Gospel, more particular in detail than that 
found in it. He has not repeated here 
details found there; see Luke xxiv, 50—52. 
On the Ascension in general, see note on 
Luke, le. émyp0y | “was taken 
up,—we may understand of the com- 
mencingascent ,.. . bwéAaBev by a pregn. 
constr. involves the idea of away as wellas 
up, and hence takes after it amé. This 
verb describes the close of the scene, as 
far as it was visible to the spectators.” 
Hackett. vepedAn | There was a 
manifest propriety in the last withdrawal 
of the Lord, while ascending, not consist- 
ing in a disappearance of His Body, as on 
former occasions since the Resurrection ; 
for thus might His abiding Humanity have 
been called in question. As it was, He went 
up, past the visible boundary of Heaven, the 
cloud,—in human form, and so we think 
of and pray to Him, 10. arevil. Aoayv | 
they were gazing, stood gazing. eis 
T. ovp. belongs to arevi¢., not to mopevon., 
see reff. mopevopevov, not mopev- 
0évros: implying that the cloud remained 
visible for some time, probably ascending 
_ with Him. mapevoTyKeroay, imperf. 
in sense, as the perf. is present: were 
standing by them. avdpes | evi- 
dently angels. See Luke xxiv. 4; John 
aKa 2 11. ot kai etrray| who (not 
only appeared but) also said. There is a 
propriety in the address, &vdp. TaAtAator. 
It served to remind them of their origin, 
their call to be His disciples, and the duty 
of obedience to Him resting on them in 
consequence. év tpé7rov | in the same 
manner as;—to be taken in all cases 
literally, not as implying mere certainty : 


see reff. oUTwS, i.e. ev vedéAn, 
Luke xxi. 27. His corporeal identity is 
implied in ottos 6 "Inaois. ehev- 
oetat| ‘Nonii, quiascendentem viderunt, 
dicuntur venturum visuri. Inter ascen- 
sionem et inter adventum gloriosum nullus 
interponitur eventus eorum utrique par: 
ideo hi duo conjunguntur. Merito igitur 
Apostoli ante datam Apocalypsin diem 
Christi ut valde propinquum proposuerunt. 
Et congruit majestati Christi, ut toto inter 
ascensionem et inter adventum tempore 
sine intermissione expectetur.’ Bengel. 

12.] In so careful a writer (see Luke i. 3) 
there must be some reason why this minute 
specification of distance should be here in- 
serted, when no such appears in the Gospel. 
And I believe this will be found, by com- 
bining the hint dropped by Chrysostom,— 
doxer 5€ wor Kal caBBatw vyeyoveva 
TavTa ov yap wy otTw 7d didoTHUa 
eOnAwoev..... el My wpicmevoy Tt miKos 
eBadiGoy ev TH Nuepa tod caBBarov, — 
with the declaration in the Gospel (xxiv. 
50) that he led them out as far as to 
Bethany. This latter was (John xi. 18) 
jifteen stadia from Jerusalem, which is 
more than twice the Sabbath-day’s journey 
(2000 cubits = about six furlongs). Now 
if the Ascension happened on the Sabbath, 
it is very possible that offence may have 
arisen at the statement in the Gospel: and 
that therefore the Evangelist gives here the 
more exact notice, that the spot, although 
forming part of the district of Bethany, 
was yet on that part of the Mount of 
Olives which fell within the limits of the 
Sabbath-day’s journey. This of course 
must be a mere conjecture; but it will not 
be impugned by the fact of the Ascension 
being kept by the Church in after ages on 
a Thursday. This formed no hindrance to 


6 TPASEIZ ATOSTOAON. 


d Luke xix. 29. 


i. 


, € \ > \ ” n / d 2. lal Ld 
eis “lepovcadXnw aro Gpous Tov KaXovpévou * éXaL@vos, 6 


xxi. 37 only. 

os vii. € LB 

2" ear eyyus ‘lepovoadiju, caBBartov ° éxov ‘ odov. 1 Kai 
tm AyD i ~ lal / i 

thaw, OTE £ ElgHAOOY, Eis TO UTrEp@ov avéBnoay ov ' Foav * KaTa- 
Luke xix. 37 


al. 

see John viii. 

57. ix. 21, 23. 

f = Luke iu. 44. 
3 Kings xix. 
1 


° 


g=ch.ix.6. p = in 
Matt. viii. 5 
Matt: vii "Tovdas “laxaBov. 
here only. 
ch. ix. 37, 39. 
xx. 8 only. 


t— 


pévovtes, & Te Ilétpos nai “Iwavyns kat “ldxwBos Kat 
*Avdpéas, Pidutrros Kat Owpas, BapOoropaios cai Maé- 
Oaios, “laxwBos ’AXpatov kat Livwv 6 &prwTHs, Kal 
Moto. mavtes ‘joav | mposKapte- 
povvTes ™ owoOvpuacov th “mposevyn adv yuvakiv Kal 


: exe , nr \ a? fo) \ lal > lal ’ la) 
2 Kings xviii. 
2 Kings xviii: Mapia th untpt tov ‘Inoov Kai Tots adedgois avTov. 


xli. 7. i constr., ch. ii. 5 reff. 
xii. 12. xiii. 6. Col. iv. 2 (Mark iii. 9) only. 
xv. 6 only. L. P. Num. xxiy. 24 al. 


13. e:snAdey D-gr. 


k here only. 
Num. xiii. 21 only. 
n abs., Matt. xxi. 13 


Num. xx. 1 al. l= 
Sus. 6 Theod. 
» from Isa. lvi. 7. 


ch. vi. 4 al4. 
m ch. ii. 46 al8. 
Ps. iv. 2 al. 


Rom. 
Rom. 


rec aveBnoay bef ets 7. ur. (corrn to avoid the ambiguity of 


eisnA@. ets To u7.), With DEN? rel 36 tol syrr coptt: om ave8. X!: txt ABC" p vulg 


Orig Chr Thl-fin-comm Bede-gr. 


rec transp wav. and tax., with (E) rel 36 syr: 


txt ABCDN p vulg Syr Aug.—k. avdp. bef «. wav. E Bede-gr: petr. et joh. et andr. et 


jac. Bede-lat. om 38rd ka D. 
om o [bef (yAwtns] X?. 


ins o Tov bef aAgaov D a. 


om 7th ka D. 


14. & has ouobvpyadoy both before and after mposkapr., X3 disapproving the 2nd. 
rec (aft mposevxn) ins kat Tn Senoer (Phil iv. 6), with C* rel 36 (Orig); kar denoes, 


omg 77, m: 
Aug Jer Bede. ins tats bef yur. D!. 
BE p 40 sah: txt ACD® rel 36. 


om Ty D}(ins D2). 


om ABC!DEX p Hr vulg syrr coptt «th arm Chr, Thl-fin-comm Cypr 


aft yuv. ins kat Texvots D. 
om tov B. 


Maplap, 


rec ins suv bef trois a5. avr. (corrn, to avoid connecting the brethren of our Lord with 
His mother), with BC%E rel syrr Chr: om AC!DX vulg coptt ath arm Cypr Aug. 


Chrysostom in making the above suppo- 
sition: although the festival was certainly 
observed in his time (see Bingham, Orig. 
Eccl. xx. 6.5. There is no mention of it 
in the Fathers of the first three centuries). 
Forty days from the Resurrection is an ex- 
pression which would suit as well the Satur- 
day of the seventh week as the Thursday. 

The distance of the Mount of Olives 
from Jerusalem is stated by Josephus at 
five stadia, Antt. xx. 8. 6,—at six stadia, 
B. J. v. 2. 3; different points being taken 
as the limit. The present church of the 
Ascension rather exceeds the distance of six 
stadia from the city. The use of eAady, 
-@vos, here (and in reff.) by Luke only is 
remarkable, especially as the whole passage 
is so much in his own distinctive style as to 
preclude the idea of his having transferred 
a written document. éxov is not for 
améexov, but as in Tpidk. Kk. OKT. ETN Exwr, 
John y. 5, and in reff. ; the space or time 
mentioned being regarded as an attribute 
of the subject. 18. eisHAO.] ‘into 
the city ;’ see reff. To Umep@.| The 
idea that this was a chamber in the Temple 
has originated in low literal-harmonistic 
views, Luke having stated (Luke xxiv. 53) 
that they were 5:4 mavrbs év T@ iepa. As 
if such an expression could be literally un- 
derstood, or taken to mean more than that 
they were there at all appointed times (see 
ch. iii. 1). It is in the highest degree im- 


probable that the disciples would be found 
assembled in any public place at this time. 
The upper chamber was perhaps that in 
which the last Supper had been taken; pro- 
bably that in which they had been since 
then assembled (John xx. 19, 26), but cer- 
tainly one in a private house. Lightf. 
shews that it was the practice of the Jews 
to retire into a large chamber under the flat 
roof for purposes of deliberation or prayer. 
See Neander, Pfl. u. Leit., p. 18, note. 
Epiphanius, de ponderibus, ec. 14 (vol. iii. p. 
170), relates that when Hadrian came to 
Jerusalem, eipe thy réAw racay Hda¢iope- 
vnv kal Td iepdy Tov Ocod kaTameTaTnMEVoY, 
TapekTos GAlywy oiknudtwy Kal THs TOU 
Oeod exkAnalas puixpas ovons, evOa smo- 
oTpéevavtes of uabnral, bre 6 owrhp ay- 
eAnPOn ard Tod "EAat@vos, avéBnoay eis 
7) bmepgov. eet yap @koddunto, TovT- 
éoTw ey TH méper Sidv' jjtis amd Tis 
épnuwaews mepteAnpon, .... €ws xpdvou 
Matiuov Tod éemickdmov Kal Kwvoravtivou 
Tov Bacthéws, &s oKnvy ev Gumedou, 
Kata 7d yeypaumevov. And Nicephorus 
viii. 30 (see Wordsw.) says that the Em- 
press Helena enclosed in her larger church 
the chamber where took place 4 Tod 
wyiov mvetmatos Kdbodus ev Ta brEepew. 

ov Foav kat.| not to be taken as 
in E. V. ‘where abode both Peter, &c.; 
which gives the idea that Peter, &c. were 
already in the chamber, and the rest joined 


ABCD 
EN ab 
dfgh 
Imoy 

13 


13—16. 


IIPABEIS ATOZTOAON. 7 


1b Kat °év rats jyépats tavtais Pavaotas Ilérpos év ° tixei3o. 


vi. 12 al. 


lA an a 
Héow I rdv Vadehpav elrev (Hv TE dxXos § ovopaTen * ETL P= ch. xv.7 
TO avTo * ws ExaTov elxoat) 15°” Avdpes aderdol, Yedee VAH- 9 eg 


07 \ x \ Us a y fal Noy, a rs 
po@nvar tiv *ypadnv [tavrnv] iv Y wpoeirev To * TVEdLA s = Rev. iti. 4. 


xxvi. 53. 

u ch, vii. 2 al. fr. 
10, Luke iv. 21. 
Rom. ix. 29 al. 


v =ch. iv. 12 reff. 
John xix. 24. 


15. for rat ev, ev Se DE sah syr-mg Aug). 


2 Tim. iii. 16. J 
z Heb. iii. 7. ix. 8. x. 15. see 2 Pet. i. 21. 


r ch. vi. 7 reff. 
xi. 13. Num. 
t ch. ii. 1, 44, 47 (iii. 1). iv. 26 (from Ps. ii. 3). 1 Cor. xi. 20. Ps. xxxvi. 38. 
w = ch. iii. 18 reff. x = Mark xii. 


y Gal. v.21. 1 Thess. iy. 6 only+. 7poetp., 


ins o bef erp. D. epueow ACK. 


rec for adcAdav, wabntwy (corrn, to avoid the triple recurrence of adedr. in vv. 
14,15,16. Meyer and De W. take a8. to have been a corrn to suit avdp. adedpor in 
ver. 16, but the other is much more prob), with C3DE rel 36 syrr Chr Thl Cypr Aug, : 


txt ABC!8 13 vulg coptt eth arm Aug. 


copt Cypr Aug: yap preterea D': om sah eth. 
for ovowatwr, avipwy E: hominum vulg(not fuld) Syr eth Aug. 


Thl-fin: ws BDE rel. 


for te, 5¢ CD? vulg D7-lat E-lat syrr 
ins o bef oxAos D. 


*@sel ACN 40 


rec erxoowv, with rel: txt ABCEN fm p 13. 36: px’ D. 


16. Se. D (txt D-corr!) vulg Iren-int(principal-mss: given nominatim by Stieren) 


Aug Vig Gild. (Iren-int has oportebat apud Harvey.) 


them there :—but, on entering the city, 
they went up into the upper chamber, 
where they (usually) sojourned (not 
‘dwelt they did not all dwell in one 
house; see John xix. 27, note), namely, 
Peter, &c. On the catalogue of the 
Apostles, see Matt. x. 2, note. 14.] 
ovv yuvatéiv has been rendered ‘with their 
wives, to which sense Bp. Middleton in- 
clines, justifying it by oby yuvatly kal 
rTéxvots, ch. xxi. 5. But the omission of 
the articles there may be accounted for on 
the same principle as in Matt. xix. 29, viz. 
that which Bp. M. calls enumeration, ch. 
vi.§2. Here I think we must take ody yur. 
not as meaning ‘ with women,’ as Hackett, 
but, the art. not being expressed after the 
preposition cvy, as = aby tais yur. (see 
Middl. ch. vi. § 1), and interpret yuv., 
the women, viz. those spoken of by Luke 
himself, Luke viii. 2, 3,—where, besides 
those named, he mentions €repa: moAAatl. 
Many of these were certainly not wives of 
the Apostles ; and that those women who 
were ‘ last at the Cross and earliest at the 
tomb’ should not have been assembled 
with the company now, is very improbable. 

kat Mapia| The kai gives emi- 
nence to one among those previously men- 
tioned. So r&vd_e efvera, kal yas iwépy, 
Herod. i. '73. See Hartung, Partikellehre, 
i. 145. This is the last mention of her 
in the N. T. The traditions, which describe 
her as (1) dying at the age of fifty-nine, in 
the fifth year of Claudius (Niceph. H. E. 
ii. 21), or (2) accompanying John to Ephe- 
sus, and being buried there (see Winer, 
Realwérterb. art. Maria), are untrustwor- 
thy. Other accounts, with the authorities, 
may be seen in Butler’s Lives of the 
Saints, Aug. 15. The fable of the As- 
sumption has no foundation even in tradi- 


om tavtqv ABC! p Ht vulg 


tion. Tois added. avt.| This clearly 
shews, as does John vii. 5 compared with 
vi. 69, 70, that none of the brethren of our 
Lord were of the number of the Twelve. 
When they were converted, is quite uncer- 
tain. See the whole subject discussed in 
note on Matt. xiii. 55, and in the Prolego- 
mena to the Epistle of James. In both cases 
of one being distinguished from a num- 
ber, cited here by Wordsw. to shew that 
James the Less may have been one of these 
brethren, viz. that of -Mapia, as distin- 
guished among the women here, and that of 
Joseph, ch. vii. 9, he does not observe that 
the general statement precedes the indiyi- 
dual distinction, as indeedit naturally must. 
15—26.] Exrcrion or a TWELFTH 
APOSTLE TO FILL THE ROOM OF JUDAS 
Iscariot. 15. év tT. 7p. t.] In the 
days between the Ascension and Pentecost; 
during which it appears that the number of 
the assembly had increased, not probably 
by fresh conversions, but by the gathering 
round the Apostles of those who had pre- 
viously been disciples. jv te] The 
very frequent use of te is a peculiarity of 
the Acts, and should have its weight in de- 
termining the reading, even where, as here, 
dé seems more appropriate. It occurs in 
the Gospel 5 times: in the Acts, 121. 
évopdtwv | See note on Rev. iii. 4. 
éxatov etkoot| De Wette asks, ‘where 
were the 500 brethren of 1 Cor. xv. 6?’ 
We surely may answer, ‘not in Jeru- 
salem.’ See Neander, Pfl. u. Leit., p. 72, 
note. 16.] We may enquire, by what 
change in mind and power Peter was able, 
before the descent of the Spirit, thus 
authoritatively to speak of Scripture and 
the divine purposes? The answer will be 
found in the peculiar gift of the Spirit to 
the Apostles, John xx. 21, 23; where see 


8 TIPAZEIS ATOZLTOAON. si 


a = Luke i. 70. 


TO * aytov dLa * otopatos Aaveld rept lovda tod yevouévou 


ch. iii. 18, 21. 

iv. 25. xv. 7. € a a rn , a « 

2Chron.  POONnYOD Tois “ovAAABovaw “Inoodv, 17 Ore 4 KaTnpLOun- 
xxxvi. 21, 22. i - es 
bMatt-xv.14. wévos © Av év nuiv Kat !éXNayey Tov & KAHpoV Tis » dia- 
Rom. ii. 19 / 4 18 a \ s [3 , k UG 1 
only, Exra KOVLAS TAUTNS. ovTos pev odv ‘éxtHnoaTo * ywpiov | éx 
viil. 1 only. 


~ fal fol ’ / \ \ / / 

1 Mace.iv-2 ™ ny Gop THs ”° aduxlas, Kal P Tpnvns 4 yevomevos * EXaKNTEV 

Gen. 1.3. 2 Chron. xxxi. 19. 

(1 Kings xiv. 47. Wisd. 

ich. xxii. 28 reff. 
m = Rom. 

1 Kings iii. 13, 14. 


al. 
c = Matt. xxvi. 55 ||. ch. xii. 3 al. 
e w. perf. part., ch. xxii. 29 reff. 
vili. 19 only.) 3 Mace. vi. 1. g ch. viii. 21 reff. 
k = John iv. 5. ch. iv. 34. v. 3,8. xxviii. 7. 1 Chron. xxvii. 27. 
iy. 4 reff. n 2 Pet. ii. 13, 15. see 2 Mace. viii. 33. 
p here only +. Wisd. iv. 19 only. q = ch. xvi. 27 al. 


Judg. vii. 25. 
f = 2 Pet. i. 1 (Luke i. 9. 


d here only. 
John xix. 24) only. 
h = ch. xx. 14 reff. 
1 = Matt. xx. 2. xxvii. 7: 
o = Luke xiii. 27. 

r here only t. 


coptt «th arm Orig, Eus Ath Did Vig Gild (omitted by homeotel: or erased as un- 
necessary with nv, and perhaps, as Mey. and De W.., because no citation immediately 
follows) : ins C3DE rel 36 syrr Did Chr Iren-int Aug. rec ins tov bef iqaour, with 
C°DE rel 36 Chr Thl: om ABC!X Eus Did. 

17. om ny N!. rec for ev, cvv (corrn to better Greek ; see ref 2 Chron), with rel 
syrr Chr: txt ABCDEN p 13 Ht vulg coptt Orig, Eus Iren-int Aug. for kat, os 
D!-gr(txt D*). ins urepBa (but in reference to ecel lection: see Tischdf) bef r. 
diax. Bt-marg. 

18. rec ins tov bef pod. (corrn in ignorance of the usage which omits the art aft a 
preposition ; see Middleton, ch. vi. 1), with o Thl-fin: om ABCDERX rel Ht Eus Chr. 


aft adic. ins avtov D. 


note. The pre-eminency of Peter here 
is the commencement of the fulfilment of 
Matt. xvi. 18, 19 (see note there). 
17.| 671, not ‘although’ (Kuinoel), but 
because: it gives the reason of the pre- 
vious assertion, viz. that Judas held, and 
had betrayed, that place of high trust of 
which the prophecy spoke. Thus the é6tt 
has reference to the substance of the pro- 
phecy, already in Peter’s mind, and serves 
to explain 7 €mavAis adrov and  emioKoTy 
avrod. éX\axev Tov KAApov | not lite- 
rally, but inasmuch as the ot of every man 
is regarded as being cast and appointed by 
God. kA‘pos, first, the Jot itself; then, 
that apportioned by lot ; then, any species 
of apportionment, whether possession, or 
office, us here. 18.] This verse can- 
not be regarded as inserted by Luke ; for, 
1. the place of its insertion would be most 
unnatural for an historical notice: 2. the 
pev ovy forbids the supposition: 3. the 
whole style of the verse is rhetorical, and 
not narrative, e.g. obros, uc 80d THs adiklas. 
The éxtycato ywpiov does not 
appear to agree with the account in Matt. 
xxvii. 6—8; nor, consistently with com- 
mon honesty, can they be reconciled, wnless 
we knew more of the facts than wedo. If 
we compare the two, that of Matthew is 
the more particular, and more likely to 
give rise to this one, as a general inference 
Jrom the buying of the field, than vice 
versa. Whether Judas, as Bengel sup- 
poses, ‘initio emtionis facto, occasionem 
dederat ut Sacerdotes eam consummarent,’ 
we cannot say: such a thing is of course 
possible. At all events we hence clearly 
see that Luke could not have been ac- 


quainted with the Gospel of Matthew at 
this time, or surely (not, he would have 
repeated St. Matt.’s account, as Wordsw. 
unfairly represents me to say, but) this 
apparent discrepancy would not have been 
found. The various attempts to reconcile 
the two narratives, which may be seen in 
most of our English commentaries, are 
among the saddest examples of the shifts 
to which otherwise high-minded men are 
driven by an unworthy system. See as a 
notable example, Wordsw.’s note, written 
since the above. I need hardly say to 
any intelligent and ingenuous reader, 
that his way of harmonizing,—viz. that 
as the Jews are said to have crucified 
our Lord when they were only the ocea- 
sion of his being crucified, so Judas may be 
said to have bought the field when he only 
gave occasion to its being bought by the 
Chief Priests,—is entirely precluded here 
by the words é« picbod ris adixlas, ‘ out 
of the wages of his iniquity,’ which plainly 
bind on the purchase to Judas as his per- 
sonal act. kal mp. yev.| The con- 
nexion of this with the former clause 
would seem to point to the death of Judas 
having taken place in the field which he 
bought. See also ver. 19. ™pnVnS 
yevopevos will hardly bear the meaning 
assigned to it by those who wish to har- 
monize the two accounts, —viz. that, having 
hanged himself, he fell by the breaking of 
the rope. mpyvis: émt mpdswrov merTw- 
kos, Hesych. GAov wey 7d cama KetoOau 
mpnves Acyouev, Stay Hh pmev yaoTnp 
KdrwOev, tvwhev 5& 7 7d varov, Galen, 
cited by Wetstein. mpyyjs, eis Tobu- 
mpoabev, emt atduatos, Etymol. Nor 


ABCD 
EX ab 
dfgh 
lmo] 

13 


17—20. 


IIPARETS AILOZTOAON. 9 


LA 
Spéoos Kat *éEeyvOn ravta TA YoTrAdyyva avdTod, 19 Kai + constr, Luke 


\ a) tal 
Yyvworov éyéveTo Tac TOs 


LA a al a 
w@ste KAnOAvar TO * ywplov éxeivo TH [¥ ida] * SuadéxT@ 
x vwplov aipmatos. 


> a ra 
Yavtav ’AxedOapay, * TouTéoTw 


Gane “10. 


Ww la) ( / 
Katoikovaw lepovoadnp, ¢ CO yciv, 


Matt. ix. 17.) 
2 Kings xx. 
10. 


20 ryé- ulit., here only. 


(2 Cor. vi. 12 

reff.) 2Macc. ix. 5 (6?) only. v = John xviii. 15, 16. ch. ix. 42. xy. 18. xix.17. Ps. Ixxv. 1. 

w constr., ch. ii. 9, 14 al5. Matt. xxiii. 21. Luke xiii.4. Rev. (xii. 12, v. r.) xvii. 2 only. Hos. x.5. 1 Macc. 

iii, 34. x ver. 18. y so John x. 12. 2 Pet. iii. 16. zch. ii. 6,8 al3. Acts 
only. Esth. ix. 26. a ch, xix. 4 reff. 


om mavra A Thl-sif Gaud. 


19. ins o bef «a: D-gr N(but erased) 18 Aug: kat Touro sah. 
avtwy bef dad. HE 163 Aug. 
zth-mss are appy divided : txt(- ax) ABD K(-ax) & p 40 


arm Aug: ins AB?CE rel. 
C 13 rel vulg syrr copt Chr: 


om 16:0 B'!DN sah 
rec akeAdaua, with 


am demid fuld tol lux sah Eus Aug Bede.—ayedd. AN p 40, haceldamach tol, achel- 


damac am fuld lux Bede, akyldamach sah, 


again is it at all probable that the Apostle 
would recount what wasa mere accident 
accompanying his death, when that death 
itself was the accursed one of hanging. 
What then are we to decide respecting the 
two accounts? That there should have 
been a double account actually current of 
the death of Judas at this early period is 
in the highest degree improbable, and 
will only be assumed by those (De Wette, 
&c.) who take a very low view of the accu- 
racy of the Evangelists. Dismissing then 
this solution, let us compare the accounts 
themselves. In this case, that in Matt. 
Xxvil. is general,—ours particular. That 
depends entirely on the exact sense to be 
assigned to amyy§aro (p20, Kal aarjyytaro, 
2 Sam. xvii. 23): whereas this distinctly 
assigns the manner of his death, without 
stating any cause for the falling on his 
face. It is obvious that, while the gene- 
ral term used by Matthew points mainly 
at self-murder, the account given here 
does not preclude the catastrophe related 
having happened, in some way, as a divine 
judgment, during the suicidal attempt. 
Further than this, with our present know- 
ledge, we cannot go. An accurate ac- 
quaintance with the actual circumstances 
would account for the discrepancy, but 
nothing else. Another kind of death 
is assigned to Judas by (Hcumenius, quot- 
ing from Papias: forope? Mamlas 6 Tov 
*Iwavvou Tov amooT. mabnths A€ywv méeya 
THs aoeBelas brdderyua ev TOUTHY TE Kdo Kw 
meprematnoey “Toudas® mpnodels yap em Thy 
odpka, ste wh SvvacGar SieAOetv, audéns 
padiws diepomevns, bmd Tijs audéns erecOn, 
Oste Ta eykata avrTov exkevwOjva. Theo- 
phylact quotes the same on Matt. xxvii., 
but without the last words, id Tis au. 
«.T.A., which De Wette supposes to have 
been inserted from (!eumenius having 
misunderstood Papias. If so, the tradi- 
tion is in accordance with, and has arisen 
from an exaggerated amplification of, our 
text. See the whole passage from Theo- 


-demach eth-pl.—arerdaiwax D. 


phylact cited, and a discussion whether it 
is rightly ascribed to Papias, in Ronth, 
Reliquize Sacre, vol. i. p. 9, and notes. 

éAdkynoev | cracked asunder: it im- 
plies bursting with a noise. It is quite 
possible that this catastrophe happening 
in the field, as our narrative implies, may 
have suggested its employment as a burial- 
place for strangers, as being defiled. So 
Stier, Reden der Apostel, i. 10. 19. | 
It is principally from this verse that it has 
been inferred that the two vv. 18, 19 are 
inserted by Luke. But it is impossible to 
separate it from ver. 18; and I am dis- 
posed to regard both as belonging to 
Peter’s speech, but freely Grzcized by 
Luke, inserting into the speech itself the 
explanations 77 [ida] 610A. adt., and TouT- 
éoTiv x. alu., as if the speech had been 
spoken in Greek originally. This is much 
more natural, than to parenthesize these 
clauses; it is, in fact, what must be more 
or less done by all who report in a lan- 
guage different from that actually used by 
the speaker. The words and idioms of 
another tongue contain allusions and na- 
tional peculiarities which never could have 
been in the mind of one speaking in a dif- 
ferent language; but the ear tolerates 
these, or easily separates them, if critically 
exercised. yvwortov...}| See Luke 
xxiv. 18. @ste] in Matt. xxvii. 8, the 
name ‘the field of blood’ is referred to 
the fact of its having been bought with the 
price of blood: here, to the fact of Judas 
having there met with a signal and bloody 
death. On the whole, I believe the result 
to which I have aboveinclined will be found 
the best to suit the phenomena of the two 
passages,—viz. that, with regard to the 
purchase of the field, the more circum- 
stantial account in Matthew is to be 
adopted; with regard to the death of 
Judas, the more circumstantial account of 
Luke. The clue which joins these has 
been lost to us: and in this, only those 
will find any stumbling-block, whose faith 


10 


b Luke xx. 42. 
c here only. 
Psa. Ixviil. 


25. 

d art., Matt. 
iv. 3 al. 

e = 1 Tim. iii. 
1 (Luke xix. 
44. 1 Pet. ii. 
12) only. 


f = ch. ix. 39 
x. 23 al. L 
(Mark xiv. 


53.) 
g Eurip. Phen. 


534, 5. see > Ey \ eee , a , 
ch.'ix.25. @vuTOD ody Auiv yevéoOar Eva TOUTMY. 
Ps. cxx. 8. 
Deut. xxxi. 2. = Luke ii. 8. xii. 14. Heb. x. 21. 

iv.17. Ezek. ix. 6. k attr., ver. 1 reff. 


o = ch. ii. 31. iv. 33. Rom. vi.5. Phil. iii. 10. 


20. for 1st avrov, avrwy m! o p vulg(not am demid &c) D!-lat «th-rom arm. 


eotw, n D'(txt D%). 
ABCD®& p Eus Chr. 
21. ins tw bef xpovw D. 


add xpioros D syr eth Aug. 
22. for ews, axpt AN p. 

ABCDR k m p 40 vulg arm Chr, Aug. 
28. aft car ins TovTwy AexPevTwy KE. 


in the veracity of the Evangelists is very 
weak indeed. *AxeASapay | x27 577. 
The field originally belonged to a potter, 
and was probably a piece of land which 
had been exhausted of its clay fit for his 
purposes, and so was useless. Jerome re- 
lates that it was still shewn on the S. side 
of Mount Sion (éy Bopelois Tod Siev dpous, 
but by mistake, Eusebius), in which neigh- 
bourhood there is even now a bed of white 
clay (see Winer, Realw., art. ‘ Blutacker’). 
20.] yap, the connexion being, ‘all 
this happened and became known,’ &e., ‘in 
accordance with the prophecy,’ &e. Ps. 
Ixix. is eminently a Messianic psalm,— 
spoken in the first place of David and his 
kingdom and its enemies, and so, accord- 
ing to the universal canon of O. T. inter- 
pretation, of Him in whom that kingdom 
found its true fulfilment, and of His ene- 
mies. And Judas being the first and most 
notable of these, the Apostle applies emi- 
nently to him the words which in the 
Psalm are spoken in the plural of all such 
enemies. The same is true of Ps. cix., and 
there one adversary is even more pointedly 
marked out. See also Ps. lv. éme- 
gKkoTyy = m2, office, or charge. The 
citations are freely from the LXX. 
21.]| ovv, since all this has happened to 
Judas, and since it is the divine will that 
another should take the charge which was 
his. év mwavtl xpévw| This defini- 
tion of the necessary qualification of an 
* apostle exactly agrees with our Lord’s 
saying in John xv. 27: kal duets 5& waptu- 


peire, OTL am’ apxis met euod eore. See 
Prolegg. Vol. 1.i.3.5. — ets@AO. K. 2EHAO. 


IIPABEIZ ATIOSTOAON. 


1 Pet. i. 3. iii. 214. 


: 


ypartar yap év » BiBXw »wWwaryav TevnOjte 7 ° éravds 
avtod épnuos, Kal wy Eotw *6 KaToiK@v év avi. i 
Tip °éruskomy avtTod AaBETw ETEpos. 
‘ uvehOovtav ajpiv avdpav év travtl xpovm @ § eishdOev 
Kai © €&ArOev “ef Tuas 0 KUptos “Inaods, ** ' apEdpevos 
amo tod Bamnticpatos “Iwdvvov ews THs nuépas * is 
l > / fal m > ’ e Lal n / lol oO > / 

avehnupln ™adhb nuov, "waptupa THs ° avaoTacEws 


Kal 
21 Sef oty TaV 


\ BA 
23 Kal ? €otnoav 
i w. a0, Matt. xx. 8. ch. viii. 35. x. 37. 1 Pet. 


1= ver. 2 reff. m — ver. 9. n ver. 8 reff. 
p ch. vi. 6. xvii. 31. 


for 


rec for AaBerw, AaB: (corrn to suit rxx), with E rel: txt 


rec ins ev bef w, with C3(and appy C2?) EN? rel Chr : 
om ABC!D-corr®! p vulg Aug.—s D!; quoniam D'-lat ; cum copt. 


at end 


rec yeveoOa bef cvy nu., with E 13 rel Thl-sif: txt 


eotnoev D}(and lat: txt D-corr!) eth-rom 


ép’ Has} An abridged construction for 
EisHAO. ep’ Huds x. CENAD. ad’ Tuer. 

22. Barr. Iwav.| Not ‘ His being baptized 
by John’ (as Wolf, Kuin., &c.); but the 
baptism of John, as a well-known date, 
including of course the opening event of 
our Lord’s ministry, His own baptism. 
That John continued to baptize for some 
time after that, can be no possible objec- 
tion to the assignment of ‘John’s baptism’ 
generally, as the date of the commence- 
ment of the apostolic testimony (against De 
Wette). We may notice, that from this 
point the testimony of the Evangelists 
themselves in their Gospels properly be- 
gins, Matt. iii. 1, Mark i. 1, Luke iii. 1, 
John i. 6. papt. THS avact.| This 
one event was the passage-point between 
the Lord’s life of humiliation and His life 
of glory,—the completion .of His work 
below and beginning of His work above. 
And to ‘give witness with power’ of the 
Resurrection (ch. iv. 33), would be to 
discourse of it as being all this ; in order 
to which, the whole ministry of Jesus 
must be within the cycle of the Apostle’s 
experience. It is remarkable that 
Peter here lays down experience of mat- 
ters of fact, not eminence in any sub- 
jective grace or quality, as the condi- 
tion of Apostleship. Still, the testimony 
was not to be mere ordinary allegation of 
matters of fact: any who had seen the 
Lord since His resurrection were equal to 
this ;—but belonged to a distinct office 
(see John xiv. 26: also ch. v.31, note), 7e- 
quiring the especial selection and grace of 
God. 23.] €orncay, viz. the whole 


21—25. 


TIPAZEIS ATOFTOAON, 


11 


dvo, ‘Toon TOV KaNOUpEVOV BapoaSBav, os 5 een Anon 4 = ch, iv. 36. 


*lodatos, kal Maddiav. 
KUple " KapoLoyYaoTa TayTwV, 


a . Dan. 


9 

24 Kab Tposevfamevot elray Lv rch. ws 

Savader~ov ov é&eréEw ex 
4 fal bu a 95 lal \ / fol t / 

TovTwy Tav ovo éva » NaBeiv Tov ToToy Ths * dsaxovias 


only +. 
Herm Past. 

. 4. 3 (see 
ov Test. 
Sinait., fol. 


4 
TavTns Kal “amoatoAns, ad Hs ‘ mwapéBn ‘lovdas mo- staid, 


iii. 2. = 2 Macc. ix. 23. see Luke i. 80. 
2. Gal. ii. 8 only. Deut. xxii. 7. 
8. (Sir. xxiii. 18.) 
Aug. 
vulg Syr (syr) Eus Chr: txt ABEN b 
wth. (13 def.) 
24. om av Do. 
Eus Bas Chr, Dion-areop Thl Procop : 
ava, making avadaBew, D!(txt D4). 
25. tomoy bef tov D. 


company, to whom the words had been 
spoken; not the eleven Apostles. 
*lwonp .... | The names "Iwofp and 
*Iwons, different forms of the same, are 
confused in the mss., both here and in ch. 
iv.36. But Barsabbas (or Barsabas) and 
Barnabas are not to be confounded: they 
are different names (Barsabbas = son of 
Sabba or Saba: on Barnabas, see ch. iv 
36, note); and Barnabas is evidently intro- 
duced in iy. 36 as a person who had not 
been mentioned before. Of Barsabas, 
nothing further is known. Euseb., ili. 39, 
states, on the authority of Papias, that he 
drank a cup of poison without being hurt. 
In all probability both the selected 
persons (see Eus. i. 12) belonged to the 
number of the Seventy, as it would be 
natural that the candidates for apostleship 
should be chosen from among those who 
had been already distinguished by Christ 
Himself among the brethren. Justus 
is a Roman cognomen, assumed according 
to a custom then prevalent. The name 
Justus seems to have been common : 
Schéttgen, Hor. Hebr., on this place, 
gives two instances of Jews bearing it. 
Ma@@iav| Nothing historical is 
known of him. ‘Traditionally, according 
to Nicephorus (H. EH, ii. 40, Winer), he 
suffered martyrdom in Aithiopia; accord- 
ing to others, in Colchis (Menolog. Gree. 
iii. 198, Winer): another account (Pe- 
rionii Vite Apost. p. 178 sqq., Winer) 
makes him preach in Judea and be stoned 
by the Jews. Clem. Alex., Strom. ii. 9, 
p. 452 P., vii. 13, p. 882 P., mentions the 
mapaddces of Matthias, which perhaps 
were the same as an apocryphal gospel 
once current under his name, mentioned 
by Eus., H. E, iii. 25. See Winer, Realw. 
24.| It is a question, to Whom this 
prayer was directed. I think all proba- 
bility is in favour of the Apostle (for Peter 


for won, wonv BP le) 5 lect-1 syr sah. 


nly. Hab. 


1 Cor. ix. 
Exod, xxxii- 


ey: 


t ver. 17. 
V.= fees (Matt. xv. 2,3. 2 Toh A only. 


rec BapoaBay, with C rel 


f g p am fuld coptt Eus-mss.—BapvaBay D tol 


rec ex T. T. dvo eva bef ov efeA.: txt ABCDEN rel syr copt 
eva ov eteA. ex T.T. 5. Syr arm, 


for eva, 


rec (for romov) kAnpov, with C3EN rel syrr: om eth (rv dia- 
koviay TavTns T. amogr.): txt ABC!D vulg syr-mg coptt Procop Aug. 


rec (for ap’) 


certainly was the spokesman) having ad- 
dressed his glorified Lord. And with this 
the language of the prayer agrees. No 
stress can, it is true, be laid on kdpte: see 
ch. iv. 29, where unquestionably the Father 
is addressed: but the é&eké&w, compared 
with ov« eyw tuas rods Sd5exa e&edeba- 
pnv, John vi. 70, seems to me almost deci- 
sive. See also ver. 2; Luke vi.13; John 
xiii. 18, xv. 16, 19. The instance cited 
on the other side by Meyer, e&eAétaro 
6 Ocbs 51a Tov orduatds pov akovoa Ta 
€0vn K.7.A., is not to the point, as not 
relating to the matter here in hand; 
nor are the passages cited by De Wette, 
2 Cor. i.1; Eph. i.1; 2 Tim. i. 1, where 
Paul refers his apostleship to God, since 
obviously all such appointment must be 
referred ultimately to God:—but the 
question for us is,—In these words, did 
the disciples pray as they would have 
prayed before the Ascension, or had they 
Christ in their view ? The expression kap- 
Stoyvaora (used by Peter himself of God, 
ch. xv. 8) forms no objection: see John 
xxi. 17, also in the mouth of Peter himself. 
We are sure, from the mposkuyjoaytes 
avtéy of Luke xxiv. 52, that even at this 
time, before the descent of the Spirit, the 
highest kind of worship was paid to the 
ascended Redeemer. Still, I do not re- 
gard it as by any means certain that they 
addressed Christ, nor can the passage be 
alleged as convincing in controversy with 
the Socinian. avadeg. «.7.A.| Not, 
as in E. V., ‘shew whether of these two 
Thou hast chosen, but appoint (see reff.) 
one of these two [him] whom Thou hast 
chosen. The difference is of some im- 
port: they did not pray for a sign merely, 
to shew whether of the two was chosen, 
but that the Lord would, by means of 
their lot, Himself appoint the one of His 
choice. 25.] réov is from internal 


12 


w = Matt. 
xxvi. 52. 


TIPABEI> AITOZTOAON. 


I. 26. 


pevOnvat eis Tov  TOTrov Tov idtoy. 76 Kat * EdwKav ¥ Kdy- 


el py ~ e a » 4 \ 
Job xvii. 21. Hoye gorols, Kal *émecevy O YKAHPOS * ert Mal@iav, Kal 
Pp > 


Proy. xxvii. 
& 


5. fal / 
x—here only. @guyxateynpiaOn weTa TOV EvOEeKa ATTOTTOAMD. 


see Luke xy. 
22. = Badd., 
Matt. xxvii. 


35 ||. y = Matt. xxvii. 35 || only. 


Neh. x. 34. see ver. 17. 


Il. 1 Kai & 7@ cuvTAnpodobat tiv nuépay Tis 


z Jonah i. 7. a here only +. 


b = Luke ix. 51 (viii. 23) only +. (-pwous, 1 Chron. xxxvi. 21.) 


ef, with E rel Chr; de vulg E-lat: in quo sah: txt ABCDX p copt Bas, a D-lat Aug. 


tO.ov tom. C: Tom. T. dixasoy A. 


26. rec (for avtois) avtwy (see note), with D!E rel syr Chr, Aug-mss: om Syr Aug- 


ed: txt ABCD2N p 13 vulg coptt xth(appy) Chr). 
for evdexa, 18’ xii D, so also Eus. 


auvnp. D1(but corrd): Karey. X?. 


Crap. II. 1. for car ev Tw, kat evyeveTo ev Tals Nmepais exevais Tov D. 


evidence, as well as manuscript authority, 
the preferable reading. It has been altered 
to xAjpoy to suit ver. 17. Stakovias, 
implying the active duties; amooroljs, 
the official dignity of the office :—no figure 
of €y dia dvoty. TOV TOTOV TOV 
t8.ov] With the reading rézoy before, I 
think these words may be interpreted two 
ways: 1. that Judas deserted this our 
Témos, our office and ministry, to go to his 
own Toémos, that part which he had chosen 
for himself, viz. the office and character of 
a traitor and enemy of God; 2. regarding 
the former word rézs as being selected to 
correspond to the more proper and dreadful 
use of the word here, that Judas deserted 
his tTénos, his appointed place, here among 
us, that he might go to Ais own appointed 
témos elsewhere, viz. among the dead in 
the place of torment. Of these two in- 
terpretations, I very much prefer the 
second, on all accounts; as being more 
according to the likely usage of the word, 
and as more befitting the solemnity of such 
a prayer. At the same time, no absolute 
sentence is pronounced on the traitor, but 
that dark surmise expressed by the eu- 
phemism rdy té7roy 7. 15., which none can 
help feeling with regard to him. ‘To refer 
the words mop. cis 7. Té7. T. 15., to the suc- 
cessor of Judas (Knatchbull, Hammond, 
al.), ‘ut occupet locum ipsi a Deo destina- 
tum,’ (1) is contrary to the form of the 
sentence, which would require kal mopev- 
Ojva1; (2) is inconsistent with the words 
mop. K.T.A., Which are unexampled in this 
sense; (3) would divest a sentence, evi- 
dently solemn and pregnant, of all point 
and meaning, and reduce it to a mere tau- 
tology. It appears to have been very early 
understood as above ; for Clement of Rome 
says of Peter (1 Cor. v.), o}rw waprupnoas 
émopev0n eis Toy dpetAduevov Témov TIS 
ddéms, an expression evidently borrowed 
from our text. Lightf., Hor. Hebr. in 
loc., quotes from the Rabbinical work 
Baal turim on Num. xxiv. 25,—‘ Balaam 


om 6 D!(ins D?) m. 


Tas 


ivit in locum suum, i.e. in Gehennam.’ 
26. €dwx. KAypous avtois| They 
cast lots for them, avrots being a dativus 
commodi. 'The ordinary reading, whether 
avt@y is referred to the Apostles or to the 
candidates, would require tovs KAfpous. 
Avréy has been an alteration, to avoid the 
rendering ‘they gave lots fo them.’ These 
lots were probably tablets, with the names 
of the persons written on them, and shaken 
in a vessel, or in the lap of a robe (Proy. 
xvi. 33); he whose lot first leaped out 
being the person designated. ovy- 
kat. | The Jot being regarded as the divine 
choice, the suffrages of the assembly were 
unanimously given (not in form, but by 
cheerful acquiescence) to the candidate 
thus chosen, and he was ‘voted in’ among 
the eleven Apostles, i.e. as a twelfth. 
That Luke does not absolutely say so, 
and never afterwards speaks of the twelve 
Apostles, is surely no safe ground on which 
to doubt this. Stier seems disposed 
to question (in his Reden der Apostel, i. 
18 ff., which however was a work of his 
youth) whether this step of electing a 
twelfth Apostle was altogether suitable to 
the then waiting position of the Church, 
and whether Paul was not in reality the 
twelfth, chosen by the Lord Himself. But 
I do not see that any of his seven queries 
touch the matter. We have the prece- 
dent, of all others most applicable, of the 
twelve tribes, to shew that the number, 
though ever nominally kept, was really 
exceeded. And this incident would not 
occupy a prominent place in a book where 
Paul himself has so conspicuous a part, 
unless it were by himself considered as 
being what it professed to be, the filling 
up of the vacant Apostleship. 
Cuap. II. 1—4.] Toe OuTPouRING oF 
THE HoLy SPIRIT ON THE DISCIPLES. 
1. é€v TO Guvmdnpotobar .... | 
While the day of P. was being fulfilled: 
‘during the progress of that particular 
day: this is necessitated by the pres. tense. 


ABCD 
Ex a Di 
dfghl 
lmop 
13 


me i: 2. 


c A i) , as wwe. 2-—\ \ Sas, 
TEVTNKOOTHS OAV TAVTES Of40U €77l TO AUTO. 


ii. 1. 2 Macc. xii. $2. 


iii. 18 Symm. e ch, i. 15 reff. 


nuepas vulg D-lat E-lat Syr eth arm Aug, Vig. 


TIPAZEIS AMOSTOAON. 


13 


ce ch. xx. 16. 
1 Cor. xvi. 8 
only +. Tobit 


2 Kal 


d (ch. xx. 18, y.r.) John iv. 36. xx. 4. xxi. 2. Ezra ii.64. Job 


rec amaytes, with m rel Thl- 


sif: om EX?! Chr: txt ABC!8% ¢ d p.—ovtwy avtwy raytwy D Syr weth.—add o: amo- 


otoAo.c dk m Ht Thi-fin. 


rec (for ouov) ouobvpadoy, with C3E rel Chr Thl-sif: 


om D (syrr?) copt sah(inter se for ou. €. To av.): txt ABC!N p Ath, pariter vulg, 


simul E-lat. 


In sense, it amounts to ‘when the day of P. 
was fully come, as E. V.: but not in gram- 
mar. Professor Hitzig, in a letter to Ide- 
ler, “Ostern und Pfingsten, u.s.w.,” main- 
tains that the meaning is, “4s the day of P. 
drew on,—‘was approaching its fulfil- 
ment :? but this view is refuted by Neander, 
“Pflanzung u. Leitung, u.s.w.,” p.10,note. 
Hitzig supports his view by ver. 5, taking 
kaTotkouvtes to imply constant residence, 
not merely sojourning on account of the 
feast, which latter he says would have been 
specified if it were so. Neander replies, 1. 
that ev T. cvymA. T. 7. T. T. Must Necessa- 
rily mean that the day itself had arrived ; 
compare TATpwua Tod xpdvou Or TOY Kalpav, 
Gal. iv. 4.and Eph. i. 10. In Luke ix. 51, 
it is not said of the day, but of the days of 
His being received up, including the whole 
period introductory to that event: and, by 
the very same interpretation, the day of P. 
must in this case have arrived, [and was 
being accomplished, i.e. in process of pass- 
ing.| And again, if only the approach of 
that day were indicated, why should the day 
itself have been mentioned, seeing that it 
would then be no way concerned in the 
narrative? On the propriety of the day 
itself as belonging to the narrative, see 
below. 2. It is true that in ver. 5, if we 
had that verse only before us, we should 
interpret karox. of dwelling, permanently 
(no real difference being traceable between 
kaTtoikety With an accus., and ratorrety ev) ; 
but if we compare it with ver. 9, we shall 
see, that the same persons would thus be 
kKaTo.kovuyTes in Jerusalem and several other 
localities,—which necessarily restricts the 
meaning, in ver. 5, to a temporary sojourn. 
And, granting that there may have been 
some residents in Jerusalem among these 
foreign Jews, the émdnuodyres ‘Pwuato 
certainly point to persons who were for 
some especial reason at Jerusalem at the 
time, as also the proselytes. And in ver. 14 
Peter distinguishes the &dpes *lovdato1,— 
the residents, from of katotkotyTes ‘lepoue. 
drayres,—the sojourners. T. 1. THS 
a.| The fiftieth day (inclusive) after the 
sixteenth of Nisan, the second day of the 
Passover (Levit. xxiii. 16),—called in 
Exodus xxiii. 16, ‘the feast of harvest,’ — 
in Deut. xvi. 10, ‘the feast of weeks ;’>— 


one of the three great feasts, when all the 
males were required to appear at Jeru- 
salem, Deut. xvi. 16. No supplying of 
nuepas, or €opTis, is required after zep- 
tnkooTHs: the word had passed into a 
proper name, see ref. Tobit, where it is in 
appos. with éopr7, and ref. 2 Macc. At 
this time, it was simply regarded as the 
feast of harvest: among the later Jews, it 
was considered as the anniversary of the 
giving of the law from Sinai. This infer- 
ence was apparently grounded on a com- 
parison of Exod. xii. 2 and xix. 1. Jo- 
sephus and Philo know nothing of it, and 
it is at the best very uncertain. Chry- 
sostom’s reason for the event happening 
when it did is probably the true one: ex 
yap éoprijs ovens maAw Talta yevéoOat* 
va of mapdvtes TH TTaVp@ TOU xpLTTOD, 
ovrot kal tadra wow (in Catena). 
See a number of other reasons given by 
Wordsw., more suo. The question, ov 
what day of the week this day of Pente- 
cost was, is beset with the difficulties at- 
tending the question of our Lord’s last 
passover; see notes on Matt. xxvi. 17, and 
John xviii. 28. It appears probable how- 
ever that it was on the Sabbath, —i.e. if we 
reckon from Saturday, the 16th of Nisan. 
Wieseler (Chron. des Apostol. Zeitalters, 
p- 20) supposes that the Western Church 
altered the celebration of it to the first day 
of the week in conformity with her observ- 
ance of Easter on that day. If we take the 
second day of the Passover as Sunday, the 
17th of Nisan, which some have inferred 
from John xviii. 28, the day of Pentecost 
will fall on the first day of the week. The 
custom of the Karaites was, to keep Pen- 
tecost always on the first day of the week, 
reckoning not from the day after the great 
Passover-Sabbath, but from that following 
theSabbathin Passover week—understand- 
ing nawrin Levit. xxiii. 15 of the ordinary 
Sabbath ;—but this cannot be brought to 
bear on our enquiry, as it probably arose 
later. , mdvtes] Not the Apostles only, 
nor the hundred and twenty mentioned 
ch. i. 15; but all the believers in Christ, 
then congregated at the time of the feast 
in Jerusalem. The former is manifest from 
ver. 14, when Peter and the eleven stand 
forward and allude to the rest as ovror: 


14 


d ch. xvi. 26. 
XXVlil. 6 
only. Josh. 
ay 

e = Luke (iv. 
37) xxi. 25. 
Heb. xii. 19 

Tey Ss 


— here only. 


Isa. XXVill. 
15, 18. 


g = here (ch. xvii. 25) only. Job xxxvii. 10. see Thucyd. iv. 100. 

i k = Matt. iy. 16. 
1 Matt. xvii. 3. Lukei.11. ch. vii. 2, 26 al. 
Rey. i. 14. 

p = Lukei. 15. ch. iv. 8, 31. ix. 17. xiii. 9. see Eph. v. i8. 


1= John xii. 3. Hag. ii. 8. see Isa. vi. 4. 
xxxi. (xlvili.) 43. 

52 al. Gen. x. 25. 
4. Gen. viii. 3 (4). 


2. aft car ins evdov (?.e. wdov) D. 


n = Luke xxii. 44. 


TIPABZEI> ATOSTOAON. 


for ex, ao E. 


IE 


3 / d ” 3 la) 3 A e 9 ef f , 
éyeveTo “advw €k TOU oupavod © Hyos wstrep * Pepomevns 
g lol h / \ i 3 / iva \ »S id 
mvons ™ Biatas Kat ‘émAnpwoev OdOY TOV oiKOV ov 
5 4 a 
naoav * cabjwevot, > Kai }apOncav adtois ™ diameprComevar 
an n e \ la Oo DJ 10 Ws i) 3 oA a > r 
yA@ooat " wsel Tupos, ° exabicey TE° Eh Eva EKATTOV AUTOV, 
4, \ p b] / 0 iv4 / € , ay, 
Kat PérAnoOnoav arravres TvEvpaTos aylov, Kal npEavTo 


h here only. = Exod. xiv. 21. Isa. lix. 19. 
Luke xxi. 35. Rey. xiy. 6. xvii. 15. Jer. 
Exod. iii. 2, 16. m = Luke xii. 
o constr., Mark xi. 2,7. Rev. xx. 


Bia. bef avo. D 93-52. 


for oAov, mavta D, omnem E-lat Vig,: totam vulg D-lat: totwm Cypr. 
KkabeCouevor CD: txt ABEN rel Cyr-jer Thdrt,. 


8. for yAwooau wset, yAwooe: XR}. 


for exa0. Te, ear exad. B(Mai Btly Tischdf) & 


p D-corr(and lat) Ath, Cyr-jer, Did, Chr Cyr: «at ead, te D!: exa0. (alone) B(Bch) : 
exa. de C!H-lat Did, Aug: txt AC?D?E rel syrr copt Hus Ath, Cyr, Thdrt Thl.—exa- 
Oicay (corrn to suit yAwoou) D-gr &! syrr copt Ath, Did, Cyr. 


and the latter follows on the former being 
granted. Both are confirmed by the uni- 
versality of the promise cited by Peter, vv. 
17 ff. See Chrys. below, on ver. 4. 

épod| together: the rec. duo@vpaddy im- 
plies more, viz. that their purpose, as well 
as their locality, was the same. emt 
75 avté| Where? evidently not in the 
temple, orany part of it. Theimprobability 
of such an assemblage, separate and yet so 
great, in any of the rooms attached to the 
temple, —the words 6Aoyv rdy ofkoy in ver. 2 
(where see note),—the ouv7jAdevy 7d TAH- 
Gos, ver. 6,—the absence of any mention of 
the temple,—all these are against such a 
supposition. Obviously no @ priori con- 
sideration such as Olshausen alleges (in 
loc.), that ‘thus the solemn inauguration 
of the Church of Christ becomes more im- 
posing by happening in the holy place of 
the Old Covenant,” can apply to the en- 
quiry. Nor can the statement that they 
were 01a mavtos év TG tepg@, Luke xxiv. 53, 
apply here (see above on ch. i. 13); for 
even if it be assumed that the hour of 
prayer was come (which it hardly could 
have been, seeing that some time must 
have elapsed between the event and Peter’s 
speech), the disciples would not have been 
assembled separately, but would, as Peter 
and John, in ch.iii. 1, have gone up, mingled 
with the people. See more below. 

2. Ax. ast. hep. mvo7s Bratas | could not 
be better rendered than in E. V., a sound 
as of a rushing mighty wind. The dis- 
tinction between mvojs and mveduaros, on 
which De Wette insists, can hardly be ex- 
pressed in our language. It is possible that 
Luke may have used zrvo7js to avoid the con- 
currence of mvevpatos Biatov and mvevua- 
tos aytov. It doubtless has its especial pro- 
priety ;—it is the breathing or blowing 
which we hear: it was the sound as of a 
violent blowing, borne onward, which ac- 


companied the descent of the Holy Spirit. 
To treat this as a natural pheenomenon,— 
even supposing that phenomenon miracu- 
lously produced, as the earthquake at the 
crucifixion,—is contrary to the text, which 
does not describe it as 7xos Pepomerns Tv. 
Bu., but Fxos Gstrep >. wy. Bi. It was the 
chosen vehicle by which the Holy Spirit was 
manifested to their sense of hearing, as by 
the tongues of fire to their sense of seeing. 
‘“hépeoOar ad violentum quo venti 
moventur impetum notandum adhiberi 
solet. AU]. Hist. An. vii. 24, éresddv 7d 
mvedua Blaov expepnta: Diog. Laért. 
x. 25. 104, 814 tod mvedmatos moAXAoU 
pepomévov. Kypke. oikov]| Cer- 
tainly Luke would not have used this 
word of a chamber in the Temple, or 
of the Temple itself, without further ex- 
planation. Our Lord, it is true, calls the 
Temple 6 ofkos tudy, Matt. xxiii. 38,— 
and Josephus informs us that Solomon’s 
Temple was furnished tpidkovta Bpaxéow 
otkors, and again ém@mKoddunvTo O€ TovTOLS 
avwOev ETepor oikor: but to suppose either 
usage here, seems to me very far-fetched 
and unnatural. 3. &0. adtots |—not, 
‘there were seen on them, as Luther; but 
as E. V., there appeared unto them. 
Stapepifdpevar | not, ‘ distributed,’ as me- 
piowors in Heb. il. 4: from the construc- 
tion, d:au. must refer to something charac- 
teristic, not of the manner of apportion- 
ment, but of the appearance itself. aset 
arupdés| see reff. They were not tupds, as 
not possessing the burning power of fire, 
but only @set rupds, in appearance like 
that element. éxdbioev | viz. Td pai- 
vomevov: not To mvevua, nor 7 yA@ooa, 
but the appearance described in the pre- 
ceding clause. I understand é«d@. as 
usually interpreted, lighted on their 
heads. This also was no effect of natural 
cause, either ordinarily or extraordinarily 


ABCD 
EX ab: 
dfgh]) 
lmop 
13 


3, 4. 


Aareiy % étrépais 


r = Matt. xvi. 17. ch. x. 46. xix. 6. 
t = Matt. xiii. 11. Lukei. 74. 


TIPABEIS ATIOSTOAQN. 


‘yrMooals * Kalas TO eae 


1 Cor. xii. 10, &c. xiv. 2, &c. Gen s= 
John y. 26. ver. 27 and one xiii. 35 (from Ps. “xv. 10). ch. x. 40. xiv. 


15 


édid0v 15 } Sorat. 


Xxx. 9. 
ee xi. 29 reff. 


4. movres ABDEN p: txt (see prolegomena, ch. v. § 3, ad fin.) C rel Cosm Thi. 


nptaro D}(txt D-corr!). 


employed: see on ver. 2. 4.] On 
Graves, Chrys. says, ovk by ele maytes, 
kal amootéAwy bvTwy ékel, ei wy Kal of 
BAA petéecxor. jpgavro hadetv 
érépais yAwooats | There can be no ques- 
tion in any unprejudiced mind, that the 
fact which this narrative sets before us 
is, that the disciples began to speak in 
VARIOUS LANGUAGES, viz. the languages 
of the nations below enumerated, and 
perhaps others. All attempts to evade 
this are connected with some forcing of 
the text, or some far-fetched and inde- 
fensible exegesis. This then being laid 
down, several important questions arise, 
and we are surrounded by various difficul- 
ties. (1) Was this speaking in various lan- 
guages a gift bestowed on the disciples for 
their use afterwards, or was it a mere sign, 
their utterance being only as they were 
mouth-pieces of the Holy Spirit? The 
latter seems certainly to have been the 
case. It appears on our narrative, cades 
To mvedua edldov aropbeyyecbat avTors, 
as the Spirit gave them utterance. But, 
it may be objected, in that case they would 
not themselves understand what they said. 
I answer, that we infer this very fact from 
1 Cor. xiv.; that the speaking with tongues 
was often found, where none could inter- 
pret what was said. And besides, it 
would appear from Peter’s speech, that 
such, or something approaching to it, was 
the case in this instance. He makes no 
allusion to the things said by those who 
spoke with tongues; the hearers alone 
speak of their declaring Ta meyadeia Tov 
@eov. So that it would seem that here, as 
on other occasions (1 Cor. xiv. 22), tongues 
were for a sign, not to those that believe, 
but to those that believe not. If the first 
supposition be made, that the gift of speak- 
ing in various languages was bestowed on 
the disciples for their after use in preach- 
ing the Gospel, we are, I think, running 
counter to the whole course of Scripture 
and early patristic evidence on the subject. 
There is no trace whatever of such a 
power being possessed or exercised by the 
Apostles, or by those who followed them. 
(Compare ch. xiv. 11, 14; Euseb. iii. 39; 
Tren. iii. 1, p. 174.) The passage cited 
triumphantly by Wordsw. from Iren. iil. 
17, p. 208, to shew that Jreneus under- 
stood the gift to be that of permanent 
preaching in many languages, entirely fails 


aft ro mv. ins To ayov E vulg eth. 


of its point :—‘ Quem et descendisse Lucas 
ait post ascensum Domini super discipulos 
in Pentecoste, habentem potestatem om- 
nium gentium ad introitum vite [which 
Wordsw. renders “in order that all nations 
might be enabled to enter into life,” suitably 
to his purpose, but not to the original ] et 
ad assertionem novi Testamenti: unde et 
omnibus linguis conspirantes hymnum 
dicebant Deo, Spiritu ad unitatem redi- 
gente distantes tribus, et primitias omnium 
gentium offerente Patri.” Here it will be 
observed is not a word about future 
preaching; but simply this event itself is 
treated of, as a symbolic one, a first fruit 
of the future Gentile harvest. The other 
passage, id. v. 6, p. 299, shews nothing but 
that the gift of tongues was not extinct in 
Irenzus’s time: there is in it not a word 
of preaching in various languages. I be- 
lieve, therefore, the event related in our 
text to have been a sudden and powerful 
inspiration of the Holy Spirit, by which 
the disciples uttered, not of their own 
minds, but as mouth-pieces of the Spirit, 
the praises of God in various languages, 
hitherto, and possibly at the time itself, 
unknown to them. (2) How is this érépais 
yAéooas Aadeiv related to the yAdoon 
Aadeiv afterwards spoken of by St. Paul ? 
I answer, that they are one and the same 
thing. ‘yAéoon dad. is to speak in @ lan- 
guage, as above explained ; yAdooais (éré- 
pais, or kawats, Mark xvi. 17) Aaa., to 
speak in languages, under the same cir- 
cumstances. See this further proved in 
notes on 1 Cor. xiv. Meantime I may re- 
mark, that the two are inseparably con- 
nected by the following links,—ch. x. 46, 

xi. 15,—xix. 6,—in which last we have 
the same juxtaposition of yAdaoas Aadeiy 
and mpopntevey, as afterwards in 1 Cor. 
xiv. 1—5 ff. (3) Who were those that 
partook of this gift? Lanswer, the whole 
assembly of believers, from Peter’s appli- 
cation of the prophecy, vv. 16 ff. It was 
precisely the case supposed in 1 Cor. xiv. 
23, eayv ody cuvéddn 7 exxAnola bAn én 
7d avTd Kal mavtTes AaAGoIWW yAdooms, 
eiseAOwow BE idiGTat 2) &mioroL, odK epod- 
ow brt palvecbe; These iti@7ra and 
&miorot were represented by the érepa of 
our ver. 13, who pronounced them to be 
drunken. (4) I would not conceal the 
difficulty which our minds find in conceiv- 
ing a person supernaturally endowed with 


16 TIIPAEBEIS; ATIOSTOAQN. ny 
uver. ch. U GarodOéyyerOar avtois. ° % hoav bé évlepovcadnp KaTol- 
only. 


Mic. v.12. Zech. x. 2 only. v constr., ch. i. 13, 14. viil. 


1 Chron. xxy.1. Ps. lviii. 7. Ezek. xiii. 9, 19. 
1,13. Luke i. 10, 20. i 


Jer. xxxiii. (xxvi.) 20. 

rec avtois bef amopbeyy. (corrn for the sake of perspicuous order; but these trajec- 
tions and insertions between a governing and a governed word are characteristic of 
Luke, and esp in Acts), with C3E rel syr Cyr-jer: txt ABC!DN p vulg (sah ?) arm 


Ath Cyr, Did Ambr Vig [36 def ]. 
5. for ev, ess AN}. 


the power of speaking, ordinarily and con- 
sciously, a language which he has never 
learned. I believe that difficulty to be in- 
superable. Such an endowment would not 
only be contrary to the analogy of God’s 
dealings, but, as far as I can see into the 
matter, self-contradictory, and therefore 
impossible. But there is no such contra- 
diction, and to my mind no such difficulty, 
in conceiving a man to be moved to utter- 
ance of sounds dictated by the Holy Spirit. 
And the fact is clearly laid down by Paul, 
that the gift of speaking in tongues, and 
that of interpreting, were wholly distinct. 
So that the above difficulty finds no place 
here, nor even in the case of a person 
both speaking and interpreting: see 1 Cor. 
xiv. 13. On the question whether the 
speaking was necessarily alwaysin aforeign 
tongue, we have no data to guide us: it 
would seem that it was ; but the conditions 
would not absolutely exclude rhapsodical 
and unintelligible utterance. Only there is 
this objection to it: clearly, languages were 
spoken on this occasion,—and we have no 
reason to believe that there were two dis- 
tinct kinds of the gift. (5) It would be 
quite beyond the limits of a note to give 
any adequate history of the exegesis of the 
passage. A very short summary must suf- 
fice. (a) The idea of a gift of speaking in 
various languages having been conferred 
Sor the dissemination of the Gospel, ap- 
pears not to have originated until the gift 
of tongues itself had some time disappeared 
from the Church. Chrysostom adopts it, 
and the great majority of the Fathers and 
expositors. (8) Gregory Nyss. (see Suicer. 
Thes., yA@oou), Cyprian, and in modern 
times Erasmus and Schneckenburger, sup- 
pose that the miracle consisted in the mul- 
titude hearing in various languages that 
which the believers spoke in their native 
tongue: play pev e&nxeioba pwvhy, moA- 
Ads 5€ axoverOa. This view Greg. Naz. 
mentions, but not as his own, and refutes 
it (Orat. xli. 15, p. 743), saying, éxeiyws wey 
yap THY akovdvTwy ay etn waAdov 7) TOV 
Acydvtay 7d Oadua. This view, besides, 
would make a distinction between this in- 
stance of the gift and those subsequently 
related, which we have seen does not exist. 


ev wep. bef noav, omg be, D. 


Katou. bef ev sep. C Syr 


(vy) The course of the modern German ex- 
positors has been, (1) to explain the facts 
related, by some assumption inconsistent 
with the text, as e.g. Olshausen, by a mag- 
netic ‘ rapport ” between the speakers and 
hearers,—whereas the speaking took place 
Jirst, independently of the hearers ;—Eich- 
horn, Wieseler, and others, by supposing 
yAdoon Aadety to mean speaking with the 
tongue only, i.e. inarticulately in ejacula- 
tions of praise, which will not suit yAdooats 
Aad. ;—Bleek, by interpreting yA@oou = 
glossema, and supposing that they spoke in 
unusual, enthusiastic, or poetical phraseo- 
logy,—which will not suit yAdaoy AGA. ;— 
Meyer (and De Wette nearly the same), 
by supposing that they spoke in an entirely 
new spiritual language (of which the yA@a- 
oat were merely the individual varieties), 
as was the case during the Irvingite delu- 
sion in this country,—contrary to the plain 
assertion of vy. 6—8, that they spoke, 
and the hearers heard, in the dialects or 
tongues of the various peoples specified ; 
—Paulus, Schulthess, Kuinoel, &e. by 
supposing that the assembly of believers 
was composed of Jews of various nations, 
who spoke as moved by the Spirit, but 7 
their own mother tongues,—which isclearly 
inconsistent with ver. 4 and the other pas- 
sages, ch. x. and xix., and 1 Cor, xiv.,above 
cited :—(2) to take the whole of this nar- 
rative in its literal sense, but cast doubts 
on its historical accuracy, and on Luke’s 
proper understanding of what really did 
take place. This is more or less done 
by several of the above mentioned, as a 
means of escape from the inconsistency of 
their hypotheses with Luke’s narrative. 
But, to set aside, argumenti gratia, higher 
considerations,—is it at all probable that 
Luke, who must have conversed with many 
eye and ear-witnesses of this day's events, 
would have been misinformed about them 
in so vital a point as the very nature of 
the gift by which the descent of the Spirit 
was accompanied? There is every mark, as 
I hope I have shewn abundantly in the pro- 
legomena, of the Acts having been written 
in the company and with the co-operation 
of St. Paul: can we suppose that he, who 
treats so largely of this very gift elsewhere, 


ABCTI 
EX ab 
dfgh 
lmoy 

13 


d—7. 


Koovtes “lovdaior avdpes “ evrAaBeis * amd TavTos EOvous 
6 Z~yevowevns S€ THS *dwvhs Tav- 


Lal e x \ > , 
Tov Y uTro Tov ovpavov. 
TS *ouvndOev TO » arAnOos Kal 


nop Seis “éxaaTos TH idia ° duadéxTw NadovvTwY aiTav. 7 f é&- 


TIPABEIZ AMOZTOAQN. 


17 


w Luke ii. 25. 
ch. viii. 2. 
xxii. 12 only. 
Lev. xy. 31. 

A, W) S 7 ee vii. 2 

. A. only. 
GuUveXNU q oTb 1)KOUVOV x rake xxiii. 

51. John xi. 

1. ch. xvii. 13. 

xxiii. 34 al. 


ych.iy.12. Col. i. 23. Deut. xxv. 19. z Luke ix. 35. ch. xix. 34. Rev. xi. 15. 2 Chron. v. 13. 
a= ch. i. 6 reff. b abs., ch. vi. 5. xv. 12, 30. xix. 9. xxiii. 7. c ch. ix. 22. xix. 32. xxi. 
27,3lonly. Gen. xi.9. Jonahiv.1. 1 Macc. iv. 27. d Luke iv. 40. ch. xx. 31. Eph.iv.16. Col. 
iv.6. 1 Kings xiii. 20 Ald. e ch. i. 19 reff. f = ch. viii. 13 reff. 
copt Aug,: tovdaro: bef karo. E. avdp. bef 1ovd. C1: om tovd. &. evad. bef 


avop. D. 
6. for ot1, kat D: qui D!-lat. 
sah Aug, Bede: nkovcay 40. 96. 


nrovoev BN syr: nkovev C p, audiebat vulg Syr 
om «cis EN e 36. 


for T7 15. S1adA. AaA. 


auvT., AaAouvTas Tas yAwoous avtwy D Syr: tats yAwoous avtwy syr-mg Aug: lingua 


sua vulg D-lat E-lat, linguam suam Bede. 


would have allowed such an inaccuracy to 
remain uncorrected, if it had existed? On 
the contrary, I believe this narrative to 
furnish the key to the right understanding 
of 1 Cor. xiv. and other such passages, as I 
there hope more fully to prove. Ka6- 
®s x.7.A.] according as (i.e. ‘in such 
measure and manner in each case as’) the 
Spirit granted to them to speak (be- 
stowed on them utterance). There is no 
emphasis, as Wordsw., on avtots, but 
rather the contrary: placed thus behind 
the verb, it becomes insignificant in com- 
parison with the fact announced, and with 
the subject of the sentence. The word 
amopbéyyecba: has been supposed here to 
imply that they uttered short ejaculatory 
sentences of praise: so Chrys., amropbéy- 
Mara yap hv Ta map av’t@y Acyoueva: 
(Ee., Bloomf., and Wordsw. But in 
neither of the two other places in St. Luke 
(see reff.) will it bear this meaning, nor 
in any of the six where it occurs in the 
LXX: though in two of those (Mic. and 
Zech.) it has the peculiar sense of speak- 
ing oracularly, and in Ezek. xiii. 19 it 
represents 233, mentior. Our word to 
utter, to speak out, seems exactly to 
render it. It is uever desirable to press 
a specific sense, where the more general 
one seems to have become the accepted 
meaning of a word. And this is especially 
so here, where, had any peculiar sense 
been intended, the verb would surely have 
held a more prominent position. Their 
utterance was none of their own, but the 
simple gift and inspiration of the Holy 
Spirit: see above. 5—138.] Errecr 
ON THE MULTITUDE. 5.] De Wette 
maintains that these katomodvres cannot 
have been persons sojourning for the sake 
of the feast, but residents: but see above 
on ver. 1. I see no objection, with Meyer, 
to including both residents and sojourners 
in the term, which only specifies their 
then residence. evAaBeis| Not in 
reference to their having come up to the 
Vou. II. 


feast, nor to their dwelling from religious 
motives at Jerusalem (7d katoiety evAa- 
Beias Fv onuciov, amd tocovtTwy ébvay 
matplias apevtas Kal oiklay Kal cuyye- 
vets, €ke? oiketv, Chrys.), but stated as im- 
parting acharacter and interest to what fol- 
lows. They were not merely vain and cu- 
rious listeners, but menof piety and weight. 

Grd TavTos €Ov..... | Not perhaps 
used so much Ayperbolically, as with refer- 
ence to the significance of the whole event. 
As they were samples each of their different 
people, so collectively they represented all 
the nations of the world, who should hear 
afterwards in their own tongues the wonder- 
ful works of God. 6.| Whatever tis 
gwvas TavTHsS may mean, one thing is 
clear,—that it cannot mean, ‘ this rumour’ 
(‘ when this was noised abroad,’ E.V.: so 
also Erasm., Calv., Beza, Grotius, &c.), 
which would be unexampled (the two pas- 
sages cited for this sense from the LXX 
are no examples; Gen. xlv. 16; Jer. xxvii. 
[1.] 46). We have then to choose between 
two things to which gwyh might refer : 
—(1) the #xos of ver. 2, to which it 
seems bound by the past part. yevonévns 
(compare ver. 2, eyéveto . . . #xos), which 
would hardly be used of a speaking which 
was still going on when the multitude as- 
sembled: compare also John iii. 8 ;—and 
(2) the speaking with tongues of ver. 4. 
To this reference, besides the objection just 
stated, there is also another, that the voices 
of a number of men, especially when diverse 
as in this case, would not be indicated by 
gwvn, but by pPwval: compare Luke’s own 
usage, even when the voices cried out the 
same thing, Luke xxiii. 23, of 5€ éwékewro 
gwvais peyddats aitovmevor adtdy oTavpw- 
O7vat, Kal KaTioxvoy at dwvat a’tay. And 
when he uses the sing., he explains it, as 
in ch. xix. 34, pwr) eyéveto ula ex mavTwr. 
So that we may safely decide for the 
former reference. The noise of the rush- 
ing mighty wind was heard over all the 
neighbourhood, probably over all Jerusa- 

Cc 


18 


IIPABREITS ATIOSTOAON. 


it. 


g—Matt.  (getavto 6€ Kal eOavpatov Aéyovtes Ody %idov amravtes Al 

Takes oGroé elow of Radodvres T'adidaior; 8 Kal mas myeis a 
25 “Jade? iv. aKkovopmev ExATTOS 7H h (dla © Svanréxt@  ywa@v év H eryevunOn- ; 
h seach 19 ev, 9 TldpOor cat Mijdou nai “Edapitar, Kat ot ‘ Kar- 


i constr., ch. i. 
19 reff. 


ovxoovtes THY Mecotrotapiar, 


*Tovéatavy te xat Kara- 


7. ree aft efior. de ins maytes (from ver 12), with ACEIN! rel 36 vulg syrr coptt 


Thdrt ; 


AeyovTes ins mpos adkAnAous (explanatory gloss ; 
not, as Mey., genuine here, and thence insd in ver 12), 
om ABCX p vulg coptt th Thdrt. 


some inferior mss in ver 12: 
with DEI rel syrr: 


amaytes 83 27-9.69: om BD ae f h 1 m o Hr eth Chr Aug,. 


ree aft 
and hence became a var read also in 


rec ov«, with AC rel : 


ovx DEN p: txt B (the t became absorbed by the follg 1, thence ovx [as in LXX-A 


Judg iv. 14; xv. 2], and was corrd into ovr). 
ot Aad. bef evo C! lect-12 


B(see table) CDIX 36. 
Gal. sunt vulg copt. 


rec waytes, with E rel: txt A 
syr: e:ow bef ovro: p: gui log. 


8. tyv diadextoy D!-gr(txt D2) vulg(not am but [Lachm] fuld)Syr Aug,(once rT. 


tOiav 6.) Jer. 
9. om kaz eAapiTa XR. 
ins D®) vulg(not am! fuld). 


lem. 76 WAGs | including the scoffers 
of ver. 13, as well as the pious strangers : 
but these latter only are here regarded in 
the cuvexv6y and in the jj. eis Exaoros. 
On these latter words see above on ver. 
4. Each one heard Aadotytay a’tav,— 
i.e. either various disciples speaking 
various tongues, each in some one only: 
or the same persons speaking now one 
now another tongue. The former is more 
probable, although the latter seems to agree 
with some expressions in 1 Cor. xiv., e.g. 
ver. 18 (in the rec. and perhaps even in 
the present text). ouvexvOy | Observe 
ref. Genesis. 7.]| They were not, lite- 
rally, ald Galileans; but certainly the 
greater part were so, and all the Apostles 
and leading persons, who would probably 
be the prominent speakers. 8—11.] 
This question is broken,in construction, by 
the enumeration of vv. 9, 10, and then ver. 
11 takes up the construction again from 
ver. 8. As regards the catalogue itself, 
—of course it cannot have been thus de- 
livered as part of a speech by any hearer 
on the occasion, but is inserted into a 
speech expressing the general sense of 
what was said, and put, according to the 
usage of all narrative, into the mouths of 
all. The words tH i8iq Siar. Hp. ev 7 
éyevynOnpev are very decisive as to the 
nature of the miracle. The hearers could 
not have thus spoken, had they been spiri- 
tually uplifted imto the comprehension 
of some ecstatic language spoken by the 
disciples. They were not spiritually acted 
on at all, but spoke the matter of fact: 
they were surprised at each recognizing, so 
far from his country, and in the mouths of 
Galilwans, his own native tongue. 2: 
Tidp8or}] The catalogue proceeds from the 
N. i. to the W. and 8. See Mede, Book i. 


nu. bef dad. E. 


eyevnOnuev AC? Or 3 Kl py 1. 13 syr-mg Thl-fin. 
om 3rd ka D!-gr(ins D2). 


om te D}(and lat: 


Dise. xx., who notices that it follows the 
order of the three great dispersions of the 
Jews,the Chaldean, Assyrian, and Egyptian. 
So also Wordsw. ‘Habet (Parthia) ab 
ortu Arios, a meridie Carmaniam et Aria- 
nos, ab occasu Protitas Medos, a septen- 
trione Hyrcanos,—undique desertis cincta,’ 
Plin. vi. 29. See also Strabo, xi. 9, and 
Winer, Realw. M7Sor | Media, W. of 
Parthia and Hyrcania, 8. of the Caspian 
sea, E. of Armenia, N. of Persia. 

*EXapitar| in pure Greek *EAuuato., in- 
habitants of Elam or Elymais, a Semitic 
people (Gen. x. 22). Elam is mentioned 
in connexion with Babylon, Gen. xiv. 1; 
with Media, Isa. xxi.2; Jer. xxv. (xxxil. in 
LXX) 25; with, or as part of, Assyria, 
Ezek. xxxii. 24; Isa. xxii.6; asa province of 
Persia, Ezra iv. 9; as the province in which 
Susan was situated, Dan. viii. 2 (but then 
Susiana must be taken in the wide sense, 
°EAvuato. mposexets oav Sovatos, Strabo, 
xi. 13; xvi. 1). According to Josephus, 
Antt. i. 6. 4, the Elamzans were the pro- 
genitors of the Persians. We find scattered 
hordes under this name far to the north, 
and even on the Orontes near the Caspian 
(Strabo, xi. 13; xv. 3; xvi. 1). Pliny’s 
description, the most applicable to the 
times of our text, is, ‘Infra Euleum 
(Susianen ab Elymaide disterminat amnis 
Euleus, paulo supra) Elymais est, in 
ora juncta Persidi, a flumine Oronti ad 
Characem ccxl m. pass. Oppida ejus Seleu- 
cia et Sosirate, apposita monti Casyro,’ 
vi. 27. Mecorotapiay| the well- 
known district between the Euphrates 
and Tigris, so called merely as distin- 
guishing its geographical position (Strabo, 
xvi. 1): itnever formed a state. The name 
does not appear to be older than the Mace- 
donian conquests. The word is used by the 


8—12. 


TIPAZ EIS AIOZTOAQN. 


19 


I ¢ 
Soxiav, Ilovrov kat thy "Aciav, 10 Ppuyiay Te Kal koh.xvi.2 


Tlauguriav, Aiyutrov Kat ta 


\ = fa a a 
kata Kupyynv, Kat ot * émidnpmodvtes “Pwpator, “lovdaiol 


Vet. 

1 Matt. xxiii. 
15. ch. vi. 5. 
xiii. 43 only. 
Exod. xii. 48, 
49 al. 


pépn HS AsBuns Ths 


a 
\ a s rae a 
te Kal ‘aposndutot, 11 Kpijres cat "ApaBes, axovopmev ™ Lykei,' 
, Sh. FA a ¢ / , \m a Ixx. 19. 
AGNOVIT@V AVTO@V TAs NMETEPALS YAWOOALS TA ™ WEYANELA nmid., here 


Tov Oeod; Wf éEictavto S5é Tavtes Kal " dinTropovyTo 
Yi A 
Gros pos aAAov Aéyovtes Ti av °Gédot ToOvTO Eivat ; 


10. om te D vulg. 


D syr-mg Aug). ins kat bef Aey. D. 


aft ay. ins te D-gr. 
12. rec dinmopovy, with CDEI rel 36: txt ABN. 


only. Dan. 
ii. 3 Symm. 
act. Luke ix. 
7. ch. v. 24, 
x. 17 only. 

ALR Ge 
o = ch. xvii. 20 only. Herod. i. 78 al. 


11. apaBor D}, arabi D-lat(txt D4). 
aft aAAov ins em Tw yeyovore 
for av OeAo1, Beret (corrn to suit the 


direct form of speech after reyovtes) ABCD I(appy) p 36 Chr: deAo. &: txt E rel 


Thl.—t: routo @cAct A 36(sic) 113. 
LXX, Vulg., and E. V. in Gen. xxiv. 10 to 


ch. vii. 2. See Winer, Realw. 
Saiav] I can see no difficulty in Judea 
being here mentioned. The catalogue does 
not proceed by languages, but by territorial 
division ; and Judza lies immediately S. of 
its path from Mesopotamia to Cappadocia. 
It is not *IovSato: by birth and domicile, 
but of katomotytes thy *lovdatay who 
are spoken of: the apes evAaBeis settled 
in Judea. And even if born Jews were 
meant, doubtless they also would find a 
place among those who heard in their mo- 
ther-tongue the wonderful works of God. 

Kammadoxiav| At this time (since 
v.c.770) a Roman province (see Tacit. Ann. 
ii. 42), embracing Cappadoeia proper and 
Armenia minor. I6vrov |] The former 
kingdom of Mithridates, lying along the 
S. coast of the Euxine (whence its name) 
from the river Halys to Colchis and Ar- 
menia, and separated by mountains from 
Cappadocia on the 8. It was at this time 
divided into petty principalities under Ro- 
man protection, but subsequently (Suet. 
Nero 18) became a province under Nero. 

THY *Actav] i.e. here Asia pro- 
pria, or rather the W. division of it, as 
described by Pliny, v. 27, as bounded on 
the E. by Phrygia and Lycaonia, on the 
W. by the Agean, on the S. by the 
Egyptian sea, on the N. by Paphlagonia. 
Winer, Realw., cites from Solinus, 43: 
‘Sequitur Asia, sed non eam Asiam loquor 
quze in tertio orbis divortio terminos omnes 
habet, . . . verum eam que a Telmesso 
Lyciz incipit. Eam igitur Asiam ab 
Oriente Lycia includit et Phrygia, ab 
occid. Aga littora, a meridie mare 
Mgyptium, Paphlagonia a septentrione. 
Ephesus in ea urbs clarissima est.’ See 
ch. xvi. 6, where the same appears to be 
intended. 10. @pvytav] % meydan 


puyla of Strabo, xii. 8: Jos. Antt. xvi. 
2.2. It was at this time part of the Roman 
province of Asia. Tlapgvdiav | A 
small district, extending along the coast 
from Olbia (Strabo, xiv. 4), or Phaselis 
(Plin. v. 27), to Ptolemais (Strabo, 1. ¢.). 
It was a separate tributary district (xwp)s 
étAwY popodroyettai, Jos. B. J. li. 16. 4): 
we find it classed with Galatia and ruled by 
the same person, Tac. Hist. ii. 9. 

Atyuvmrov | Having enumerated the prin- 
cipal districts of Asia Minor, the catalogue 
passes (see above on the arrangement, ver. 
9) to Egypt, a well-known habitation of 
Jews. Two-fifths of the population of 
Alexandria consisted of them, see Philo, 
in Flace. 8, vol. ii. p. 525, and they had an 
Ethnarch of their own, Jos. Antt. xiv. 7. 
Pie xix.) Ose2- 7a p. T. AtBUns T. K. 
Kvpyvnv] By this expression is probably 
meant Pentapolis, where Josephus (Antt. 
xiv. 7. 2), quoting from Strabo, testifies 
to the existence of very many Jews,— 
amounting in Cyrene to a fourth part 
of the whole population. The Cyrenian 
Jews were so numerous in Jerusalem, 
that they had a special synagogue (see 
ch. vi. 9). Several were Christian con- 
verts: see ch. xi. 20; xiii. 1. ot ém- 
Sypodvtes “Pwpator| ‘The Roman Jews 
dwelling (or then being) in Jerusalem,’ see 
ref. The comma after ‘Pwuato: is better 
retained (against Wordsw.). *Tovd. 
7. kK. wposyHA.| This refers more naturally 
to the whole of the past catalogue, than 
merely to the Roman Jews. The te xal 
shews that it does not take up a new 
designation, but expresses the classes or 
divisions of those which have gone before. 
See a similar construction in John ii. 15, 
where tad te mpdBata k. Tos Bédas is 
epexegetic of mavras preceding. 

11. Kpijres x. “ApaBes] These words 
would seem as if they should precede the 
last. peyodeta | ni973, ref. Ps., see also 


C 2 


20 TIPAZEI> ATIOZTOAON. i 


p here only +. 
XA., ch. xvii. 


13 grepor S& P Suaydevdtovtes Eeyov StL Iy/devKouS * ME- P xovs 
s: pepneo~ 

peot@pevor eioiv. 1*5 otabels 5€ 6 [létpos avy Tots EvOEKA twpevor 

only. t éarfpev Thy * doviy avtod Kai “arepOéyEato avtois ABCDI 
ry Mace. 10. # , : ee i er heat x: IPR al 
sMacc.-10-"AvOpes lovdatou Kal of ‘ KaTorKovvTes Lepovoadnp amav- <dtg 
mo 


s ch. xi. 13 reff. 


32 only +t. 
q here only. 
Job xxxii. 19 


t Luke xi. 27. oe rae rn w \ ” Ni Keg aos , 6 x 

ch, xiv. ll. TES, TOUTO UL YyV@oToV €0T@, Kat EVMWTLOATVE TA 13 
a ee Ibe Wika wos Sule? SaONee 5 

ag i pNnmaTa Lov. ov yap ws vpels ¥ vTOAapPaveTE OUTOL 


y constr., ch. 
i. 19 reff. 
w ch. xiii. 38 
reff. x here only. Gen. iv. 23. Ps. v. 1 al. 

8) only. Jer. xliv. (xxxvii-) 9. z Matt. xxiv 
2,6 only. 1 Kings xxy. 36. trans., Deut. xxxii. 42. 


“peOtovcw: eat yap wpa tpirn THs jpepass 1 ana 


y = Luke vii. 43 (x. 30. ch. i. 9. 3 John 


.49. John ii. 10. “1 Cor. xi. 21. 1 Thess. v.7. Rey. xvil. 


18. rec yAeva¢., with El’ rel: txt ABCD®PX ac hk p 13. 36. 40.—drexAevaCov 


Aeyovtes D}(and lat). 

14. ins tote bef o7a0. de D!-gr. 
ABDIR® p 40 Thl-fin. for evdexa, Seka 
D lect-12 Syr Aug. 


ampotepov BK. 


nuew D}(txt D4). 


aft areé. ins Aeywy C Aug. 
mavtes ABC(D)N p: txt (see proleg) EI*P rel 36 vulg Th 
om xa bef evwr. D. 


aft yA. ins ovro D: also, variously placed, vulg coptt eth. 
rec om 6, with CEP 13. 36 rel Thl-sif: ins 


Di(and lat!: txt D5), and add amogroAas 


aft enp. ins mpwros D}(and lat): aft 7. pw. avtov ins 


for amep@. aut., evrev D. 
l.—avres bef o: Kar. cep. D. 


evwticate DD}: -cabe DA(sic). 


15. ovens wpas T7s nu. y D!-gr(txt D-corr!) vulg E-lat Aug Gaud. 


ref. Luke. 18. érepor| Probably native 
Jews, who did not understand the foreign 
languages. Meyer supposes,—persons pre- 
viously hostile to Jesus and his disciples, 
and thus judging as in Luke vii. 34 they 
judged of Himself. yAevKovs | 7”, see 
ref. Job. Sweet wine, not necessarily 
new wine (nor is the “spiritual sense of the 
passage” any reason why a meaning should 
be given to the word which it need not 
bear. That sense in fact remains without 
the meaning in question): perhaps made 
of a remarkably sweet small grape, which 
is understood by the Jewish expositors to 
be meant by pre or mp, Gen. xlix. 11; 
Isa. v. 2; Jer. ii. 21,—and still found in 
Syria and Arabia (Winer, Realw.). Suidas 
interprets it, Td dmooTdAayua THS TTapu- 
Ajjs mply maTnéy. 

14—36.] TuEsPEECH OF PETER. “ Luke 
gives us here the first sample of the preach- 
ing of the Gospel by the Apostles, with 
which the foundation of Christian preach- 
ing, as well as of the Church itself, appears 
to be closely connected. We discover 
already, in this first sermon, all the pecu- 
liarities of apostolic preaching. It contains 
no reflections nor deductions concerning 
the doctrine of Christ,—no proposition of 
new andunknown doctrines, but simply and 
entirely consists of the proclamation of his- 
torical facts. The Apostles appear here as 
the witnesses of that which they had seen : 
the Resurrection of Jesus forming the cen- 
tral point of their testimony. It is true, 
thatin theafter-development of the Church 
it was impossible to confine preaching to 
this historical announcement only: it gra- 
dually became invested with the additional 


office of building up believers in knowledge. 
But nevertheless, the simple testimony to 
the great works of God, as Peter here de- 
livers it, should never be wanting in preach- 
ing to those whose hearts are not yet pene- 
trated by the Word of Truth.” Olshausen, 
in loc. The discourse divides itself into 
two parts: 1. (vv. 14—21) ‘ This which you 
hear is not the effect of drunkenness, but 
is the promised outpouring of the Spirit on 
all flesh, —2. (vv. 22—36) ‘which Spirit 
has been shed forth by Jesus, whom you 
crucified, but whom God hath exalted to 
be Lord and Christ. 14. abv Ttois 
évdexa} Peter and the eleven come forward 
from the great body of believers. And he 
distinguishes (by the oro: in ver. 15) not 
himself from the eleven, but himself and 
the eleven from the rest. De Wette con- 
cludes from this, that the Apostles had not 
themselves spoken with tongues, as being 
an inferior gift (1 Cor. xiv. 18 ff.) ; perhaps 
too rashly, for this view hardly accords with 
&mavres, which is the subject of the whole 
of ver. 4. avdpes “lovd.| the Jews, 
properly so called: native dwellers in Jerus. 
ot Kat. ‘lep. Gm., the sojourners 

(ver. 5) from other parts. évwtioage is 
aword unknown to good Greek, and belong- 
ing apparently to the Alexandrine dialect. 
Stier quotes ‘inaurire’ from Lactantius 
(R. der Ap. p. 32, not.) 15.] otro, 
see above. Gpa tpity | the first hour of 
prayer : before which no pious Jew might 
eat or drink: “Non licet homini gustare 
quidquam, antequam oraverit orationem 
suam.” Berachoth. f.28.2; Lightf., Wetst. 
But perhaps we need not look further 
than the ordinary intent of such a defence— 





13—20. 


TIPASEIS AITODTTOAON. 


21 


uae TOUTO €oTLV TO * EipnMévov Ova TOD Tpopnrov 17 b”Rorras * xii. 40 


\b is “21 reff. 


> Lal c , 4 c c / , £ 0 a d 3 lal e > 
ay cev Tals “eaxatats * nmepats, eyes 0 Geos, “Exyew © aTro Jorn il, 28. 
4 ~ r ys , \ ce 2 Tim. ili 
op TOU TVEVMATOS [OU emt !racav foapKa, Kat mpodntev- jamesy.3- 
e an \ / ig lal \ e = ver. 33. 
govow of viol bua Kal ai Ovyatépes VUaV, Kal Ol ® VEA- “ch x. 45. 
Tit. iii. 6. 
/ ¢ lal hs / »” \ e ¢ e lol Zec ii 10. 
VITKOL ULWY “ OpadeEts parma, Kat Ol mpeaBuTepot OAD unre 
a 9: / 723 
iéyymviow ji évurviacOnoovra. 1 * Kal Kye emi Tovs ee 
dovr L émt Tas SovAas pou év Tais uépar Mat pea 
c vii. 2. 
OUAOUS ou Kab €77b as S tle: S ne P S$ ve ai 
ExElVals EseXe®)® amo TOU TVEUMATOS (eee Kal mpeparee: Bzek. ae 
govow. 19 Kal ldacw ™ répara €v TO oupave ava Kal g th. 30 rol 
— Rev lv 
te) Pp bi 17 
onmeia em THs ys KATO, aia Kal mop Kal drpida only pee 
Kkatvov. 26 adios OE Ce ae els oesTas Kal 1) Sica 
Kings 
r A s s 6, 15. 
ceAnvn els aiua, T pw  €dOeiv * Wépav * kupiov THY a 
only. Jud. vii. 13. k ch. xvii. 27 (Luke xix. 42] only. (1 oe iv. 8.) Joell.c. A. 1 = Matt. 
xxiv. 24. (|| Mk.v.r.) 3 Kings xiii. 3,5 - Vii. 36 reff. n John xi. 41. Deut. iv. 39. 
© Matt. xxvii. 51 |, Mk. Mark xiv. 66. John - viii. 23. “Deut. iv. 39. p James iv. ld only. Ley. xvi. 13. 
q Gal.i.7. James iv. 9 only. Deut. Xxiii. 5. ; r Matt. xxiv. 29 || Aik. Rey. vi. 12 al, Isa. xiii. 10. 
s Matt.i.18. Mark xiv. 30. ch. vii. 2. Isa. vil. 15. t1 Thess. y.2. 2 Pet. iii. 10 (1 Cor. i. 8. v. 
5. 2Cor.i.14. 2 Thess. ii. 2) only. Isa. ii. 12. 


16, 17. rec aft pod. ins twnA- kat, with ABCEIPR rel 36 vulg E-lat syr and, bef 


mpop., sah eth Gaud (corrns : 
kat inserted to suit the LXX): 
Rebapt Hil Aug. 
Cyr-jer : 


Ist, the name of the prophet supplied; and 2ndly, the 
ww, omg Ka, Syr coptt: om D Iren-int(iii. 12, p. 193) 
for ev T. exx. NM., meta TavTa (corvn to LXX) B sah eth-pl 
meta Tavta ev T. €. nu. C 103 arm Cyr-jer Thl-fin. 
DE vulg Thl-sif(appy) Iren-int Rebapt Hil. 


for o Oeos, Kuptos 
magas capkas D!-gr(txt D-corr’). 


for vuwy (1st and 2nd), avrwy D Rebapt Hil Jer (corrn to suit macas capkas ?): 


om 2nd uu. C. 


at [bef duy.] (C!?) D. opace: D!. 


om 3rd vu. D Rebapt Jer. 


om 4th vu. (C! ?)DE. om 
rec evuTvia (so LXX-Bx'-34), with EP rel 


36 vulg D-lat E-lat Chr Sevrn: om D!-gr: txt (so ZXx-4x3>) ABCD? fk p13 Thl. 


18. for ye, eyw D!(and lat: txt D*). 


transpose Tous SovAovs and tus SovAas &. 


om ev T. nu. ex. and (as LXX) kat tpopnrevo. D Rebapt Jer. 


19. om (as LXX-ABx!) avw Am 37! Syr sah (of these Syr omits katw: 


om ama to Kamvov D. 


20. wetarrpepeta D1-gr(txt D?[and lat]: 


ACDEN p 13: ins BP rel 36 Chr. 

the improbability of intoxication at that 
hour of the morning. See Eccl. x. 16; Isa. 
v. 11; 1 Thess. v. 7. 16.] This pro- 
phecy is from the LXX, with very slight 
variations. Where the copies differ, it 
agrees with the Alexandrine. The varia- 
tions, &e., are noticed below. TOUTO 
éotwy, ‘ this zs,’ i.e. ‘this is the fact, at 
which those words pointed. See a some- 
what similar expression, Luke xxiv. 44. 

17.] év tats éoy. Hp. is an exposition of the 
peta TavTa of the LXX and Hebrew, re- 
ferring it to the days of the Messiah, as 
Isa. ii. 2; Micah iv.1,al. See also 2 Tim. 
mi, 1; Heb. 1. 1. Adyet 6 Beds does 
not occur in the verse of Joel, but at the 
beginning of the whole passage, ver. 12, and 
is supplied by Peter here. exXe@ | 
LXX-AN3?: kal exx., BNI. It is a 
later form of the future; see Winer, edn. 
6, § 15. ad Tov mv.| In the Heb. 
simply “ My Spirit,”—n1vnx. The 
two clauses, k. of veay. and k. of mpecB., 


so also ZXX). 


-Tpapistat D}°), om 7 (as LXX) 


rec ins tnv bef nuepay (conformn to LXX-AB 


are transposed in the LXX. 18. Kat 
ye] LXX-AN54-D: kal, BR!. Aft. 
dovAas om pov BN!. The Hebrew does 
not express it either time, but has, as 
in E. V., ‘the servants and handmaids, 
kal mpopyntevoovoy is not in LXX 
nor Heb. 19.] Kat ddéow Tépara ev 
ovpayg Ed-vat.: txt ABN. &vw, onueia, 
and ka7w are not in LXX nor Heb. 
atpa x. wip... .] Not, ‘bloodshed and 
wasting by fire?’ as commonly interpreted : 
—not devastations, but prodigies, are 
foretold :—bloody and fiery appearances : 
—pillars of smoke, Heb. 20.] See 
Matt. xxiv. 29. jp. Kup.| Not the 
first coming of Christ,—which interpre- 
tation would run counter to the whole 
tenor of the Apostle’s application of the 
prophecy :—but clearly, His second com- 
ing; regarded in prophetic language as 
following close upon the outpouring of the 
Spirit, because it is the newt great event in 
the divine arrangements. The Apos- 


it 


22 IIPAEEIS AIIOSTOAQN. 


= inact 91 \ wv a aA bay 
“37. xix. 31, Kat “ €oTal, Tas os €aVv 


Uweyadnv Kal * émupavi. 


P 

ver. 6. \ / = ¢ 
Bev. i x érixadéontat To dvowa Kuplov Yaowbyjcetar. * avdpes dfeh) 
Mal. 1V. 0. > \ 7 iS m o P 
vhereonly: "Tgpanditat, aKovcate Tovs Aoyous TovTovs. “Incody 13 
Joell.c. i 2 a ‘ : 

i “a SN a a , 
wilt gov Natwpaiov, dvdpa “aro tod Oeod * amodedevypévov 
jullie. Vets twas ° Ouvduerw Kal ™Tépacw Kal elows 40% 

eli. C. 
see eee ee be p onpeiows * ots 


: > , S > 3 ne 3} X e2 L eon 6. \ > \ 

xk ix tsa. ETolnoev Ol avTOU O Geos “EV MEom ULUwY, KAV@S AvVTOL 

xxii. 16. Rom. x.13. 1Cor.i.2. Zech. xiii. 9. y = Matt. x. 22 al. fr. z = Matt. xi. 19. ch. x. 

2 Cor. vii. 13. Rey. ix.18. Isa. xlv. 26. ach. xxv.7. 1Cor.iv.9. 2 Thess. ii.4 only. Esth. ii. 

1 Mace. x. 34. Xen. Hell. iv. 4. 8. b = Luke ix. 13. ch. xxiv. 17 al. c= ch. wi 
e Luke ii. 46. ch. i. 15 al. Ps. cxxxiv. 9. 


33. 

9 AB(not & Ed-vat). 

13 reff. d attr., ch. i. 1 reff. 
and gramml corrn), with ACEPN3 rel 36: om (so LXX-x) BDN?. om ka emi. DR. 

21. om ver N}(ins in very small letters X-corr’). rec os ay (LXX), with 
ACDP-corr! rel Chr: txt BE 36. ins tov bef «up. D!. 

22. icBpandrraz (so ch. iii. 12 al) &, corp. B. va¢opaioy (so ch. iii. 6 al) DIX}. 
amoded. bef aro tT. 0. (corrn to avoid ambiguity of avdp. aro 7. 0.) BCD-corr® m p 
vulg arm Ath Epiph, Chr Iren-int Fulg: txt AD!EP rel 36 D-lat Thl.—dcdonimacuevoy 
D'(appy: txt D?: probatum D-lat): designatum E-lat: approbatum vulg Iren-int 
Ambr Fulg.—qui a Deo videri factus est apud vos Syr. for uu., nuas D}(and lat: 
txt D*) c k 100-27 lect-5 (of these 100-27 have nuwy below). for ots, oca D}(txt D?). 

om o bef eos C. o 0. bef 8? avtov E d 1 vulg(not am demid) Thl. 
rec aft KkaOws ins Kat (kaOws kor being a very common expr), with C’P 13 rel syr Chr: 


om ABC!DEN m p 36. 40 Syr sah wth Ath Iren-int Victorin Fulg. 


vets mavres E; vuers 117 vulg sah arm. 


tles probably expected this coming very 
soon (see note on Rom. xiii. 11); but this 
did not at all affect the accuracy of their 
expressions respecting it. Their days wit- 
nessed the Pentecostal effusion, which was 
the beginning of the signs of the end: then 
follows the period, KNOWN TO THE FATHER 
ONLY, of waiting—the Church for her 
Lord,—the Lord Himself till all things 
shall have been put under His feet,—and 
then the signs shall be renewed, and the 
day of the Lord shall come. Meantime, 
and in the midst of these signs, the cove- 
nant of the spiritual dispensation is, ver. 
21—‘ Whosoever shall call on the name of 
the Lord, shall be saved.’ The gates of 
God’s mercy are thrown open in Christ to 
all people :—no barrier is placed,—xo wnion 
with any external association or succession 
required: the promise is to individuals, 
AS individuals: was 6s éav: which indi- 
vidual universality, though here by the 
nature of the circumstances spoken within 
the limits of the outward Israel, is after- 
wards as expressly asserted of Jew and 
Gentile, Rom. i. 17, where see note. 

22.] av8p. Iop. binds all the hearers in 
one term, and that one reminds them of 
their covenant relation with God: com- 
pare mas olkos "Iopana, ver. 36. TOV 
Nalwpatov] Not emphatically used by 
way of contrast to what follows, as Beza, 
Wetst., &c.; but only as the ordinary ap- 
pellation of Jesus by the Jews, see John 
xviii. 5, 7; ch. xxii. 8; xxvi. 9. aro, 
not for ixé, here or any where else (see 
Winer, edn. 6, § 47, b): but signifying the 


for avTot, 


source whence, not merely the agency by 
which, the deed has place. See reff., and 
especially James i. 13. émrodederype- 
vov| ‘demonstratum,’ more than ‘ap- 
proved’ (E. V.):—shewn to be that which 
He claimed to be. aoded. must be taken 
with amd 7. Oeod: not, as some have 
divided the words, &vdp. amd Tt. Geod, 
Gro. K.T.A.: Gal. i. 1 is no justification of 
this; for there ad refers to aaéaToA0s,— 
and certainly Peter would never have 
barely thus named our Lord ‘a man from 
God.’ The whole connexion of the passage 
would besides be broken by this rendering : 
that connexion being, that the Man Jesus 
of Nazareth was by God demonstrated, by 
God wrought in among you, by Gods 
counsel delivered to death, by God raised 
up (which raising up is argued on till ver. 
32, then taken up again), by God (ver. 36), 
finally, made Lord and Christ. This was 
the process of argument then with the Jews, 
—proceeding on the identity of a man 
whom they had seen and known,—and 
then mounting up from His works and His 
death and His resurrection, to His glorifi- 
cation,—all THE PURPOSE AND DOING OF 
Gop. But if His divine origin, or even His 
divine mission, be stated at the outset, we 
break this climacterical sequence, and lose 
the power of the argument. The azode- 
deryuevoy (elvar) ard Oeod of Dr. Bloom- 
field is of course worse still. ots (@) 
érroinaev Sv ait. 6 8.] not, as De Wette, 
a low view of the miracles wrought by 
Jesus, nor inconsistent with John ii. 11; 
but in strict accordance with the progress 


21—25. TIPABEIS AITOSTOAON. 23 


h Tpoyvecer **) aoe xvii. 26 
ae ke vii. 


Yj nr an A 
oldate 23 TodTOV TH ‘ @piapevy 8 BovAn Kal 
30. ch. iv. 28. 
Eph. i. 11. 


Tov Geod i&kdotov * dia xEtpos 1 Gvojov ™ mposmrnEavres © 
"aveinate, **dv 6 Beds ° oa ParXvoas Tas mdivas isa 
only +. Judith 
SxaQote ovK Hv OuvaTOV * epareto Gan avTov is 6. 318 
ec >’ = only. see ch. 
ur avtod. * Aaveld yap Aéyes “ els avTov Y Hpoopapny eee 
Bel & Dr. 22 
Tov KUptov “ év@rriov jou * did TravTos, OTL ¥ ex SeEi@v pov Theor 


Herod. vi. 85. 


m here onlyt. 
of others, John vi. 


Tov Oavarov, 


1=1 Cor. ix. 21 3ce only. Wisd. xvii.2. (Luke xxii. 37.) 


k = ch. xi. 30 reff. 
o = trans., of Christ, ver. 32. ch. xiii. 32, 34. xvii. 31 only. 


n = ch. v. 33 reff. 


39, 40, 44, 54 only. p= Mark Vii. 35. q Job xxxix.2. T@V 08, AdoaL Secpots, 
ffl. H. An. xii. 5. r = here (Matt. xxiv. 8 || Mk. I Thess. vy. 3) only. Ps. xvii. 5. s = Luke 
1.7. xix. 9. (ver. 45.) ch. (iv. 35.) xvii. 31 only. L. =here only. Josh. xviii.1. Xen. Mem 


v = here (ch. xxi. 29) 
Gen. xxiv. 51. x Matt. xviii. 10. ch. 
Luke i. 11. ver. 34. ch. vii. 55, 56. Heb. 


u= Eph. v.32. Heb. vii. 14. 1 Pet. i. il “only. 
only. Psa. xv. 8. w = Lukei. 19. ch. iv. 10 al. 
x.2. Rom. xi. 10. Isa. xlix. 16. y Matt. xx. 21, 23. 
i. 13. 1 Kings xxiii. 19. 


ili. 2. 1. 


23. rec aft exd. ins AaBortes (corrn to fill up the constr), with DEP? rel 36 syr 
Chr Cosm Thl: om ABC!RN! p 40 vulg Syr coptt 2th arm Ath Iren-int Victorin Fulg. 
rec Xxetpwv (vorrn), with C3EP rel 36 vulg coptt Chr Iren-int: txt ABC'DN p 


13 Ath Cyr Thl-sif. 
24. aft Avoas ins 5: avtov EB. 


[averAate, so ABCDEPR d p 36 Ath Thl.] 
for @avarou, adov (corrn from vv. 27, 31: see 


also Ps xvii. 5) D vulg E-lat Syr copt Polye Epiph, Ps-Ath Iren-int Fulg Cassiod. 


25. ins wey bef yap E 36. 
kuptoy ins wou DN: om evwmioy Syr. 


of our Lord through humiliation to glory, 
and with His own words in that very 
Gospel (v. 19), which is devoted to the 
great subject, the manifestation, by the 
Father, of the glory of the Son. This 
side of the subject is here especially dwelt 
on in argument with these Jews, to exhibit 
(see above) the whole course of Jesus of 
Nazareth, as the ordinance and doing of 
THE Gop oF ISRAEL. 23.| Bovdy 
and mwpéyvwors are not the same: the 
former designates the counsel of God—His 
Kternal Plan, by which He has arranged 
(cf. epicuéevy) all things; the latter, the 
omniscience, by which every part of this 
plan is foreseen and unforgotten by Him. 
éxSotov | by whom, is not said, but 
was supplied by the hearers. 77 apicp. Ke. 
are not to be joined to écdoroy as agents 
—the dative is that of accordance and 
appointment, not of agency :—see Winer, 
edn. 6, § 31. 6, b, and ch. xv. 1; 2 Pet. 
ii Pale 8. xetpds avopwv | viz. of the 
Roman soldiers, see refi. 1™ postr - 
Eavtes| The harshness and unworthiness 
of the deed are strongly set forth by a 
word expressing the mechanical act merely, 
having nailed up, as in contrast with the 
former clause, from "Incodpy to tuav. 
Peter lays the charge on the multitude, 
because they abetted their rulers,—see ch. 
iil. 17, where this is fully expressed: not 
for the far-fetched reason given by Ols- 
hausen, that ‘all mankind were in fact guilty 
of the death of Jesus :’ in which case, as 
Meyer well observes (andthe note in Olsh.’s 
last edn. ii. p. 666, does not answer this), 
Peter must have said ‘ we,’ not ‘you.’ 


[ rpoopwunv, so AB'CDER (not 36). ] aft 


24.]| There is some difficulty in explaining 
the expression @Sivas in the connexion in 
which it is here found. The difficulty lies, 
not in the connexion of Ave with wdtvas, 
which is amply justified, see reff., but in 
the interpretation of divas here. For 
wdivas Gav. must mean the pains of death, 
i.e. the pains which precede and end in 
death ; a meaning here inapplicable. (The 
explanation of Chrys., Theophyl., Hc., 6 
Odvatos Wdiwe katéxwy avtov, kK. TA dewde 
éracxe, will not be generally maintained 
at the present day. Stier does maintain 
it, Reden der Apostel, vol. i. p. 43 ff., but 
to me not convincingly : and, characteris- 
tically, Wordsw. also.) The fact may be, 
that Peter used the Hebrew word »a7, ref. 
Psa. ‘ nets, or bands,’ i.e. the nets in which 
death held the Lord captive; and that, in 
rendering the words into Greek, the LXX 
rendering of the word in that place and 
Ps. exiv. 3, viz. @dives, has been adopted. 
(But see Prolegg. to Vol. I. ch. ii. § il. pp. 

28, 29.) It has been attempted in vain by 
Olshausen and others to shew that wdives 
sometimes in Hellenistic Greek signifies 
bands. No one instance cited by Schleus- 
ner (Lex. V. T.) of that meaning is to 
the point. See Simonis Lex., San. 

ov jv Suv. depends for its proof on the 
yap which follows. 25.| eis avrév, 
not ‘of Him,’ but in allusion to Him. 
The 16th Psalm was not by the Rabbis 
applied to the Messiah: but Peter here 
proves to them that, if it is to be true in its 
highest and proper meaning of any one, 
it must be of Him. We are met at every 
turn by the shallow objections of the 


24 TIPABEIZ ATIOZTOAQON. II. 


z= ch. xvii. 
13. 2 Thess. 
ii. 2. see Heb. 
xii. 26, 27. 


éotlvy wa pn *aarevOe 8 da TovTO niheera pou ARCH 


 Kapola een yadMdoaro a yAaood pou, he d€ Kal 9 dt gh 


Ps. xvi. 5. 
ach. vii. 41 


yh oap& you “ KatacKnvaces © oi 


Nevers THY Bruyn pou 
™ (detv ” duapOopar. 


b ch. xvi. 34. 
Matt. v. 12. 
Luke x. 21. 
1 Pet. i. 6 al. 
Psi. s 

c here only. 
see ch. xxi. 


] ev / 
OoloVv GOU 


Cwoijs, ITAnpwces pe * evppoovvns 


© édriés, 27 OTe ovK f éyxaTa- 
, Y 

“eis iadnv ovd€ * dwcers TOV 
23 © €ypa@piods jou ? ddovs 
S weTa TOU TposwTrov 


28. 

d Matt. xiii. 32 29 Fi , fa gd cg Pt il \ de D 
[glgea avopes aderdoi, 'éEov eizrety “wera “Tappynotas 
xiv \ c r \ a yv , s ~ Rites 

e Rom. iy. 18 T pos vpLas TEpPt TOU TAT plLapyovu Aavei » OTL Kab €TE- 

ff. 

£2 Cor. iv. 9 reff. g = Rev. vi. 9. xx.4 only. Wisd.iii.1. Jos. Antt. vi. 14. 2. h constr., ch. 

viii. 40 reff. i Matt. xi. 23. Revy.i.18al. Hos. xiii. 14. k = ver. 4 reff. 1 = Heb. 


m = Luke ii. ‘ 
Job xxxiii. 28. 
rch. xiv. 17 only. 


vii. 26. Ps. lxxxv. 2. 
n ver. 31. ch. xiii. 34, &c. only. 
q = ch. xiii. 52 reff. 
xii.4. 2 Cor. xii. 4 only. 
xxvi. 13. see John vii. 13. 
19 al. gospp. only, exc. ch. vil. 15. 


Eph. vi. 19. 
Heb. xi. 


26. [nuppavén, so ABCDEPR m p 40 Clem. } 
LXXx), with ACDEPN? rel 36: txt BR! Clem. 


26. ch. xiii. 35 (from 1. c.) &c. 

o 1 Cor. xii. 3 reff. 

Esth. ix. 18, 19. 

Esth. iv. 2. w. aor., ch. xxi. 37 reff. u ch. 

Y ch. vii. 8, 9. 
1c hron. xix. 28. 


Heb. xi. 5. see Ps. lxxxviil. 48. 
p = Matt. xxi. 32. Prov. v. 6. 
s constr., here only. 1. ec. t Matt. 
iv. 29, 31. XXViii. 31 only. Ley. 

att. li. 


Heb. vii. 4 only. 1 Chron. xxvii. 


rec 7 kapd. bef pov (corrn from 
ep DR. 


27. rec adov (so LXX-A), with EP rel Orig: txt (so zxx-Bx) ABCD be f (k?) op 


40 Clem Thl. 
28. yvwpicas D!-gr(txt D*). 
(Field is wrong). 


Rationalists, who seem incapable of com- 
prehending the principle on which the say- 
ings of David respecting himself are re- 
ferred to Christ. To say, with De Wette, 
that Peter’s proof lies not in any historical 
but only in an ideal meaning of the Psalm, 
is entirely beside the subject. To interpret 
the sayings of David (or indeed those of 
any one else) ‘ historically,’ i.e. solely as 
referring to the occasion which gave riseto 
them, and having no wider reference, would 
be to establish a canon of interpretation 
wholly counter to the common sense of 
mankind. Every one, placed in any given 
position, when speaking of himself as in 
that position, speaks what will refer to 
others similarly situated, and most point- 
edly to any one who shall in any especial 
and pre-eminent way stand in that position. 

Applying even this common rule to David’s 
sayings, the applicability of them to Christ 
will be legitimized : —but how much more, 
when we take into account the whole cir- 
cums tances of David's theocratic position, 
as the prophetic representative and type of 
Christ ! Whether the Messiah was present 
or not to the mind of the Psalmist, is of 
very little import: in some cases He plainly 

was: in others, as here, David’s words, 

spoken of himself and his circumstances, 

could only be in their highest and literal 
sense true of the great Son of David who 
was to come. David often spoke concerning 
himself ; but THE SPIRIT WHO SPOKE IN 
Davin, els tov xpiordv. The citation is 
verbatim from the LXX (except in the 
order of ov 7 Kap.: see var. readd.): the 
Vatican, Sinaitic, and Alexandrine copies 


evppoovyvnv Al(appy) 96(sic Scholz), so A in zxx 


agree throughout, except in @inv BX [Tov 
a5.N!] and gdov (A), and ev@pootyns (BR) 
and -ynv (A), betw een which our Mss. 
also vary. iva pH cahevda | Heb. 
‘I shall not be moved, 26. q yAsooa 
pov] Heb. 22,‘ my glory: so in Ps, 
evili. 1, where our prayer-book version 
renders “ I will give praise with the best 
member that I have.” Cf. also Ps. lvii. 8. 

27. StapSopdv| Heb. nm, ‘ cor- 
ruption, from now, corrupit,—or ‘ the 
pit, from 73%, subsidere. De Wette main- 
tains the last to be the only right render- 
ing: but the Lexicons give both, as above, 
and Meyer and Stier defend the other. 

28.] éyveptoas x.7.A.: Heb. * Thou 
wilt make known,’ amANpOOELS K.T.A.: 
Heb. ‘ Fulness of joys (is) with thy pre- 
sence. These two last clauses refer to 
the Resurrection and the Ascension respec- 
tively. 29. avSpes adeAgot} g. d., ‘I 
am your brother,an Israelite,and therefore 
would not speak with disrespect of David.’ 
He prepares the way for the apologetic 
sentence which follows. eEov | supply, 
not €orw, but early, I may, &e. The 
title ‘ Patriarch’ is only here applied to 
David, as the progenitor of the kingly 
race :—Abraham and the sons of Jacob 
are so called in the N. T. reff. In the 
LXX, the word is used of chief men, and 
heads of families, with the exception of 
2 Chron. xxiii. 20, where it represents 
“captains of hundreds.” Sri} not, 
because ; but that,—contains the subject of 
eiveiy, and is that for which the apology is 
made. We learn from 1 Kings ii. 10, and 


13 


26—33. TIPABEIS ATOSTOAON. 25 


evr qoev Kal * eragn, Kal TOY wynwa avToo éotuv 7 év piv SATS 


ns vii. 16 reff. 
dypt THS Huépas tavTns. °° ™popryrns oby *UrdpyYwv Kat rane 


25, 27. Col. 


eld@s OTe ’Opxm “a@pmoocev a’T@ O Oeds Ex “KapTOd THs 3. Num 
a = Luke viii. 


r / fal 
©dagvos avtod ‘ xa0icat eri Tov Opovov avtod, *! § mpo- ai. ch, vi 
i a im = 55 al. = see 
isov €Xaddnoev Tepl THs “avactdcews ToD ypLoTOD, OTL Ps-liv.19. 
ovte ‘1 éyxatereipOn ** eis 


Sir. xx. 16. 
1 StahOopav. 


k ddou OUTE 1) capt avutTov i €LOEV eae: Janta: 
e ‘ e ~ 3 x a F 
CU TTAVTES 1MELS wide feapTupes. 


1 xxvi. 3. 
avéotnoev 0 Geds, « consi. here 
11. = Lukei. 42. Gen. xxx. 
xix. 28. 1 Cor. vi.4. Eph. i. "50 only. 


33 rH deEid ody Tov 8X: 
xix. 1. see Gen. xxxvii. 18. 


PSA. cxxxi. 
xiv. 19 al. 1 = ver. 24 reff. 


a > fal 
32 tovTov tov “Incody 


e = Heb. vii. 5,10 only. Gen. xxxv. 11. 
1 Kings xxx. 21. 
ch. 1. 22 reff. 


f trans., Matt. 
g Gal. iii. 8 only. = Ps. cxxxix. 3. Wisd. 

i ver. 27. k here only. Isa. 
m ch. i. 8 reff. 


29. To pynumov D. for ev, tap D vulg E-lat. 

30. «dws D1(txt D4). for oopvos, kapdias D1(txt D78: precordia D-lat). 
rec aft oo. avtov ins To kata capka avactnoew Tov xpiotov (explanatory gloss, taken 
into the text from margin), with (D1E) P rel syr Eus (Chr) Thdrt Thl—but om to D!, 
om To k. cap. E 4. 27-9: avaotnoa DIE 13: aft tov xp. ins kat D-gr E 69. 96.105: 
om ABCD2X p Ht vulg Syr coptt ath arm Cyr Iren-int Victorin. rec Tov Opovov, 
with EP? rel Chr, @povov (only) P!: txt ABCD p Orig Eus Thl-sif (zxx-z'{B! def] x34 
have -vov, LXX-Ax) -vov: Meyer thinks -vov a gramml alteration to ie better the 
transitive kabica: but qu ?). 

81. mpoeidws D6 1. 60-9. 100-4-27-63 : mpoeiiwy (= mpo.d.) ACE c e 13.—om zpoid. 
eA. 7. T. D1 (and lat). rec for ovte and oute, ov and ovde (corrn from ver 27), with 
E-gr(ovx) P rel syrr coptt Thdor-mops Thl: ove and oure 13: oure and ovde B: txt 
ACDX p 36 vulg E-lat Eus Nyss Chr Cyr Iren-int Victorin Fulg Bede-gr. rec 
kateAerpoy, with P rel: txt ABCDEX df h 13. 36 Eus Thaum Nyss Chr Thdrt Thdor- 
mops Thl. rec adds » Wux7 avtov (from ver 27), with C3EP rel syr(aft a5.) Chr 
(bef eyxat.) Thdor-mops(aft a5.) Fulg Philast: om ABC!DN p vulg Syr coptt eth Did- 


int Iren-int Victorin. 


ovy D1(omg tov) E D-lat Ambr. 
eouev P!: txt ABCEP? rel. 


Neh. iii. 16, that David was buried at Jeru- 
salem, in the city of David, i.e. the strong- 
hold of Zion, 2 Sam. v. 7. Josephus, 
Antt. vii. 15. 3, gives an account of the high 
priest Hyrcanus, when besieged by Antio- 
chusEusebes,—and afterwards King Herod, 
opening the tomb and taking treasure from 
it. See also xii. 8.4; xvi. 7.1; B. J. i. 
2.5. Dio Cassius (Ixix. 14) mentions, 
among the prodigies which preceded Ha- 
drian’s war, that the tomb of Solomon (the 
same with that of David, see Jos. Antt. xvi. 
7.1) felldown. Jerome mentions (Kpist. 
xlvi. [xvii.] ad Marcellam, vol. i. p. 209) 
that the tomb of David was visited in his 
time (the end of the fourth century). 

30.| mpopytys, in the stricter sense, a 
Soreteller of future events by the inspira- 
tion of the Holy Spirit. eiSas | See 
2 Sam. vii. 12. The words are not cited 
from the LXX, but rendered from the He- 
brew. On the principle of interpretation of 
this prophecy, see above on ver. 25. 

31.] The word zpoiddy distinctly asserts 
the prophetic consciousness of David in the 
composition of this Psalm. But of what 
sort that prophetic consciousness was, may 


adnv BX b (k?) o p 36 Kus Thaum Nyss Thl,. 
32. aft Touvtoy ins ovy Diand lat) E Ambr Victorin.—om roy D1-gr(txt D8). 


ins 


eomev bef nuets N: wapt. bef ecouey D vulg: om 


be gathered from this same Apostle, 1 Pet. 
i. 1O—12: that it was not a distinct know- 
ledge of the events which they foretold, 
but only a conscious reference in their 
minds to the great promises of the cove- 
nant, in the expression of which they were 
guided by the Holy Spirit of prophecy to 
say things pregnant with meaning not 
patent to themselves but to us. 32. | 
From ver. 25 has been employed in sub- 
stantiating the Resurrection as the act of 
God announced by prophecy in old time: 
now the historical fact of its accomplish- 
ment is affirmed, and the vouchers for it 
produced. ov | either masc., see ch. 
i. 8; xiii. 31,— or neut. The former seems 
most probable as including the latter. 
‘We are His witnesses,’ would imply, ‘ We 
testify to this His work,’ which work im- 
plied the Resurrection. mavres, first 
and most properly the Twelve: but, se- 
condarily, the whole body of believers, all 
of whom, at this time, had probably seen 
the Lord since His Resurrection; see 1 Cor. 
xv. 6. 33.] Peter now comes to the 
Ascension—the exaltation of Jesus to be, 
in the fullest sense, Lord and Christ. 


26 


TIPAZEIS ATIOZTOAON. 


bis 


nMatt.xxiti, Oeod "inpwbels THY Te °erayyediay Tod TVvEvpaTos TOD 


12. ch. y. 31 
xiii. 17. 
2 Cor. xi. 7. 
1 Pet. vy. 6 al. 
Sir. xv. 5. 
o=ch. i. 4 reff. 
p John y. 34 
&c. ch. iii. 
Xvil. 9. xx. 
24. xxvi. 10. 
James i. 7. 
Rey. ii. 27. 
Num. xvii. 2. 
q vv. 17, 18 
reff. 
r John iii. 13. 
Rom. x. 6 (from Deut. xxx. 12). Rey. xi. 12. 
xx. 43. ch. vii. 49. Heb. i. 13. x. 13. 
xiv. 44. ch. xvi. 23) only. 
8, 10 (from Jer. xxxviii. [xxxi.] 31). 


83. for tnv Te, Kat THY D. 


s ver. 25 reff. 
James ii. 3 only. Isa. Ixvi. 1. 
Wisd. xviii. 6. see Gen. xxxiv. 25. 


ayiov »haBov P rapa Tod tatpos 4 éféyeev TodTO 6 vpels 
[kal] Brérrere Kal aKovere. 
5, TOUS Tovpavovs, Aéyer SE avTos Kimev Kvpios TE Kupio 
pov KdOov *éx deiav pov * as dv 00 Tods éxOpovs 
cov ‘vToT0dLtov TOV TOMY cov. 
yweoKétw mwas ‘oixos “lopayrX 6tt Kat Kvipiov avrov 


34 od yap Aaveld * avéBy * els 


36 Uggharas ovv 


t Matt. v.35. Luke 
u = here (Mark 
Heb. viii. 


Psa. cix. 1. 
Ps, xeviii. 5. 
v = Matt. x. 6. ch. vii. 42. 


rec T. ay. mvevu., with DP rel Thdrt Cosm Thl Iren- 
int: txt ABCEN ¢ p 13 Chr, spiritus sancti vss(appy). 
D}(and lat: txt D®): aft rovro ins ro Swpoy EK vss Iren-int Cypr Ambr. 


for TovTo o upels, vey o 
rec ins 


vuv bef vues, with C3EP rel syr Cosm Thl: om ABC!DN 1 p vulg Syr coptt arm Cyr 


Did Ambr Philast. 
BD 13. 


34. for Acyer de, espneev yap D; diwit autem vulg(not am fuld &c). 
ins o bef kuptos (as LXX ; see also Matt xxii. 44 ||) 


Aevyet D am lat-mss-in-Bede. 
B!-2(sic, see table) PR}. 

35. om av D}(ins D*). 

36. ins o bef ou. CD ec. 


7q Se&a] by the right hand, not ‘to 
the right hand.” The great end of this 
speech is to shew forth (see above) the 
Gop oF Israxt as the doer of all these 
things. However well the sense ‘to’ 
might seem to agree with the ek dekiay 
of ver. 34, we must not set aside a very 
suitable sense, nor violate syntax (for 
the construction is entirely unexampled in 
Hellenistic as well as prose classical Greek) 
in order to suit an apparent adaptation. 
The reference is carried on by the word 
deéid, though it be not in exactly the same 
position in the two cases. And the aveBn 
eis Tous ovp. of ver. 34 prepares the way 
for the é« de&ay following without any 
harshness. On the poetic dative after 
verbs of approach, see Musgr., Phcenisse, 
310 (303, Matth.), and Hermann,. Antig. 
234. See also ch. v. 31, and Winer (who 
defends the construction), edn. 6, § 31. 5. 
Wordsw. denies that the def&a Oeod is 
ever specified in the N. T. as the instru- 
ment by which He works. But he has 
omitted to state that this and the simi- 
larly ambiguous place, ch. v. 31, are the 
only real instances of the expression being 
used, all the rest being local, éx defer 
or &€v 5efi%Z: so that his dictum goes 
for nothing. And in the LXX the use 
of God’s right hand as the instrument 
is very frequent: cf. Exod. xv. 6, 12; 
Ps. xvii. 36; lix. 5 (where the dat. is used 
as here), and about 20 other places; Isa. 
xlviii. 13; Ixiii. 12, &e. After this, the 
objection, when applied to a speech so full 
of O. T. spirit and diction as this, would, 
even if valid as regards the N. T., be irre- 


rec om Ist kat (as unnecessary), with ACEPR rel Thdrt: ins 


for ere, 


elz om Ist cat, with Syr coptt Eustath-ap-Thdrt 


levant. émayyeAtay| Christ is said 
to have received from the Father the pro- 
mise above cited from Joel, which is spoken 
of His days. This, and not of course the 
declarations made by Himself to the same 
effect, is here referred to, though doubt- 
less those were in Peter’s mind. The very 
word, e&éxeev, refers to ex e@ above, ver.17. 

Touro, ‘this influence,’ this merely ; 
leaving to his hearers the inference, that 
this, which they saw and heard, must be 
none other than the effusion of the Spirit. 

BAérere need not imply, as Dr. Bur- 
ton thinks, that “ there was some visible 
appearance, which the people saw as well 
as the apostles :’—very much of the effect 
of the descent of the Spirit would be 
visible,—the enthusiasm and gestures of 
the speakers, for instance; not, however, 
the tongues of flame,—for then none could 
have spoken as in ver. 13. 34.] This 
exaltation of Christ is also proved from 
prophecy —and from the same passage with 
which Jesus Himself had silenced His ene- 
mies. See notes, Matt. xxii. 41 ff. dé 
is not ‘for,’ which would destroy the whole 
force of the sentence: the Apostle says, For 
David himself is not ascended into the 
heavens, —as he would be if the former 
prophecy applied to him: uv he himself 
says, removing all doubt on the subject, 
&e. The rendering 65¢, for, makes it 
appear as if the aveBn eis 7. obp. were a 
mistaken inference from Psalm ex. 1, 
whereas that passage is adduced to preclude 
its being made from the other. 36.] 
THE CONCLUSION FROM ALL THAT HAS 
BEEN SAID. mas olkos “lop. = mas 


34—38. 


TIPABEIS, ATIOSTOAON. 


27 


Kab xpiotov 6 Oeds “ érroincev, TodTov Tov “Incody Ov vz Matt iv. 


bpeis Eotavpwcarte. 


19. John vi. 


37 "Axovoartes 5€ *KatTevirynoav Thy Kapdiav, elroy x here only. 


te mpos tov Ilétpov kal tovs Rowmovs amoctodXovs Ti j; 


en. xxxiv. 
Ps. cviii. 
16. (-vvéts, 
om. xi. 8.) 


Tomnowpev, avopes aderpol; %8 Ilétpos b€ apds avtovs y Matt i 2: 


\ / lal a 
YMertavoncate, kal * BarrticOjTw Exactos tuav * él TO 


Nyss,: ins ABCDEPN rel vulg syr «th-pl Epiph, Nyss, Iren-int. 


ch, iii. 19. 
viii. 22 al. 
Jer. viii. 6. 
z constr., here only. 


rec Kat 


xpiorov bef avroy, with EP rel Ath, Epiph,: ko: xpiorov o Oeos bef avroy c m 4. 100 
Tert: avtov bef xupioy coptt (all transpositions for perspicuity): om avtov D'(and lat): 


txt ABCD?X 36 vulg arm Eustath Ath, Bas Nyss, Chr Iren-int. 


emrot. bef 


o Geos (corrn) BN p vulg syrr copt wth Ath, Leont Tert Amb: om o 6. lect-12: txt 


ACDEP rel am fuld Epiph Iren-int. (13 def.) 


37. om de H-gr Aug. 
Kkatyvuynoay E p. 
txt ABCN p Chr. (13 def.) 


om tov Di(ins D?). 


TOTE TAYTES OL TUVEAOOYTES K. akovoavTes D syr-ing. 

rec Tn Kapdia (see Ps cviii. 16), with DEP rel vulg Thi: 
for e:mcy Te, Kat eit. E: 
73. 103 Aug,.—kar tives ef avtwy eimay D. 


eit. be p: evmovtes D°X 1 18. 
om Aorovus D. 104. rec Toinoouev, 


with D rel Cyr-jer Thdrt : txt ABCEPX ah k p Bas Epiph Chr. (13 def.)—ins ovy bef 


mou. (see Lv iii. 10) D Iren-int Aug,. 


at end, add emdeéare (Tischdf, but v7o0d-, 


Scholz, Lachm ; and Scriv in D) nu DE tol syr-mg Aug, Promiss. 

88. rec ins edn bef mpos avrovs, with EP rel; @yow bef rac Bart. ACK p vulg Cyr- 
jer: pnow bef wetay. D: for werp. de, ere Se weTpos ah 38. 67. 113 lect-12 Syr eth 
arm (all these varr shew that originally the verb was not expressed): om B 65.127-63 


demid. (13 def.) 


6 oik. “Iop., olkos being a familiar noun 
used anarthrously: see Eph. ii. 21, note, 
and Winer, edn. 6, § 19, who however 
does not give ofos in his list: the whole 
house of Israel—for all hitherto said has 
gone upon proofs and sayings belonging 
to Israel, and to all Israel. 6 Qeds 
érotnoev, as before, is the ground-tone 
of the discourse. kuptoy, from ver. 
34, xptordy, in the full and glorious 
sense in which that term was prophetically 
known. The same is expressed ch. v. 31 by 
apxnyoy kK. coHTHpa Upwoer. The final 
clause sets in the strongest and plainest 
light the fact to which the discourse testi- 
fies—ending with dv tpets eotavpdcate, 
—the remembrance most likely to carry 
compunction to their hearts. ‘In clausula 
orationis iterum illis exprobrat quod Kum 
crucifixerint, ut majori conscientiz dolore 
tacti ad remedium aspirent.’? Calvin in loc. 
‘ Aculeus in fine.’ Bengel. 37—41.] 
EFFECT OF THE DISCOURSE. 37. KaT- 
evvy.| Katavicow is exactly ‘compungo.’ 
The compunction arose from the thought 
that they had rejected and crucified Him 
who was now so powerful, and under whose 
feet they, as enemies, would be crushed. 
‘Concionis fructum Lucas refert, utsciamus 
non modo in linguarum varietate exsertam 
fuisse Spiritus Sancti virtutem, sedin eorum 
etiam cordibus qui audiebant.? Calvin. 
motyowpev, the deliberative subjunc- 
tive,—cf. Winer, edn. 6, § 41, a. 4,--What 
must we do? 38.| peTtavoycate, 


for emt, ev BCD Epiph: txt AEPX rel Bas Chr Cyr Thdrt 


not, as in Matt. iii. 2; iv. 17, weravoeire. 
The aorist denotes speed, a definite, sudden 
act: the present, a habit, more gradual, as 
that first moral and legal change would 
necessarily be. The word imports change 
of mind; here, change from thinking 
Jesus an impostor, and scorning Him as 
one crucified, to being baptized in His 
name, and looking to Him for remission 
of sins, and the gift of the Spirit. The 
miserable absurdity of rendering peray., 
or ‘peenitentiam agite,’ by ‘do penance,’ 
or understanding it as referring to a 
course of external rites, is well exposed by 
this passage—in which the znternal change 
of heart and purpose is insisted on, to be 
testified by admission into the number of 
Christ’s followers. See Calvin’s note. 

Bamtis0jtw | Here, on the day of Pente- 
cost, we have the first mention and ad- 
ministration of CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. Be- 
fore, there had been the baptism of repent- 
ance for the remission of sins, by John, 
Luke iii. 3; but now we have the impor- 
tant addition émt T@ dvdp. "Inood xpioTod, 
—on the Name—i.e. on the confession of 
that which the Name implies, and nfo the 
benefits and blessings which the Name im- 
plies. The Apostles and first believers 
werenot thus baptized, because, ch.i.5, they 
had received the BAPTISM BY THE HoLy 
Guost, the thing signified, which super- 
seded that by water, the outward and visi- 
ble sign. The result of the baptism 
to which he here exhorts them, preceded 


28 


a Matt. xxvi. 
28. Luke iii. 
3\| Mk. 

b = ch. viii. 20. 
x. 45. xi. 17. 
John iv. 10. 

e ch. i. 4 reff. 

d here only. 

2 Kings vii. 
19. c ov 
ech. xxii. 21 a 

reff. a 

= ch. xiii. 2 

reff. 


g = Luke xi. 1 ca s 
53. ch. xiii, ~ OKOALAS TAUTNS. 
31. xxiv. 17. 
xxy. 14. 
xxvii. 20. 
xxviii. 23. Luke only, exc. Heb. vii. 23. Num. ix. 19. 


21. Rom. y.9. Ezek. xxxvi. 29. 
ii. 18 (Luke iii. 5) only. Deut. xxxii. 5. 


30+. 2 Macc. iii. 9 al. (-Sex76s, 1 Tim. ii. 3. y. 4 only.) 
xvili. 2. 1 Macc. ii. 43. 
Thi. 


Hil Lucif Ambr Aug Vig. (Syr copt Iren-int om xpiotov.) 


TIPABEIS AIIOSTOAON. 


d 2. “de feet 2 
eis  waxpav, Goovs av 
40 “Erépous Te Aorvyous € wAElocw  duewaptUpato Kal 
p 
/ ’ \ / i S 50 , A r 
TapeKader avTovs éyov @OnTe aro THs 
41 Oc perv obv 


k = Matt. xxiv. 34 al. 


1 & 


, la ’ lal lal a , a y a e lal \ Ve 
ovopatt 'Incod xpictov *els *adeow * awapTioVv, Kab Anp- 
weobe tHhv »dwpeay Tov ayiov TvevpaTos. 
lal lal \ lal al 
eat H ° érrayyeNla Kal Tois TéxvoLs LmOV, KaL TAL TOLS 


39 tiv yap 
 rposkadéeontar KUplos Oo Beds 


K yeveas THS 
™ GrrodeEapevol TOV NOTYOV 


avtou €BarticOncav, Kal ™rposetéOncav [ev] TH Huépa 


h ch. viii. 25 reff. i = Matt. i. 
Lee Tey by 1 = Phil. ii. 15. 1 Pet. 
m Luke viii. 40. ch. xviii. 27. xxi. 17. xxiv. 3. xxviii. 
n yer. 47. ch. y. 14. xi. 24. Num. 


ins tov kupiov bef ino. xp. DE syrr sah arm Cyr-jer Bas (Epiph) Thdrt ae 


Tov auapT. unwv A B(sic; 


see table) X p vulg coptt eth Vig Fulg Aug; tev ay. quov C: txt DEP 13 rel syrr 
Cyr-jer Bas Chr Iren-int Cypr Lucif Ambr Aug, 


39. nuw and nuwy D Aug;. 
sah. 
40. for re, 5¢ D-gr k: ome. 


rec om autous, with EP rel Chr, Thl 36-comm : 
taut. bef rns ckoAtas D lect-1 vulg Lucif. 


bef mapekade:, syr-w-ast. 


for noone ous (mistake in copying ?) AC 104 
[S:euapruparo, so ABCDEN ah p Chr Thl. } 


ins ABCDN p 36-txt vulg Lucif, and, 


41. for amodeé., mictevoaytes D (syr-mg Aug ins kat motevoavtes bef eBamtic- 


Onoar). 


or from ch xxi. 17), with EP rel syrr Chr Thl 
rec om ev, with EP rel (coptt ?) Chr: 


Chr,(appy) Aug). 


rec ins arpevws bef amodet. (explanatory gloss on amodct. from margin : 


om ABCDX p vulg coptt ath Clem 
ins ( possibly as a corrn 


Aug): 


to avoid the apparent connexion of Tn nu. ex. With mposereOnoav) ABCDN p vulg eth. 


by repentance and accompanied by faith in 
the forgiveness of sinsin Christ, would be, 
the receiving | the (Itt of the Holy Spirit. 
39. | Tots Téxvots Dp., viz. as included 

in the prophecy cited ver. 17, your little 
ones: not, as in ch. xiii. 32, ‘your descend- 
ants, which would be understood by any 
Jew to be necessarily implied. TAC 
Tots eis pakpav, the Gentiles ; see Eph. ii. 
13. There is no difficulty whatever in this 
interpretation. The Apostles always ex- 
pected the conversion of the Gentiles, as 
did every pious Jew who believed in the 
Scriptures. It was their conversion as Gen- 
tiles, which was yet to be revealed to Peter. 
It is surprising to see such Commentators 
as Dr. Burtonand Meyer finding a difficulty 
where all is so plain. The very expression, 
dcous ty mposkadéonta 6 Beds Tu. Shews 
in what sense Peter understood tos eis 
paxp.; not all, but as many as the Lord our 
God mposxad., shall summon to approach 
to Him,—bring near,—which, in his pre- 
sent understanding of the words, must im- 
port—by becoming one of thechosen people, 
and conforming to their legal observances. 
40.| The words cited appear to be 

the concluding and inclusive summary of 
Peter’s many exhortations, not only their 
general sense: just as if ver. 36 had been 
given as the representative of his whole 


speech above. owOnre is improperly 
rendered in E. V. ‘ save yourselves :’ it is 
not (see Stier, R. A. i. 62) cere EavTods, 
as in Luke xxiii. 35, 37, 39: be saved, 
Lafjet euch) retten, is the true sense. 

okoA\tas—see reff. Peter alludes to ref. 
Deut. 41.| This first baptism of re- 
generation is important on many accounts 
in the history of the Christian Church. It 
presents us with two remarkable features: 
(1) It was conferred, on the profession 
of repentance, and faith in Jesus as the 
Christ. There was no instruction in doc- 
trineas yet. The infancy of the Church in 
this respect corresponded to the infancy of 
the individual mind ; the simplicity of faith 
came first,—the ripeness of knowledge fol- 
lowed. Neander well observes (Leit. u. 
Pflanz. p. 34) that amongsuch a multitude, 
admitted by a confession which allowed of 
so wide an interpretation, were probably 
many persons who brought into the church 
the seeds of that Judaizing form of Chris- 
tianity which afterwards proved so hostile 
to the true faith ; while others, more deeply 
touched by the Holy Spirit, followed hum- 
bly the unfolding of that teaching by which 
He perfected the apostolic age in the doc- 
trine of Christ. (2) Almost without doubt, 
this first baptism must have been admi- 
nistered, as that of the first Gentile con- 





ABCDE 
Prab¢ 
fghk. 
moplh 


39—43, 


éxeivn °vyal wsel tpisyiduar. 4? joay Sé 4 mposKapTe- 
pobvtes TH *Sidayh TOV aTrocTOhwY Kali TH * KoLWVwViG, TH 
‘kAdoe TOU dpTov Kai Tals mTposevyais. 


TIPAREIS ATIOSTOAON. 29 


o = ch. vii. 14. 
XXxvii. 37. 
1 Pet. iii. 20. 
Gen. xlvi. 15 
a 


43 U gn, /, , nstr., ver. 
éyiveTo é P constr., ver 


q ch. i. 14 reff. r Matt. vii. 28. ch. vy. 28, xiii. 12. Rom. vi. 17 al. Ps. lix. tit. only. a= Galt 
11.9. Lev. vi..2. t Luke xxiv. 35 only t. u = but w. émt, ch. y. 5 reff. 
exewvn bef tn nuepa D. ws R}, 
42. for noay Se, kar noay D Syr. ins ev bef ty 8:5. A 98 vulg D-lat Syr. aft 


amoor. add ev tepovoadAnp D. 
ABCD'!N? p. 


rec ins kat bef Tn kAace:, with D?EPX?3 13 rel: om 


43. rec eyeveto (corn as more usual), with EP rel sah Chr: txt AN vulg syrr copt, 


verts was (see ch. x. 47, and note), by 
affusion or sprinkling, not by immersion. 
The immersion of 3000 persons, in a city 
so sparingly furnished with water as Jeru- 
salem, is equally inconceivable with a pro- 
cession beyond the walls to the Kedron, or 
to Siloam, for that purpose. 
42—47.| DESCRIPTION OF THE LIFE 
AND HABITS OF THE FIRST BELIEVERS. 
This description anticipates ; embracing a 
period extending beyond the next chapter. 
This is plain from ver. 43: for the miracle 
related in the next chapter was evidently 
the first which attracted any public atten- 
tion: vv. 44, 45, again, are taken up anew 
’ at the end of chap. iv., where we have a 
very similar description, evidently applying 
to the same period. 42.| Tq Sid0xq 
TOV atTooT., compare Matt. xxvii. 20. 
Tq Kowwvia | community: the living toge- 
ther as one family, and having things in 
common. It is no objection to this mean- 
ing, that the fact is repeated below, in ver. 
45: forso is the xAdots Tov &prov in ver. 
46, and the mposk. tats mposevx. The 
Vulg. interpretation of rf kowevig (Kal) TF 
kAdoet T. &pt. by ‘communicatione frac- 
tionis panis,’ per Hendiadyn, is curious 
enough. If suggested by 1 Cor. x. 16, it 
should have been ‘ communicatione et frac- 
tione panis.” The adoption of the right 
reading renders this interpretation un- 
tenable. The supplying t@y amroor. after 
kowwvia, as in EH. V., is better than the 
last, but still I conceive bears no meaning 
defensible in construction. Very different 
is the kowwvia T. ay. tyedpwatos of 2 Cor. 
xiii. 13, because there the Holy Ghost is 
imparted, is that of which all partake, are 
kowwvol: whereas the kow. Tay amor. 
must signify fellowship wth the Apostles, 
or fellowship with that Society of which 
the Apostles were the chief; neither of 
which meanings I conceive kor. will bear. 
The special sense in which rowwvia 
“occurs, Rom. xv. 26, could not be here 
meant, or the word would have been qua- 
lified in some way, 7H Kot. (1H) eis Tods 
mTwxovs, or the like. Tm KAdoet T. 
Gptov] This has been very variously ex- 


plained. Chrysostom (in Act. Homil. vii. 
p- 57) says, Tov &ptov mor Boxe? Aéywr, Kat 
Thy vnotelay évTav0a onuatvew, Kal Toy 
oKAnpoy Blov> Tpopis yap, ov Tpupfs met- 
eAduBavov. And similarly (cumenius, 
and of the moderns Bengel: ‘fractione 
panis, id est, victu frugali, communi inter 
ipsos.’ But on ver. 46 he recognizes a 
covert allusion to the Eucharist. 

The interpretation of 7 KA. 7. apt. as the 
celebration of the Lord’s supper has been, 
both in ancient and modern times, the pre- 
valent one. Chrysostom himself,in his 27th 
Hom. on 1 Cor., p. 422, interprets it, or at 
all events 77 koiwwvia and it together, of 
the Holy Communion. And the Romanist 
interpreters have gone so far as to ground 
an argument on the passage for the admi- 
nistration in one kind only. But,—refer- 
ring for a fuller discussion of the whole 
matter to the notes on 1 Cor. x. xi,,—barely 
to render 7 kAdots Tov &prov the breaking of 
bread in the Eucharist, as now understood, 
would be to violate historical truth. The 
Holy Communion was at first, and for some 
time, till abuses put an end to the practice, 
inseparably connected with the aydmat, or 
love-feasts, of the Christians, and wnknown 
as a separate ordinance. To these ayara, 
accompanied as they were at this time by 
the celebration of the Lord’s supper, the 
kAdots Tov &ptov refers,—from the custom 
of the master of the feast breaking bread 
in asking ablessing; seech. xxvii. 35, where 
the Eucharist is out of the question. 

No stress must be laid, for any doctrinal 
purpose, upon the article before &prov: the 
construction here requires it, and below, 
ver. 46, where not required by the con- 
struction, it is omitted. I need hardly 
add that the sense inferred by Kypke and 
Heinrichs from Isa. lviii. 7, dud@pumre mre:- 
vevrTt To &proy cov,—that of giving bread 
to the poor, is in the highest degree im- 
probable here, and inconsistent with the 
Christian use of 7 KAdots Tov a&prov else- 
where. Tats Tposevx. | The appointed 
times of prayer: see ver. 46. But it 
need not altogether exclude prayer among 
themselves as well, provided we do not 


30 


vy — ch. iii. 23. 
Rom. ii. 9. 
xiii. 1. Be > ov See, 
Gen. xvii 14. TMV ATOCOTOA@MYV EYLVETO. 


w ch. vii. 36 
reff. 
Ki CHAVnnO, 
30 al. 
y ch. i. 15 reff. 
z = 1 Pet. ii. 
12, 16. 
a = ch. iy. 32. 
Tit. i. 4. Jude 3 only (ch. x. 14 reff.) $. Wisd. vii. 3. 
(xxix.) 16. ce Heb. x. 34 only. 
17. John xix. 24, from Ps, xxi. 18. 
g abs., Mark ii. 25. ch. iv. 35. 1 Cor. xii. 24. 
~ vil. 27 al. Num. iv. 16. 


eyeweto BCD. 
ins ov pixpa E 25. 


TIPABEIS AITOSTOAON. 


2 Chron. xxxy. 7 al. 
f = ch. iy. 35 only. 
1 John iii. 17. 


for re, 5¢ BX p copt: yap sah: om D!-gr(ins D3) m. 
aft Sia ins Twy xeipwy E 40 syr eth. 


II. 44—47. 


don ‘uy poBos, ToAAa Te Y Tépata Kal onpeta * dia 


44, / S \ e , 
TTAVTES € Ol TLOTEVOVTES 


5 y ar) \ DN Ny AS oe a 4 45 \ \ 
nOavV €77b TO AUTO Kalb ELYOV AT AVTa Kola, Kat Ta 
b t \ \ cs / dye Nig 8 / 
KT MATA KAb Tas UTTap €lS ~ ETLTTPADKOV Kab LEMEPLCOV 
5 See nr f 66 ” g , ae) 46h ai Coe. 
aUTa TTACLW ~ KAUOTL AV TLS XpElav ELY EV, Ka NMEPaV 


bch. y.1. Matt. xix. 22||Mk. only. Prov. xxxi. 
d ch. iv. 34 reff. e Luke xxii. 
Exod. i. 12,17. Thucyd. iv. 118 fin. see ver. 24 reff. 


h Matt. xxvi. 55. ch. iii. 2. xvi.5. Heb. 


aft ony. 
ey. bef d1a 7. arooT. 


AC Syr copt wth.—eyevero ce: eywovro E | 25. 64.—aft amoor. add ev tepovooAnu 
ACER vulg Syr copt Thl-fin: of these ACN vulg copt further add poBos Te ny peyas 


em mavtas (see ch v. 5 al): om BDP rel. 
44. ins ka bef maytes de ACN p. 
Hr Orig Thl-fin. 


neepav bef mao D. 


for 5e, Te D. 
om ynoay and ka B 57 Orig Salv. 
45. k. ovot KTNMaTa ELxov n vTapters D.—om Ta p. 
for Kaori, Tors D!-gr(txt D®): Kadws 13. 


martevoaytes (corrn) BNF 
mavTa D. 


ewepicoy A. ins Kad 


46. for ka0 nucpay, mavtes D!: kad nu. maytes Te DS. 


assume any set times or forms of Christian 
worship, which certainly did not exist as 


yet. See notes on Rom. xiv. 5; Gal. iv. 
10. 43.| waoy wWoxy, designating 


generally the multitude,—those who were 
not joined to the infant church. This is 
evident by the mavtes 58 of morevovTes 
when the church is again the subject, ver. 
4A. Bos, dread, reverential astonish- 
ment, at the effect produced by the out- 
pouring of the Spirit. On the latter part 
of the verse see general remarks at the be- 
ginning of this section. 44.| If it sur- 
prise us that so large a number should be 
continually assembled together (for such 
is certainly the sense, not ‘fraterno amore 
conjunctos,’as Calvin) —we must remember 
that a large portion of the three thousand 
were persons who had come up to Jeru- 
salem for the feast, and would by this time 
have returned to their homes. elxov 
amovta Kowa] they had all things (in) 
common, i.e. xo individual property, but 
one common stock: see ch. iv. 32. That 
this was literally the case with the infant 
church at Jerusalem, is too plainly asserted 
in these passages to admit of a doubt. 
Some have supposed the expressions to in- 
dicate merely a partial community of goods: 
‘non omnia vendiderunt, sed partem bono- 
rum, que sine magno incommodo carere 
poterant,’ Wetstein ; contrary to the ex- 
press assertion of ch. iv. 32. In order, 
however, rightly to understand this com- 
munity, we may remark: (1) Zé is only 
found in the Church at Jerusalem. No 
trace of its existence is discoverable any 
where else: on the contrary, St. Paul 
speaks of the rich and the poor, see 1 ‘Tim. 


vi.17; 1Cor. xvi. 2: also St. James, ii. 1—5; 
iv. 13. And from the practice having 
at first prevailed at Jerusalem, we may 
perhaps explain the great and constant 
poverty of that church, Rom. xv. 25, 26; 
1 Cor. xvi. 1—3: 2 Cor. vill. ix.: also ch. 
26 SOS xeahyy Il The non-establish- 
ment of this community elsewhere may 
have arisen from the inconveniences which 
were found to attend it in Jerusalem: see 
ch. vi. 1. (2) This community of goods 
was not, even in Jerusalem, enforced by 
rule, as is evident from ch. v. 4, but, 
originating in free-will, became perhaps 
an understood custom, still however in the 
power of any individual not to comply 
with. (3) It was not (as Grotius and Hein- 
richs thought) borrowed from the Essenes 
(see Jos. B. J. ii. 8.3), with whom the 
Apostles, who certainly must have sanc- 
tioned this community, do not appear his- 
torically to have had any connexion. But 
(4) it is much more probable that it arose 
from a continuation, and application to the 
now increased number of disciples, of the 
community in which our Lord and His 
Apostles had lived (see John xii. 6; xili.29) 
before. (The substance of this note is de- 
rived from Meyer, in loc.) The practice 
probably did not long continue even at 
Jerusalem: see Rom. xy. 26, note. 

45.] «rypata, landed property, ch. v. 1— 
see reff.: bmapters, any other possession ; 
moveables, as distinguished from land. 


avra, their price; see a similar construc- 


tion Matt. xxvi. 9; and Winer, edn. 6, 
§ 22. 3. 4. Kaddtrav...] The &y with 
imperf. indic. in this connexionimplies ‘ac- 
cidisse aliquid non certo quodam tempore, 


ABCDE 
Prabe 
fghkl 
mopls 


PTS 1. 


TIPAREIS ATIOSTOAOQN. 


31 


te igqposxaptepovytes ‘ouoOupacoy év TO iepa@, * KA@VTEs ih iM (re) 


Te } 


Ny SS: r , s \ x4 \ , 
Kal eyovTes *yapw “pos OAOY Tov aor. 
t ‘@ \ u , Vv ay e , w 2_\ \ 

mposeTides tovs “awlouévous Y Kad nuépay ~“ ert TO 


5) , 
auTo. 


III. 1 [étpos 6é Kat “Iwavyns * avéBatvov eis Td lepov 


Heb. vi. 7. xii. 10 only+. Wisd. xviii. 9. 
Jude 24 only. 
q ch. iii. 8,9. Luke ii. 13. Luke only, exc. Rom. xy. 11. Rev. xix. 5. 
ii s = Rom. vy. 1 reff. 

x Luke xviii. 10. John vii. 14. 


34. 2 Tim. ii. 6. 
14,44. Heb. i. 9 (from Ps. xliv. 7). 


vii. 10. Proy, iii. 4. 


v ver. 46, w = ch.i. 15 reff. 


mposexaptepouy DD. 


’ rn 
Kat oikov apTov, ™ weTeAXauBavov ™ Tpodhs év ° ayar- 
Midoes Kal PadedotnTe Kapdias, *7 aivodvTes Tov Oeov 


ev Tw tepw bef ovo. C: om ood. D 3. 103. 


Matt. xiv. 19. 


c 8 N / 

oO € Kuplos 
1 Cor. xvi. 19. 
Col. iv. 15. 
Philem, 2. 
see ch. viii, 3. 
xx. 20. 

m constr., ch. 
(xxiv. 25.) 
XXvii. 33, 

o Luke i. 

p here only +. 
r= Luke ii. 52. ch. 

ul Cor, xy. 2 reff. 

Isa. ii. 3, 


n ch. ix. 19 reff, 
LXX, Psalms only. 

Psyclyl. 
t ver. 41. 


KQlL KAT 


oixous ay (om ay D-corr) em To avTo KAwyTes Te aptoy D. 


47. for Aaov, kocnov D. 


rec aft Ka9 yuwepay ins Ty exkAnowa (explanatory gloss : 


see note), with EP 13 rel syrr Chr Thdrt Thl, aft em: ro avto D (D k 19. 40 syrr prefix 


ev): om ABCX vulg copt «th arm Cyr. 


Crap. III. 1. ree Se bef rergos, with EP rel 36 syr Chr Thl:—em ro auto is omd at 
end of ch. ii. and insd aft aveBawoy in Syr: D ends ch. ii. with exxAnoua, but begins ch. 
lil. ev Se Tals nuepais TavTais metpos kor: txt ABCDN m? p vulg coptt ath arm Cyr 


sed quotiescunque occasio ita ferret,’ Herm. 
ad Viger., p. 818. See ch. iv. 35; Mark vi. 
56; xi.24.; Soph. Philoct. 290 ff.; Aristoph. 
Lys. 510 ff. 46.] xa mp... . év 
7@ tep@—see Luke xxiv. 53. The words 
need not mean, though they may mean, 
that they were assembled in Solomon’s 
porch, as in ch. v. 12—but most probably, 
that they regularly kept the hours of 
prayer, ch. iii. 1. kat’ otkov| domi, 
‘privatim ’ (Beng.), as contrasted with éy 
76 tep@. So also Wolf, Scal., Heinr., 
Olsh., Meyer, De Wette:—not, domatim, 
‘from house to house,’ as EKrasm., Salma- 
sius, Kuinoel, al.:—the words may bear 
that meaning (see Luke viii. 1), but we 
have no trace of such a practice, of hold- 
ing the aydma successively at different 
houses. The kAdois Tt. &ptov took 
place at their house of meeting, wherever 
that was: cf. ch. xii. 12; and see ver. 
42 note. pet. tpod.| they partake 
of food:—see reff. ;—viz. in these agape 
or breakings of bread. adedo- 
qyTt| In good Greek, apéAcia: the adj. 
&peAns (see Palm and Rest) originally im- 
plying “free from stones or rocks” (4, 
eAaAevs, stony or rocky land), and thus 
simple, even, pure. 47.| aivotvtes 
tT. 0. does not seem only to refer to giving 
thanks at their partaking of food, but to 
their general manner of conversation, in- 
cluding the recurrence of special ejacula- 
tions and songs of praise by the influence 
of the Spirit. Tovs owlopevors | 
those who were in the way of salvation: 
compare odOnTe, ver. 40: those whe wexe 


being saved. Nothing is implied by this 
word, to answer one way or the other the 
question, whether all these were finally 
saved. It is only asserted, that they were 
in the way of salvation when they were 
added to the Christian assembly. Doubt- 
less, some of them might have been of the 
class alluded to Heb. x. 26—29: at least 
there is nothing in this word to preclude 
it. Correct criticism, as well as ex- 
ternal evidence, requires that the words 
€v Th exxAnola or TH €kKAnola should be 
rejected, as having been an explanatory 
gloss, (‘est hee Chrysostomi, ut videtur, 
glossa, per Syrum et alios propagata ;? 
Bengel,) and émt 7d aité brought back to 
its place and the meaning which it bears 
in this passage (see ver. 44), viz. together, 
in the sense of making up one swum, one 
body assembled in one place. Meyer attri- 
butes the separation of ém) 7d avdré from 
Tlérpos to an ecclesiastical portion having 
begun év tats juépats tadras Tl. k. “Iw. 
as D. De Wette asks, why should those 
words have been inserted at the beginning 
of a portion? Perhaps in accordance with 
a not uncommon practice of opening an 
ecclesiastical lection with such a phrase. 
Or possibly, I might suggest, as a mis- 
taken interpretation of émt 7d avrd, 
which was not understood. Then when 
er. T. av. became joined to Meérpos, 7H 
exkA. would naturally be supplied after 
mposeTtOet. 

Cuap. III.1—10.] HEALine oF A LAME 
MAN BY PETER AT THE GATE OF THE TEM- 
PLE. 1.] avéBawvov, were going up. 


32 IIPASEIS>, AIOSTOAON. LEE. 
aes Yémt thy @pav THS Tposevyns Tv évatnv. 2 Kal TIS 
Pulse avnp yodos *é« Kolhlas pnTpos avTod * irrapywv ” €Ba- 


not A{appy]). 


cch-xiv. sre @TaCETO, Ov eTlOovy “Kal ruépav mpos tiv Odpav Tod 


a = ch. ii. 30 
reff. 

b = ch, xxi. 35 
(Rom. xi. 18 
reff.). 

ce ch. ii. 46 reff. 

d ver. 10. Matt. 
xxiii.27. Rom. 
x. 15 only. 

3 Kings i. 6. 


c fa) \ , e / rf a 

iepod THY NEyouéevnv “@paiay, © Tov aiteiv f éEXenuoovyny 

Tapa TOV §& eisTopevopévmy Els TO LEpor 
, \ > / 

Ilérpov kat “lwavyny pédXovtas "eisuevar eis TO tepov 

i > , rf rv , x n 
npota * édhenwoovvnyv NaPeiv. 


3 05 idev 


4k arevioas 6€ Leérpos * eis 


e constr., 1 Cor. 
x. 13 reff. f = Luke xi. 41. xii. 43. ch. ix. 36.al. Luke only, exc. Matt. vi. 2, &c. Tobit xii. 9. g Mark 
i. 21 al. h ch. xxi. 18, 26. Heb. ix.6 only. Exod. xxviii. 23, 31 (29, 35). 1 Kings xvi. 6. 2 Macc. iii. 14 only. 


i constr., see ch. xvi. 39 reff. k ch. i. 10 reff. 


Euthal(appy). 


aft vepov ins To detAevoyv ad vesperum D. 
rT. ev., evaTn TN Tposevxn D!: thy evatny THs mposevx7s T)3(and lat) arm. 


for Tns mpos. 
rec 


evvarnyv, with p rel: veatny B(Bch): txt A B(Mai Tischdf) CDEP a b? g hl m. 


2. ins :dov bef tis I! d Syr. 


the ro in eBaora¢ero is superadded, but by B'(not as Tischdf). 
(see ver 10: ef Eng Version) Eb o Bas-sel. 
3. for os 15wv, ovTos aTevioas ToLs opParmos avTov Kat Lowy D. 
aft np. ins avtous D coptt. 
ut darent Syr sah eth: ins ABCEN b o p 18 copt. 
for Ist ers, mpos X. 


D!-gr(txt D%). 
4. euBdcvas be om. D. 


Thy évatnv| See ch. x. 3, 30. TV 
Gpav Tis mp. generic ;—rHv év., specific. 
There were three hours of prayer; those 
of the morning and evening sacrifice, i.e. 
the third and ninth hours, and noon. See 
Lightfoot and Wetst.inloc. 2.] éBaor., 
was being carried. They took him at 
the hours of prayer, and carried him back 
between times. THV Ovpav .. T.X. 
Gpatiav| The arrangement of the gates of 
the Temple is, from the notices which we 
now possess, very uncertain. Three en- 
trances have been fixed on for the 6dpa 
wpala: (1) The gate mentioned Jos. B. J. 
v. 5.3: Tay 5& muAGY ai pev evyea XpvTg 
kal apylpw Kekadvumevar TavTaxdbev oar, 
éuolws Te Tapactades Kal Ta bwepOupa. pla 
dt  ewev Tov ved KopiwOiov xadkod, 
ToAY TH Tit Tas KaTapyvpovs Kal Tas 
mepixpvoous vmepdyouca. This gate was 
also called Nicanor’s gate (see the Rab- 
binical citations in Wetstein),—and lay 
on the eastern side of the Temple, towards 
the valley of Kedron. Jos. mentions it 
again, as 7) avaroAiKy TUAN TOU évdor pou, 
XaAKi otoa, and gives a remarkable ac- 
count of its size and weight: adding, 
that when, before the siege, it was dis- 
covered supernaturally opened in the 
night, rodro tots ididTais KdAALOTOY eddKeEL 
Tépas’ avoita: yap tov Oedy adrois THY 
tav ayaleay mvAnv. But some find a 
difficulty in this. The lame man, they 
say, would not be likely to have been 
admitted so far into the Temple (but 
see Wetst. as above, where it appears 
that lepers used to stand at Nicanor’s 
gate): and besides, he would have taken 


om umapxwv D Syr arm Lucif: constitutus E-lat. 


for @up., muAny 
Tap avtwy estop. autwy D!, 
for esievat, evar 
om Aafew DP rel H* Thi Lucif: 
aft AaB.ins map’ autwy E. 
ovy iwavynv k. etmey D1, 


up his station naturally at an outer gate, 
where he might ask almsof a// who entered. 
These conditions suit better (2) the gate 
Susan; as does also the circumstance men- 
tioned ver. 11, that the people ran toge- 
ther to Solomon’s porch ; for this gate was 
on the east side of the court of the Gentiles, 
and close to Solomon’s porch. Only the 
name wpata cannot be derived from the 
town Susan (from which the gate was 
named, having a picture of the town over 
it), that word signifying ‘a lily;’ the town 
being named, it is true, 1a THv dpadtnta 
Tov Tomov (Athen. xii. 1, p. 573): but the 
derivation being too far-fetched to be at all 
probable. Another suitable circumstance 
was, that by this gate the market was held 
for sheep and cattle and other offerings, 
and therefore a greater crowd would be at- 
tracted. (3) Others again (Lightf. favours 
this) attempt to derive apafa from 15m, 
‘tempus,’ and refer the epithet to two gates 
opening towards the city on the western 
side. But it is very unlikely that Luke 
should have used p. in so unusual a mean- 
ing :—not to say (see Lightf. Deser. Templi) 
that the meaning of 77) itself is very 
doubtful. So that the matter must remain 
in uncertainty. 3. || Hparai.eerenere 
aBetv.—so Soph. Aj. 836, airfroua dé 
o ov paxpdy yépas Aafeiv, and Aristoph. 
Plut. 240, airav AaBety Tt uixpdy apyupldiov. 

éXenp., as in ref. Matt. The 
Jewish forms of asking alms are given in 
Vajicra Rabb. f. 20. 3. 4 (cited by Meyer), 
—‘ Merere in me: ‘In me benefae tibi,’ 
and the like. 4. Brépov eis Hpas | 
Calvin’s note is important : ‘Non ita lo- 


ABCI 
Pratl 
fghl 
mop 


2—8. 


> \ \ a 3 , 3 ] , l > e Le) 
avtov ovv T® ‘lwavyyn eitrev | BXéWov eis nas. 


m = a > an n Py lal \ 
ETTELV EV avuTOLs TIPOSOOKWMY Tb 


6 eimrev Sé Ilétpos ’Apytpuov Kal ypvoiov ody ? bTapyxeu 


pour 0 S€ Eyw, TOTO cou Sidapu. 
xptatov tov Nalwpaiou [éyespas 


q t Ses - 8 a \ ” ASL r 
miacas avTov THs Seis yeLpos iyEeipev avTOV* * Tapa- 
fol Py \ s 3 / 6 c t / > lol a. \ u U 
xphyua O€ § éatepewOnoay at ' Paces avTov Kai Ta “ ohupa, » 
8 kal Y Eaddomevos €otn Kal TrepteTTaTel, Kal elsnAOev oUV 

> lal e lal / 
avtois eis TO lepov mepiTaT@y Kai “ addomeEvos Kal 


reff. 
r Luke i. 64 al9. ch. v. 10 al4. 
Xxxii. 6. Ixxiy. 3. met., ch. xvi. 5 only. 
u here only +. vhere only. Joel ii. 5. 


for BAeWov, areveicoy (sic) D. 
5. for eme:xev, atrevecas D-gr. 
E.—avrov C. 


IIPAEEIS, ATIOSTOAON. 


p ch. iv. 37. xxviii. 7. 2 Pet. i. 8. 
Luke only, exc. Matt. xxi. 19, 20. 
1 Kings ii. 1. 


33 
5G Sg Matt, xxii. 


John xiii. 22. 
Sir. xl. 29. 
mM amv 
16. Luke 
iv. 7 (eh. 
xix. 22. 
Phil. ii. 6) 
only. L. P. 
Job xxx. 26 
Bo (w. év, A). 
Sir. xxxi. 
(xxxiv.) 2. 
constr., ch. 
xxvii. 6 only. 
2 Macc. xii. 
44. absol., 
Matt. xxiv. 
50 al. 
o = ch. ii. 33 
Sir. xx. 16. q = here only. (ch. xii. 4 reff.) 
Num. vi. 9 al. s = ver. 16 only. Ps. 
there only. Exod. xxvi. 19, &c. 
w John iy. 14. ch. xiv. 10 only. Isa. xxxv. 6. 


Tap avTav °dafPeiv. 


3 a pugs | fa) 
ev TW OVOLATL G0U 


\ / 7 4 
kat| wepiTraret. Kal 


AaB. bef map avr. DE vulg Lucif.—aaB8. bef rx 


6. merp. d¢ erm. AC vulg coptt: txt B D(o werp.) EPS syrr eth Chr Thl Lucif. 


ou« CR. 


rec ins eyepar kar (addn from such passages as Luke v. 23, vi. 8 al?), 


with C rel 36; everpe kas AEP m p Thl,: avacra Epiph: om BDN sah. (The authori- 
ties being divided, eyepe and -pa being no real variation, I have left it as doubtful.) 


7. macacas (sic) P. 


eotabyn Kot cor. D. 


rec om 2nd avrov, with DEP rel Chr, Thl-txt : ins ABCN 
p 36 vulg Syr coptt zth arm Eus Bas Chr Thdrt Bas-sel Cypr Lucif. 
rec avtou bef a Bacers, with EP rel: txt ABCDN p. 


KOL TApaXp. 
Kal 


ora opvopa (sic: but 5 erased) &, B! also has opvdpa (Tischdf ). 


8. aft mepiem. ins xaipwv EH; xXalpomevos 


1D} mepim. bef e. To vep. k 13. 


om last ka: (see note) A sah Lucif: ins BCEPN rel [ren-int.—om epi. k. aAA. k. 


D eth. 


quitur Petrus quin de consilio Dei certus 
sit : et certe his verbis singulare aliquod et 
insolitum beneficium sperarejubet. Quzri 
tamen potest, an facultatem habuerint 
edendi miracula quoties liberet. Respon- 
deo, sic ministros fuisse divine virtutis, ut 
nihil suo arbitrio vel proprio motu tenta- 
rint, sed Dominus per ipsos egerit quum ita 
expedire noverat. Hine factum est ut 
unum sanarint, nonautem promiscue omnes. 
Ergo, quemadmodum in aliis rebus ducem 
et directorem habebant Dei Spiritum, ita 
etiam in hac parte. Ideo priusquam clau- 
dum surgere jubeat Petrus, conjecit in eum 
et defixit oculos. Talis intuitus non carebat 
peculiari Spiritus motu. Hine fit ut tam 
secure de miraculo pronuntiet. Porro, ex- 
citare hoc verbo claudum voluit ad recipien- 
dam Dei gratiam: ille tamen nihil quam 
eleemosynam exspectat.’ 5. éaretyev | 
not Tovs dP0adpovs (as Bos and Kuinoel), 
which is implied:--but (see reff.) dv 
voor, fixed his attention on them. 

6.] «Non dubium est, quin etiam iis qui 
non erant de communitate fidelium, datz 
fuerint eleemosyne: sed Petrus tum vel 
nil habebat secum, in via ad templum, 
vel non tantum dare poterat quantum ad 
sublevandum pauperem opus esset. Vide 
abstinentiam Apostoli in tanta administra- 
tione, cf. ii. 45, coll. iv. 35.2 Bengel. But 

Vou. II, 


perhaps it is more simple to conclude that 
Peter spoke here of his own station and 
means in life—‘ I am no rich man, nor have 
I silver or gold to give thee.’ év TO 
évop.| There is no ellipsis (as Heinr. and 
Kuinoel) of Aéyw oo, which weakens the 
force of the sentence: the name of Jesus is 
that in which, by the power of which, the 
“rise up and walk” is to be accomplished. 

7. mudoas .... Hyerpev| ovTw Kal 
6 xpiords emolnoe: ToAAdKis Adyw €Oe- 
pdmevse, moAAdKis epy@, ToAAdKis Kal 
Thy xEipa mponyayey, Omrov hoav acbe- 
véotepot Kata THy TlaTwW: iva un SdEn ard 
TavTouatou yevéerdat. Chrys. in Act. Hom. 
viii. p.63. See Mark ix. 27. Baces 
are the soles of the feet,—odvpa, the 
ankles. Luke, the physician, had made 
himself acquainted with the peculiar kind 
of weakness, and described it accordingly. 

8.] é€aXX. describes his first joyous 
liberation from his weakness: as soon as 
he felt himself strengthened, he leapt up, 
for joy. No suppositions need be made, 
such as meipd(wy tows éavtdy (Chrys.): or 
that it was from ignorance how to walk 
(Bloomf.). His joy is quite sufficient to 
explain the gesture, and it is better to 
leave the narrative in its simplicity. If 
kat before aivéy is omitted (see digest), 
the present participle has its ratiocinative 

D 


34 


xchiaiee Xaiv@v Tov Oedv. *% Kal eidev Tas 6 ads avTov TepiTTa- AB 


y constr., 1 Cor 
xiv. 37 reff. 

z — 2 Cor. viii. 
19 reff. see 
Matt. xix. 8. 

Q VV.'2, 3- 

b ch. v. 9. 

Matt. xxiv. 

9% - 

3 ||. John v. f 





pavros ™ ExPapuBoc. 


vy. 9 only. 
Cant. ii. 8 


IIPAZEIS, AMOSTOAON. 


’ / g b] \ nr h / > lal 
exotacews 2 éml TO PoupBEBnKoTe avTo@. 
y. be ’ a \ / | , k ‘5 Lal 

_ Tos 6€ avtovd tov Ilétpov Kai “lwavvnv, * cvvedpapev Tras 
an a al te 

6 Xads Tpos avtovs “él TH !oTod TH Kadovpevy Lordo- 

12 (Sav 6é 6 Tlétpos ™ amrexpivato 


Ill. 


nr lal , \ 
Toovta Kal *atvoovta tov Oeov: 19 ¥ érreyivwaKov Oé avTov afgh 
~ 1mo} 


a e 9S id Zz \ \ a 3 / 8 / b b] \ 

OTL OUTOS HV O* mpos THY *€XenmoatYnV KAaOHmEvOS ” ETL TH 
a e¢ A / X 

°@paia TUN Tod iepod: Kat 4 érAjcOncav ° PapBovs Kal 


11 i Kpatovp- 


, al / ’ \ 
(Peiv, Mark Mpos TOV Aaov "Avopes “lopanditat, Ti ° Bavpatete ° ETrt 
i. 27). FUR ears hp? / ¢ 207 s X qo / 
f-Markv.2. TOUT@, 1) Nulv TL Parevitere ws idia Suvdper 1) 4 evoEBELa 


xvi. 8. Luk 
v. 26 (ch. x. 


e 


rn lal / c \ > \ 
oA texiy. TTeMOUnKOoLW ° TOD TepuTratey avTov; 13 06 Geos ABpaau 


Deut. xxviil. 


28. g Rom. vi. 21 reff. h Mark x. 32. Luke xxiv. 14. ch. xx. 19. xxi. 35. 1Cor.x.11. 1 Pet. 
iv. 12. 2 Pet. ii. 22 only. Gen. xlii. 4. i = Jud. xvi. 26 B. see Matt. ix. 25 al. k = Mark vi. 
33 only. Judith vi. 16. met.,1 Pet.iv.4 only. Ps. xlix. 18. 1 John v. 2. x. 23. ch. v. 12 only. Ezek. 
xlii. 3. m here only+. objectively, Dan. vii. 7 Theod. (-Beto@at, Mark ix. 5.) plur., ch. v. 16. 


n= ch. vy. 8 reff. o Luke iv. 22. xx. 26 al. 


exc. past. epp. (1 Tim. ii. 2 al) & 2 Pet. (i. 3 al.) 
s constr., ch. vil. 19. xy. 20. xxvii. lal. Josh. xxii. 26. 


Isa. li. 15. 
4. xiv. 9. xxiii. lonly. Job vii. 8 F[atevot(?) A] (Esdr. vi. 28) only. with els, ch. i. 10 reff. 
Isa. xi. 2. Wisd. x. 12. 
3 Kings xiii. 16 B. Winer, edn. 6, $ 44. 4. 


p w. dat., Luke iy. 20. xxii. 56. ch. x. 


q here only, 
r = Marki. 17. vii. 37 al. 


9. rec avroy bef mas o A., with EP rel Chr Lucif: txt ABCDX p vulg (sah). 


for cov, kupioyv C. 


10. rec (for de) re, with D E-gr P rel syrr eth Thl Lucif: txt ABCX p vulg E-lat 


copt Bas-sel. 


om avroy &'(written above the line by X-corr?). 


for ovTos, autos 


(corrn as more usual) ACN g p 36 vulg eth Bas-sel Lucif: txt BDEP rel Chr Thl. 


kableLouevos D. 
for cunB., yeyeyvnuevw D. 


THY wpaav mUAnV N!(N> correcting ty wpaa but not rvAny). 


11. for ver, exmopevowevov Se tov TeTpov Kal twavov cuveteTOpEVETO KpATWY QUTOUS* OL 


de OauBybertes eatnoay ev Tn oT. H (TH D*) k. o. ex. D. 


for Se, re A Syr. 


rec for avrou, Tov talevtos xwAov (beginning of an ecclesiastical lection), with P rel Thi: 


txt ABCDE® ec p 36 syrr copt «th arm. 
ABR m p Chr. 
p vulg Syr sah eth arm. 


12. amoxpifes 5 o weTp. ertev Tp. avtous D. 
for Ist 4, ec (ttacism) &. 


TOUTO TETOLNKOTwY TouTO (Tov D-corr) wepiT. aut. D. 


ABCDX k 0 p 13 Chr. 


force, alleging the cause of the walking 
and leaping: and would best be rendered 
in English, in his praising of God. 
11—26.] THE DISCOURSE OF PETER 
THEREUPON. 11. kpatovvtos | holding, 
physically : not spoken of mental adhesion, 
but of actual holding by the hand or arm, 
that he might not be separated from them 
inthe crowd, but might testify to-all, who his 
benefactors were. oT0G TH K. Dodo. | 
See John x. 23, note. 12. amexpt- 
vato | viz. to their expressions of astonish- 
ment implied in €«@auBo.. See Matt. xi. 
25. amexptvato never signifies ‘made an 
address, as Bloomf.; but always ‘an- 
swered:’ ef. ch. v. 8, note. This second 
discourse of Peter may be thus divided : 
This is no work of ours, but of God, for 
the glorifying of Jesus, vv. 12, 13 :—whom 
ye denied and killed, but God hath raised 
up, VV. 13—15 :—through whose name this 
man is made whole, ver.16:—ye did it in 
ignorance, but God thereby fulfilled His 
counsel, vy. 17, 18. Exhortation to re- 


om Tov [bef merp.] c.—ins Tov bef war. 


rec mpos avtous bef mas o Aaos, with EP rel Syr copt: txt ABCN 


rec om o, with EP rel Thl: ins 
ws nuwy TH dia Suv. 7 EVE. 
tovrov E vulg Iren-int Cass. 


pent, that ye may be forgiven, and saved 
by this Jesus Christ at His coming, vv. 
19—21: whose times have been the subject 
of prophecy from the first, ver. 21. Cita- 
tions to prove this, vv. 22—24.:: its imme- 
diate application to the hearers, as Jews, 
vv. 25, 26. There the discourse seems to 
be broken off, as ch. iv. 1 relates. 

él tovt@| not, at this (event): but at 
this man, compare avtdéy below, which 
would not be used at the first mention of 
one then present. Their error was not 
the wonder itself,—though even that would 
shew ignorance and weakness of faith, for 
it was truly no wonderful thing that had 
happened, viewed by a believer in Jesus,— 
but their wondering at the Apostles, as 
if they had done it by their own power. 
‘Ergo,’ says Calvin, ‘hoe est perperam 
obstupescere, quum in hominibus mentes 
nostre subsistunt.’ ~ Suvaper, power, 
—such as magical craft, or any otber 
supposed means of working miracles: ev- 
ocBeia, meritorious efficacy with God, so 


CD) 
ab 


13 


9—16. 


IIPASEIS AMOSTOAON. 


35 


\ A / 1 fal 
kai “Ioad« Kai “laxéB, 6 Ocds Tov *tatépav * Hudy, te. 20 ref. 


3 , \ u al > a > fol aA c fol Vv \ 
eddfacey TOV “Taida avtod “Incoty, ov tpels Y per, 
Ww / \ x ? / 14] > \ y \ , 
Tapeo@Kate, Kal *npvyncacbe [avdtov| ¥ Kata Tposwtrov 
> ¢ 
Ilindtov, *Kpivavtos éxewou * azrodveuv. 
7 , \ , 
Drov aywv Kal ° dicatov * npyvyncacbe, Kal *ntHcaTbe 


u = ver. 26 
reff. 
Mév solita- 
rium. Rom. 
vii. 12 reff. 
w = Matt. 
xxvii. 18 
|| Mk. Jer. 
XxXxiil. 
(xxvi.) 24. 
x = ch. vii. 35 


reff. 


14 Swets O€ 


1 reff. 


n a a Be FLLE? ois a e 
Ths Cwhs atexteivate Ov o Oeos inyetpev Ek | VEKPOYV, OD x constr., ch. 


e a j / , ’ 16 Nec é \ f 1 , “s u hee re 
ach. KV1. Of 
NMELS MapTupes EO LEV. Kab 7b 7) TtLOTEL TOV vei x 
b = John vi. 69. 1 John ii. 20. ce abs., ch. Vii. 52 reff. d constr., Luke xxiii. 23. ch. xiii. 


28. 3 Kings xix. 4. e Luke xxiv. 19. 
heh. y. 31. Heb. ii. 10. xii. 2 only. 


k = Lukey.5. Phil. iii. 9al. Job xxix. 22. 


Judg. vi. 8. fe, 
1 Mace. ix. 61. x. 47. 


. Vii. 52 reff. 
i) Cor. xv. 12 reff. 
1 constr., Ra a. iii. 22 reff. 


g =1 Cor. ii. 12 reff. 
jch.i. 8 reff. 


13. ins Geos bef woaak and bef sax. AD vulg copt eth Iren-int, ins 0 6eos CX 
Chr Thl-fin (corrns to suit Lxx Exod iii. 6, and Matt xxi’. 32 ||): om BEP rel syrr 


sah Thdot-ancyr Thl-sif. 
by &°[12th cent). 


for Twy, Tw X&. 
aft inc. ins xp. D eth-pl. 


for maida, matepa X!(corrected 
ques D. rec om pev 


(erased because no correspondg d¢ follows), with D m: ins ABCEPX rel 36 vulg Chr 


Thl Iren-int Jer. 
amnpyncacbat D. 
Tren-int Jer: ins DEP rel syr sah Chr. 


aft maped. add ers kpiowv D syr-mg Iren-int; ers xpirnpiov E. 
om avtoy (as needless) ABCX p 36 vulg copt arm Did 


TELAGTOU TOU KpELYaYTOS EKELVOU aTroAUELY 


autov Gedovtos D; cwm judicasset ille dismittere eum voluit D-lat (a curious instance 
of combination of readings) ; Tov, @eAovTos, and voluit are marked for erasure. 


kpivovtos C 13. amoAAve &. 


14. dicaov eBapuvatre kar ntnoate D: so for npyneo., aggravastis Iren-int. 


padrrAov bef nrncacde HK, aft nrno. syr-mg. 
15. vuers D'(txt D*). 
16. om em: BR! p: 


as to have obtained this from Him on 
our own account. The distinction is im- 
portant :—‘ holiness, of the E. V., is not 
expressive of evoe8., which, bears in it the 
idea of operative, cultive piety, rather than 
of inherent character. 13. 6 6. ABp. 
k.T.A.| ‘Appellatio frequens in Actis, pre 
ceteris libris N. T., et illi periodo tempo- 
rum conyeniens.’ Bengel. épa mas avrdy 
(Tov Ocbv) ciswOe? ouvex@s eis Tovs Tpo- 
yévous: iva ph d6km Kawdy TL cisdyew 
ddyua Kad exe? (ch. ii.) TOD marpiapyou 
AaBld euynudvevoe, kad evtavda tay Trepl 
Tov ABpaau ... (Chrys.). eddfacev | 
not, as E. V., ‘hath glorified,’ implying, by 
thus honouring His Name: it is the his- 
toric aor., glorified, viz. by His exaltation 
through death—see John xii. 23; xvii. 10. 

matdsa| not ‘Son,’ but Servant: 
servant, however, in that distinct and 
Messianic sense which the same expression 
bears in Isa. xl.—lxvi. in the LXX. vids 
is the word always used to designate Jesus 
as the Son of God. The above meaning 
is adopted by all the best modern Com- 
mentators, Pise., Bengel, Olsh., Meyer, 
De W., Stier, some of whom refer to a 
paper of Nitzsch’s in the Stud. u. Krit. 
for 1828, Heft 2, p. 331 ff. Olsh. says, 
‘After N.’s remarks on the subject, no 
one hereafter can suppose this expression 
equivalent to vids 7.6” “In the next 


ins 
ins (nv kat bef xapioOnvar vu. E Aug. 


ev 119 vulg D-lat E-lat coptt zth Iren-int. 


age,” says Wordsw., “the term sais Oeod 
was applied to Christ as a Son, See Poly- 
carp, Mart. § 14, p. 1040 (Migne); and 8. 
Hippolyt. Philosoph. x. 33 (in Migne’s 
Origen, tom. vi. p. 540), and contra 
Noétum, § 5, 7, 11, pp. 809 ff. (Migne), 
and the note of Fabricius, ii. palOx 

kata todswrov IT. as E.V., ‘in the presence 
of P., or better perhaps, to the face of 
Pilate. The expression is no Hebraism. 
Polybius often uses it. kata mpdswmov 
Acyouévwv TOV Adywv, xxv. 5. 2: K. mp. 
amavTgy Tots ToAeutos, xvii. 3.3, &c. See 
Schweigh., Lexicon Polybianum. 
Kpivavros ék. aaoX., see Luke xxiii. 20; 
John xix, 4, 12. 14. ayvov Kk. dixatov | 
not only in the higher and divine sense 
present to Peter’s mind, but also by Pilate’s 
own verdict, and the testimony of the Jews’ 
consciences. The sentence is full of anti- 
theses; G@yov x. dix. contrasts with the 
moral impurity of &vdpa povéa,—apxny. 
T. (wis, with the destruction of life im- 
plied in govéa,—while amexretvare again 
stands in remarkable opposition to apx. rT. 
¢. This last title given to our Lord 
implies (as Vulg.) ‘Auctorem vite: see 
reff.; so dpxnyov k. kaOnyeudva Tihs bAns 
émiBodjjs *Aparov, Polyb. ii. 40. 2: 8rep 
(scil. want of occupation in mercenary 
soldiers) oxeddv, @s cimety, apxnydy kK. 
Kovoy atrioy yiverat ordoews, i. 66. 10 al. 


D 2 


36 TIPAZEIS ATOZTOAON, 


m ver. 7 reff. 

n 1 Pet. i. 21. 

o = here only. 
xpovos 
pabynaow 
Sidwor, ‘ 
Eurip. Suppl. e an 
419.) UMOV. 


p here only. 


Hf. 


Isai6tdvat. @rpakare, wsTrep Kat of apyovtes vuov 180 dé Geos a 


F (not ABN) 
only. (-pos, 


t / ON Py Se Git / / A na 
only. (Ps) t arpoKaTHyyelrev Ola “oTowaTos TavTwy THY TpodnTav 


James i. 4.) 
q = Matt. xxvii. 24. Rom. iii. 18 (retf.). 
t ch. vii. 52 only +. u ch. i. 16 reff. 


om ov D}-gr(ins D). 
17. ins avdpes bef adeAgpar DE. 


r = Matt. xix.3. Rom. x. 2. 


Phil. ii. 3. iv. 11. s ch. xvii. 30 reff. 


aft oidare ins oT: D}-gr. 
emioTapleda ort vmers wey D. 


aft empaé. 


add zovnpov D1, ro moynpoy D* 34 syr-mg Iren-int Ambrst. 
18. for a, o D-gr: qui bodl demid hal Vig. 


It is possible, that the words apx. T. ¢. 
may contain anallusion tothe great miracle 
which was the immediate cause of the en- 
mity of their rulers to Jesus. But of course 
Peter had a higher view in the title than 
merely this. 16.] emt +. miote . . .— 
The E. V. is right; through, or better, 
on account of faith in His name. ‘The 
meaning, for the sake of (i.e. of awakening, 
in you, and in the lame man himself) faith 
in his name (Rosenm., Heinrichs, Olsh., 
Stier), though grammatically justified, 
seems against the connexion with the pdp- 
Tupes eopev just before. It is evident to 
my mind that the riotts Tod ov. ait. is the 
faith of these udprupes. His name (the 
efficient cause), by means of, or on account 
of (our) faith in His name (the medium 
operandi), &e. éorep. and wx. 
again are historic aorists,— confirmed and 
gave; better than ‘hath confirmed’ and 
‘hath given, K. W Tiotis H SL avToU 
—and that faith which is wrought by 
Him—not ‘faith in Him;’ which is an 
inadmissible rendering. Peter’s own words 
(ref. 1 Pet.) are remarkably parallel with, 
and the best interpreters of, this expres- 
sion: buds Tovs Sv avTov TLaTOUs Eis Bedy, 
Tov eyelpavta avTby ex vexpav Kal ddtay 
avT@ Sdvta, ste Thy wiotw buay Kal éA- 
mda elvat eis Oedv. Some of the Commen- 
tators are anxious to bring in the faith of 
the lame man himself in this verse. Cer- 
tainly it is according to analogy to sup- 
pose that he had such faith, from and after 
the words of Peter :—but, as certainly, 
there is 2o allusion to it in this verse, and 
the thread of Peter’s discourse would be 
broken by any such. It is the firm belief 
in His name on the part of us His wit- 
nesses, of which he is here speaking, as the 
medium whereby His name (= the Power 
of the great dignity to which He has been 
exalted, the aépxnyta THs Cwijs) had in this 
case worked. 17.) viv, introducing a 
new consideration: see 2 Thess. ii.6. Here 


it softens the severer charge of ver. 14: 
sometimes it intensifies, as ch. xxii. 16; 
1 John ii. 28: especially with i8ov, ch. 
xiii. 11; xx. 22. No meaning such as 
‘now that the real Messiahship of Him 
whom ye have slain is come to light’ 
(Meyer) is admissible. adeApot, still 
softening his tone, and reminding them of 
their oneness of blood and covenant with 
the speaker. kata ayvovay| There 
need be no difficulty in the application of 
the a@yvoia to even the rulers of the Jews. 
It admits of all degrees—from the un- 
learned, who were implicitly led by others, 
and hated Him because others did,—up to 
the most learned of the scribes, who knew 
and rightly interpreted the Messianic pro- 
phecies, but frem moral blindness, or per- 
verted expectations, did not recognize 
them in our Lord. Even Caiaphas him- 
self, of whom apparently this could least 
be said, may be brought under it in some 
measure: even he could hardly have de- 
livered over Jesus to Pilate with the full 
consciousness that He was the Messiah, and 
that he himself was accomplishing pro- 
phecy by so doing. Some degree of &yvoia 
there must have been in them all. 

The interpretation (Wolf) ‘ve did, as your 
rulers (did), is of course inadmissible, 
being contrary to the usage of the words: 
mpacoew &step cat can never mean to 
imitate, but émpatare must refer to a defi- 
nite act (understood), and ésmep kat must 
take up another subject of émpatare. 

18.] mwavtwv, see Luke xxiv. 27 and note. 
There is no hyperbole (Kuinoel) nor 
adaptation (Meyer) to Jewish exegetical 
views. ‘Omnes prophets in universum 
non prophetarunt nisi de diebus Messiz’ 
(Sanhedr. 99. 1), was not merely a Jewish 
view, but the real truth. The prophets 
are here regarded as one body, actuated 
by one Spirit ; and the sum of God’s pur- 
pose, shewn by their testimony, is, that 
His Curist should suffer. Notice 


‘ 6yopatos avtod TodTov ov Oewpeite Kai oidare ™ éarepE- ABC 
woev TO dvowa avTod' Kal 7 TisTis 7” Ov avTod ° édw- fe 
KEV aUT@ THY ? OXOKANplay TavTHY YaTévayTL TravYT@V 
17 kai viv, abeddol, oida OTe * Kata * dyvolav 


13 


17—20. TIPASEIS, ATOZ TOAON. 37 


‘ gabeiv Tov ypioTov adtod “ émAjpwcev oUTas. 19 * weTa- v abs ch i-3 
vonoate ovv Kal Yémuotpéate els TO * éEarerpOHvat nat oe 
Uuav Tas auaptias, »dTas Pav éXwaw © Katpoi 4 ava- fr. 2 Chron. 
WiEews amd TposHmoy Tod Kupiov, 29 Kab droaTetdy } Mutt xii 1d 

Soe ae oy sane att 


27 (from Isa. vi.10), Mark iv. 12. Luke xxii. 32. z ch. vii. 19. 
ii. 14. Rev. iii. 7. yii. 17. xxi.4 only. Ps.1.9. Isa. xliii. 25. 2 Macc. xii. 42. 
xy. 17 (from Amos .x.12 A). Rom. iii. 4 (from Ps. 1. 4 (6]) only. 
44. Heb.ix.10. Ps. Ixviii. 13. 

e = here only. see 2 Thess. i. 9. Rey. xx. 11. 


c and constr., Luke xix. 
d here only. Exod. viii. 15 only. (-Wuxetv, 2 Tim. i. 16.) 
Ps. xevi. 5. 


rec autov bef afew (alteration to suit avtov mpod. ver 21), with P rel: txt BCDEN p 
yulg syrr arm Chr Iren-int.—aft spo. ins avrov, retaining avrov of txt, A(prob) ¢ 66? 
wth-pl Vig.—om 7aé. 7. xp. (homaotel avtov to avtov?) A. 

19. for es, mpos BN. tas au. bef vuwy D. emceAQwow D-gr Tert. 
aft avout. add vu E tol lat-mss-in-Bede, and aft «A@. Bede-gr Syr syr-w-ast copt 
Chr-comm Iren-int Tert. om tov Ek m 36. 


the inf. aor. waQety, as in ch. i. 3, of a 
definite single act. 19.] ovv, que 
cum ita sint. eis TO e€aA.| The faith 
implied in émotpéVare has for its aim, is 
necessarily (by God’s covenant, see John 
iii. 15, 18) accompanied by, the wiping out 
of sin. Orws av EO. x.7.A.] This 
passage has been variously rendered and 
explained. ‘To deal first with the ender- 
ing :—6mws av cannot mean ‘when,’ as in 
E. V.—éz7rws never occurs in that sense in 
the N. T., nor indeed with an indie. at all; 
—and if it did, the addition of ay, and the 
use of a subjunctive, would preclude it here. 
It can have but one sense,—in order that. 
This being so, what are katpot dvarpiEews ? 
From the omission of the article, some have 
insisted (e. g. Stier, R. d. Apost. i. 89) on 
rendering it ‘times, seasons, of aval. But 
this cannot be maintained. xaipéds and 
katpol are occasionally anarthrous when 
they manifestly must have the article in 
English. Cf. especially Luke xxi. 24, xa:pol 
é€@veyv, where none would think of render- 
ing, ‘seasons of (the) Gentiles.” See for 
kaipds Matt. viii. 29; Mark xi. 13; 1 Pet. 
i. 5. And, since philologically we have to 
choose between ‘seasons’ and ‘the seasons,’ 
€A@wow must I think determine in favour 
of the latter. For by that word we must 
understand a definite arrival, one and the 
same for all, not a mere occurrence, as the 
other sense of xa:pof would render neces- 
sary. ‘This is also implied by the aorist, 
used, in a conditional sentence, of a single 
fact, whereas a recurrence or enduring of a 
state is expressed’by the present. Inorder 
that the times of avdviis may come. 
What is avaap.? Clearly, from the above 
rendering, some refreshment, future, and 
which their conversion was to bring about. 
But hardly, from what has been said, re- 
freshment in their own hearts, arising 
from their conversion: besides the above 
objections, the following words, ard mpos- 


émov Tov Kkuplov, are not likely to have 
been used in that case. No other meaning, 
it seems to me, will suit the words, but 
that of the times of refreshment, the great 
season of joy and rest, which it was under- 
stood the coming of the Messiah in His 
glory was to bring with it. That this 
should be connected by the Apostle with 
the conversion of the Jewish people, was 
not only according to the plain inference 
from prophecy, but doubtless was one of 
those things concerning the kingdom of 
God which he had been taught by his risen 
Master. The same connexion holds even 
now. If it be objected to this, that thus we 
have the conversion of the Jews regarded as 
bringing about the great times of refresh- 
ment, and those times consequently as de- 
laged by their non-conversion (‘neque enim 
est Mutate vos in melius, ut Deus mittat 
Christum : non esse potest: hoc non pen- 
det a nostra peravoig.’ Morus in Stier 
R. A. i. 91), I answer, that, however true 
this may be in fact, the other is fully borne 
out by the manner of speaking in Scripture: 
the same objection might lie against the 
efficacy of prayer. See Gen. xix. 22; 
xxxii. 26; Mark vi. 5; 2 Thess. ii.3; 2 Pet. 
iii. 12. amd mposeT. T. Kup.| From 
the presence of God (the Father), who 
has reserved these xaipot in His own power. 
When they arrive, it is by His decree, 
which goes forth from His presence. Cf. 
effAGev Sdyua mapx Kalo. Avy., Luke 
we dle 20.] amoortetky (see above), 
literally,—not figuratively, by the Spirit : 
—even if the word send be no where else 
applied to the second coming of the Lord, 
there is no reason why it should not be 
here: the whole ground and standing-point 
of these two orations of Peter are peculiar, 
and the very mention of the ‘ times of re- 
freshment’ proceeding forth from the pre- 
sence of the Father would naturally lead 
to the position here assigned to the Son, as 


38 IIPAREIS ATIIOSTOAON. Lk: 
fch axils. Tov f arpoKexerptopevov viv xpiotov “Incody, *1 ov & Sev 


Exod. iv. 13. 


> \ \ h 8 / ” i / j 2 / 
Josh. iii.12. QOUPQVOV €V € ac0at a b OVOY / ATTOKATAGTAGEWS 
p xp 


2 Mace. ili. 7. , e = Uy c \ \ , aA (mes 

viii, 9 only. TTAVTOV, k ov | éXadnoev 0 Beds ™ Sta oTOpmaTOS TOV ® ayiov 
g = ch. iv. 12 

reff. h = Luke ix. 53. xvi. 4, 9. i and constr., ch. xvii. 30. Matt. ii. 7. Luke i. 57, 
j here only +. see note. k attr., ch. i. 1 reff. 1= Luke xxiv. 25. ch. xxviii. 25. 2 Pet. i. 


PAN Veda bo G0 bs m ch. i. 16 reff. n Lukei. 70. 2 Pet. iii. 2. 


20. rec mpokexnpuymevoy (either a mistake, or a gloss agreeable to the sense of vv.18, 
21), with Orig, qui predicatus est vulg, prius annunciatum copt-wilk : txt ABCDEPX 
rel 36 vss syr-mg-gr Chr Euthal Chron: preparatum Iren-int : destinatum and pre- 
designatum Tert : predestinatum D-lat E-lat syrr sah: mporexpicpevoy eth. rec 
ino. bef xp. (corrn to more usual appelin, the connexion of xp. not being perceived, see 
note), with AC m p rel vss Chr Chron Cosm Iren-int: txt BD-gr EPX® ae gh syr 
sah Thl. 

21. xpovoy D!(txt D-corr’). rec for Twy ay., TavTwy ay., With Cosm: tavTwy 
twy ay. EP 13 rel Chr, Chron Thl (corrn to suit ver 24, and twv omd in rec by mistake, 
owing to -rwy preceding): txt ABCDX (c ?) o p H* Orig Chr, Iren-int Tert.—aft ay. 


one sent by the Father. See below, on ver. 
26. Besides which, the aor. will not allow of 
the figurative interpretation, confining, as 
it does, the ‘sending’ to one definite event. 

mpokexetptopevov | before appointed, 
as apparently in the first ref.: or perhaps 
mpo- merely gives the idea of forth, before 
the rest, as in the two others, and perhaps 
even in the first also. tyuiv, to you,—as 
your Messiah. According to the right read- 
ing, xpior. Inoovv, xpiotdv may be con- 
nected with roy mpoxex. tu., Him who 
was predestined your Messiah, namely, 
Jesus. 21. dv Set ovp. p. SéEacGar | 
These words admit of a double rendering : 
(1) ‘Whom the heaven must receive. (2) 
‘Who must possess (capessere) the heaven. 
Of these the former is in my view decidedly 
preferable, both as best suiting the sense, 
and as being the natural rendering, whereas 
the other is forced. Only two or three in- 
stances of 5éxouat used in this sense are 
produced, and in these it gets the meaning 
by signifying ‘to take to one’s self,’ as pro- 
perty or inheritance : which would surely 
never be said of ovpavdv, thus barely ex- 
pressed. Besides, the emphatic position 
of ovpavév, with peév attached to it, is 
almost decisive against this rendering. I 
apprehend that this particle in a sentence of 
the present form is always found appended 
to the subject, never to the object ; and 
that, if odp. had been the object, the form 
of the sentence would necessarily have been 
ov mev Bel K.7.A. The reason given by 
Bengel for rejecting the right rendering, 
‘Celo capi, i.e. cohiberi, concludi, vio- 
lenta est interpretatio, quasi ecelum Christo 
majus sit; et inimica celsitudini Christi 
super omnes ccelos,’ is best answered by 
himself ‘Non tamen nullo sensu dici po- 
tuit, celum suscipit Christum: admittit 
scil. ut thronus Regem legitimum ;’ only I 
would rather understand it /ocally, and ve- 
cognize a parallel expression with that in 


ch. i., also local, vepéAn bmréAaBeyv aitov. 
And so far from seeing in it any derogation 
from the Majesty of Christ, it seems to me 
admirably to set it forth: it behoves the 
heaven (which is his, obeying his will) to 
receive Him till the time appointed. The 
omission of the article cannot be adduced 
either way here: for ovpayds ‘the heaven,’ 
is frequently anarthrous, as #Acos and other 
similar nouns: see (besides very numerous 
instances of ovp. after a preposition, which 
are hardly to the point) 2 Pet. iii. 12, and 
Tay mpos €amepoy KéAcvOoy ovpavod, Kur. 
Orest. 1003. Zets eorw aidnp, Zebs 5& 
yi, Zeds & ovpavds, Aisch. Frag. i. 96. 
The tragedians never prefix the article to 
ovpavds, yj (meaning ‘the earth’), aidyp, 
or ‘#A.os, except when qualified by an 
adjective, as @ Toy aimby ovp. SippndAatar, 
Soph. Aj. 832, and even then very seldom. 
Middleton has but very slightly noticed 
this, ch. iii. 1, § 5, note. axpt| Not 
during, as the advocates of the present 
spiritual sense of the passage wish to 
render it, but until; see below. 
XpSvev amrokatacT. Tavtwy K.T.A.| The 
key both to the construction and mean- 
ing here, is our Lord’s saying, Matt. 
xvii. 11, ‘HAlas pey epyera: kal ao- 
Kataotyoe. mavta. From this we see 
that atroxat. wavtTwv stands alone, as the 
amoxat. of all things: and that ey does 
not belong to mdytwy. Next, what is amo- 
KataorTacis? We must be guided by the 
usage of the kindred verb amoxablor nue 
(or-dyw). Certainly, to restore is its usual 
import,and most strikingly so, accompanied 
however with the notion of a glorious and 
complete restoration, in ch. i.6. To render 
our word fulfilment, and apply it to mdéyTev 
Ov €AGA. k.T.A,, is against all precedent. 
And, in the sense of restoration, I cannot 
see how it can be applied to the work of 
the Spirit, as proceeding, during this the 
interim-state, in the hearts of men. ‘This 


ABCD 
PRab 
dfgh 
lm 0} 

13 


21—24. TIPABEIS AMOSTOAON. 39 


> ’ mn n an n Lf ms — ‘ 

°am aidvos avToD *mpopynTav. 2% Mavors pev eimev Ott? ats 
s COs A 5) / / ¢ \ c a > a Ps. exyili. 52. 

Tpopytnv wuiv Pavaotnoe KvpLos oO eos *iuav ex TOV p = Matt. xxi 
at. CN. Vi. 
37, from 
Devt. xviii. 
4 > tal y val \ 15, 15. 
doa adv Aadyjon Tpos Vuas. % Séotar Oé,' Taca “oY gq — Matt. vii 
t 0 2\ V3 , an , 5) / v2 x ra) A) ae pens bey 

HTS €av fr) Akovan TOD Tpodytov éxelvov * EEoNeOpevOn- * "hs" i 
Heb. 


aderpav tudv 1a@> eué adtod akovoecbe * Kata TavTa 


20, 22 


1) See 


CeTal €K TOU Naov. 
lal - n 7 

Sapmovnr kai tov *KabeEAs boos éXddAnocaV Kal Y KaTHy- 

Max.se. Colsiiist7. u= ch. ii. 43 reff. 


w Matt. x.18. John vi. 51. viii. 16, 17 al. 
y ch. xiii. 5 reff. 


iv. 15. 
s = and constr., 
ch. ii. 17, 21. 
t Matt. vil. 
vhere only. Deut. vii. 10 al. Jos. Antt. viii. 11.1. 
x Luke i. 3. viii. 1. ch. xi. 4. xviii, 23 only +. L. 


A ’ fol 
24 W Kal TavTes “ O€ of MpopHtat aro 


ins twy B?-marg(sic: see table) EX’ ¢ k 13. rec avtou mpod. bef am atwvos, with 
P rel 36: om az. atwy. D 19 arm Cosm Iren-int Tert: 13 has it thus, ay. avtov Twy 
am at. mpod.: alii aliter (prob the expr was found difficult, as Mey suggests, because 
strictly am’ omvos there were no prophets. Hence it was ejected to the marg and 
found its place variously when reinserted) : txt (a very usual collocation in the Acts) 
ABCENR (k) p Chron. ins twy bef rpop. D!.—om autov k. 

22. rec aft wey ins yap (to connect the prophecy of Moses, as an example, with ver 
21), with P rel Syr Chr: om ABCDEN b? 0 p 36 vulg syr coptt sth Chr, Iren-int. 
rec ins mpos tous matepas bef evmev, with P rel Thl: aft e:mev DE sah wth arm Chr, 
Iren-int: om ABCN p vulg Syr copt.—(D de f sah eth Iren-int add nuwy aft the 
above insn; E 24. 43 add vuwy.) *UOV CEPN! at b ce f hl o 13 syr sah eth 
Justin Thl: om B 60 Syr copt Chr,: vuwy ADN? p rel vulg Chr, Iren. for 2nd 
vuwv, nuwy D-gra 5. 14. 57. 95 lect-12 Thl-sif. eunov D}-gr(txt D2). 

23. rec av, with BDE rel: txt ACPN be defgl mo p Thi. 
ABCD. } 

24. om de D. for ogo, oc C2D2X vulg coptt: o D!: txt AB C\(appy) C’E rel 
D-lat Iren-int Chr Chron. edadnoey D1: expopntevoay C? eth arm. rec 
mpoxarnyyeAay (gloss), with C2 rel Cosm : txt AB C(appy) DEPX cde fg k1m p36 
vulg syrr coptt eth arm Chr Thi Iren-int. 


[ eEoAeOp., SO 


would be contrary to all Scripture analogy. 
LT understand it then of the glorious re- 
storation of all things, the wadvyyevecia, 
which as Peter here says, is the theme of all 
the prophets from the beginning. No ob- 
jection can be raised to this from the mean- 
ing of xpévor: see ch. vii. 17, and Peter’s 
own language, 1 Pet.i. 20, em éaxdrov Tay 
xpévwv. If the distinction be true between 
xpdvor and kapol, as denoting a longer 
and a shorter period respectively, which I 
much doubt,—it does not affect this pas- 
sage: for, either way, the xpdvo: amoKar. 
will imply the time or period of the azo- 
kat., not the moment only when it begins 
or is completed, as kaipés (not Katpot) azro- 
kat. might. De Wette is hardly right 
in saying that the unexpressed 5¢ to an- 
swer to wey is contained in the sense of 
amokaTtacTacis: it is rather contained in 
the previous clause, kal amoorelAn, K.T.A. 
In order to fill up the ellipsis, this clause 
would have to be repeated after mpopy- 
tav—-TtéTe SE avToy amronTEAEl. Ov, 
i.e. o¥s, agreeing with xpdvous, or perhaps 
mepl @v,i.e. xpdvwv. It does not refer to 
WavTwv,—see above. On the testimony 
of the prophets, see ver. 18, note. 

22.] This citation is a free but faithful 


paraphrase of the textin Deut. See LXX. 
That the words, as spoken by Moses, 
seem to point to the whole line of pro- 
phets sent by God, is not any objection to 
their being applied to Christ, but rather 
necessitates, and entirely harmonizes with, 
that application. See the parable Matt. 
xxi. 83—41. And none of the whole pro- 
phetic body entirely answered to the os 
eué, but Christ. The Jews therefore rightly 
understood it (though not always consistent 
in this, compare John i. 21 with vi. 14) 
of the Messiah. 23. efodeOp.| LXX 
eye éxdicehow e& adtod. This word, only 
known to later Greek, is often found in 
the LXX. See besides reff., Gen. xvii. 14; 
Deut. ix. 3; Ps. xvii. 40; Ixxii. 27. In 
most places where it occurs, the readings 
vary between -oAo@p- and -oA«@p- ; see var. 
readd. 24.| See ver. 18, note. 
The construction of the Vulg., defended by 
Casaubon and adopted by Valcknaer and 
Kuinoel, trav cadets boo: €AGA., ‘ et omnes 
prophet a Samuel, et deinceps qui locuti 
sunt,’ is not so good as the ordinary one in 
E. V. Cf. dpiduevos amd Mauoéws ral and 
maytwov Tov mpop., Luke xxiv. 27. Still 
less admissible is the rendering given in 
Dr. Burton’s note, as perhapsthe literal one, 


40 TIIPASETS AIOSTOAON. ITI. 25; 26: 


z=Matt.vili. yerNay Tas nuépas TavTas.  tuels eote of * viol TaV 
12. Luke ‘Y O2EP . ELS Lu *vloL TH 


x. 34, 36. n \ a / e l 
2 Thess. i. Tpodntav Kal Ths * SiaOynns © is 4 dveBeTo 6 eds © arpos 
zek. xxx. 5. ‘ 3 = fp A 
setkines tous fmatépas ‘buav, Méywv mpos “APpaay Kai ev ro 
=> suke af 72. / Ss +, os 
*Rom siz. Soméppatt cov * évevAoynOjcovtat Tacat at ‘tratpiat THs 
Ps. xxiv. l4. a 3 cs s 5 , - = XV 
b Heb. viii. 1 26 k 1 a 5s 
Heb. i 18 oy. viv mpatov * avactnaas 0 Geos Tov | raida avtod 


Jer. xxxviii. 
(xxxi.) 33. 
Gen. xy. 18. 
c attr., ch. i. 1 reff 
16. Exod. xxiv.8. Jer. xi. 10. 


> , Xx DUDES, m > rn € Aven to A o2 , 
ATTEOTELAEY AUTOV evNoyouvTa VELaS ~ €V T@ atroaTpepew 
das above (b). Luke xxii. 29 bis. Heb. ix. 16, 17 only. 

f ch. vii. 51, 52. xxviii. 25. Matt. xxiii. 32. 
9 (from Ps. xciy. 9) only. Num. xxxii. 8, 14. g Rom. ix.7 reff. Gen. xxii. 18. 
from Gen. xii. 3 Ed-vat. (€vAoy., A. B def). i Luke ii. 4. Eph. iii. 15 only. Num.i. 18. 

1= yer. 13. ch. iv. 27,30. Matt. xii.18 only. Isa. xlix. 6. m = Gal. iii. 9. Eph. i. 3 al. 

n= ch. iy. 30 reff. o — Luke xxiii. 14. 2 Tim.iv.4. Job xxxiii, 17. 


e = Heb. x. 

John vi. 49,58. Heb. iii. 
h Gal. ili. 8 only, 

= ver. 22 reff. 
Gen. xii. 3 A. 


25. rec om oa (as unnecessary, or perhaps in the way, as according to the common 
notion an art with the predicate distributes it), with DP rel Chrzep- Chron: ins 
ABCEXN b? ce k p. for ns, nv D'(txt D?) copt. o 6. bef 1e8. BD coptt 
Tren-int. rec nuwy (corrn, as o. wat. nuwy is the more usual ; see ver 13, ch vii. 
12, 15), with CDPN? rel vulg syrr copt sah-ms «th Iren-int: txt ABEN* k m! p sah- 


woide arm Chrajjqg Chron Th] Iren-int-ms. 
rel syr. 


rec om ev, with E-lat: ins ABCDEPX 


emevaoynd. C: evaoyn§. Be 3.15. 27. 100-27-63 Chr Thl, Ge: txt (ex- 


cept the initial e) is written over an erasure by A!. 
26. rec o Oeos bef avacr. (rearrangement for perspicuity), with ADEP rel vulg syr 


coptt Chr Iven-int: txt BCX syrr eth. 
gloss. 


rec aft 7. mad. aut. ins iycouv (marginal 


All such additions, if at all the subject of variations, are spurious), with AP 


rel Cosm: om BCDEN p Syr coptt #th arm Chr Chron Thi, Iren-int. 


efareoteiAcy D Chron. 


« And (to the same effect spoke) all the pro- 
phets from S. downwards, as many as spoke 
and predicted these days.’ To what effect ? 
And would not the sentence thus amount 
to little more than saying, ‘ As many pro- 
phets as predicted these days, predicted 
these days?’ Peter’s aim is to shew the 
unanimity of all the prophets in speaking 
of these times. Samuel is named, 
more as being the first great prophet 
after Moses, than as bearing any part in 
this testimony. The prophetic period of 
which David was the chief prophet, began 
im Samuel (Stier). Tas Tp. Tavr. | 
These days now present, not the times 
of restoration, as De Wette and others 
understand: which would require éxeivas. 
‘ These days’ are, in fact, connected with 
the times of restoration, as belonging to the 
same dispensation and leading on to them ; 
and thus the Apostle identifies the then time 
with this preparation for (d7ws &y &A8.) 
and expectation of (& px) those glories: 
but to make tas jy. tTad’r. identical with 
the kaipot avay. and the xpdv. amoxar., is 
to make him contradict himself. 25.] 
He applies this to ‘hem, as being inheritors 
of the promises. They were descendants, 
according tothe flesh, and fellow-partakers, 
according to the spirit. For a full com- 
ment on this promise made to Abraham, see 
Gal. iii. 16. This is cited freely from 
the LXX, which for of marpial has 7a 
€0vn. 26.| mp@rov, first; implying 


om avtoyv D Chr, Thi, Iren-int. 


evAoyourtas D-gr. 


the offer to the Gentiles (but as yet, in 
Peter’s mind, only by embracing Judaism) 
afterwards: see ch. xiii. 46 ; Rom. i. 16. 

It is strange how Olshausen can suppose 
that the Spirit in Peter overleapt the bounds 
of his subsequent prejudice with regard to 
the admission of the Gentiles :—he never 
had any such prejudice, but only against 
their admission wncireumcised, and as Gen- 
tiles. It is still stranger how a scholar 
like Dr. Burton can propose the ungramma- 
tical and unweaning rendering, ‘‘ 7p@royr is 
perhaps used with reference to Christ’s first 
coming, as opposed to his second.” This 
would require 7d mp@tov,—and would cer- 
tainly imply in the mind of the speaker an 
absolute exclusion of all but Jews till the 
second coming. avactyoas, not ‘from 
the dead ? but as in ver. 22. amatoa, 
His Servant: see note, ver. 13. 
améorevdev, indefinite, of the sending in 
the flesh ; sent, not ‘hath sent ;’ it does 
not apply to the present time, but to God’s 
procedure in raising up His Servant Jesus, 
and His mission and ministry : and is dis- 
tinct from the arooretAn of ver.20. This 
is also shewn by the pres. part. evAoyouvra, 
ingeniously, but not quite accurately ren- 
dered in E.V. ‘to bless you. He came 
blessing you (his coming was an act of 
blessing—it consisted in the ebAoyeiy: an 
anarthrous present participle in such a 
connexion carries necessarily a slightly ra- 
tiocinative sense), in (as the conditional 


ABCD 
Prab 
dfgh 


lmo 
13 


IV. 1—4. TIPASEIS AILOZTOAON. 41 


IV. 1 Aadovytov &€ P Matt, xxii. 


4 \ fal fal 
ExACTOV aTO TOV? ToVNpLOV ULOV. ae 


iA \ \ \ a come ry \ 22. Luke xi. 
avuT@v Tpos TOV adv IéréagTHTAY aUTOIS Ol LEpELS KAL 39. Rom.i. 
e \ a ee ~ e mn , 29. 1 Cor. vy. 
0 Sorparnyos Tod * ‘epov Kai of Yaddovuxaior, * * duamrovov- *, Eph. vi 
Nir ‘ ‘ ‘ \ sa. i. 16. 
evo. d1a TO OLOGGKELY AUTOUS TOV NaOV Kal ™ KATAYYENAEW 9 EK. 9. 
q 
Yév to Incov tTHnv Yava my * én ¥ av: > Kal *é Doh wis 
6 Inood thy “avaotacw Thy \ x “ vexpav: > Kal*ém- 4 ch. vi 
/ a \ an <u > sia 
. éBarov *avtois Tas *xelpas Kai EOevto els YtHpnow “els PHS 5 
\ 5 y \ rn 2 Tim. iv. 2, 
DE Ty ” avpiov, Hv yap * éotrépa On. * TrodXot SE THY AKov- 6+. Wisd. 
Ade , / , 1 3 , a oe 
-hk GavT@Y TOV Oyo éricTevcaV, Kal éyernOn apLOmos TOV "5%. 9 
4 Pp only. s = as above (r), Luke xxii. 4. ch. v. 26 (xvi. 20, &c.) only. L. (Neh. ii. 16.) t ch. xvi. 
18 only. Eccl.x.9. 2 Mace. ii. 28 Ed-vat. F(not AB) only. u = ch. xiii. 5 reff. yao 
y. 22 reff. Luk .35. 1 Pet. i.3 only. without ex, 1 Cor. xy. 12 reff. str. 
Mark ax 46. Isa. wie Wer ee tL xxi. 27. y = ch. v.18 (Ga aik 19) only +. L. Pp. i Mace 
y. 18. Thucyd. vii. 86. z Matt. vi, 34 only. Jos. ili. 5, a Luke xxiy. 29. ch. xxviii. 
23 only. Gen. i. 5, &e. 


exaotos D}(txt D*), unus quisque vulg D-lat Iren-int: om Syr. for ato, 
ex D. for vuwy, avtwy C! 13. 61!-6? vulg D-lat copt Iren-int: avrov 5. 27-9. 
69. 100-4-27-63 : om B Chr, Thl-ms (corrections and omission to suit exaorov which 
did not seem to tally with vuwv): txt ADEN rel syrr eth Cosm Chron. 


Crap. IV.1. aft Aaov ins ta pnuara tavta DE c Syr syr-mg Thl-sif Lucif. 
ot tep. bef avrors 13: om avt. D vulg Lucif. ot apxtepers (alteration to more usual 
word: ef Iu xx. 1) BC eth. om k.0 otp. T. tepov D: ins aft oadd. Syr. 


2. ins kat bef daw. Cl(appy): karan. D7: kaa. D': om diaz. eth. avay- 


yetAAew Tov inoovy ev TH avactace D. 


E-lat sah eth Chr Thi, Lucif. 


8. emeiBadovtes D-gr: om kau [bef eevto] D-corr-gr. 


for thy ex, roy DPacdfghlmo?Hr 


aft €@evrTo ins avtous (to 


complete sense) ACE k 36 vss Chr Thl-fin; avross m: om BDPRN p rel Thl, Lucif. 
[The page in C ends e@evto avtous eis THv, either adding tyyv bef tnpnow, or omg 


els THPNTW. | emaupioy D 40. 


4. om Tov Aoyor. 


Kat apm. TE e'yev. avop. 


D. rec ins o bef ap:Ouos 


(from supposed necessity of art), with AEP p rel 36 Chr: om BDR. 


element of the blessing) turning every 
one from your iniquities: thus conferring 
on you the best of blessings. evAoy., in 
allusion to évevAoy., ver. 25. ev T@ in 
this sense, see Luke viii. 5. The applica- 
tion to the present time is made by in- 
ference:—‘as that was His object then, 
so now :’—but (see below) the discourse is 
unfinished. The intransitive sense of 
amootpépe,—‘ which blessing is to be 
gained by (in) every one of you turning 
from your iniquities,’ —given in the Vulg., 
‘ut convertat se unusquisque,’ and main- 
tained by Theophyl., @c., Beza, Kuinoel, 
Meyer, &c., on the strength of ver. 19, is 
inadmissible,—as aroorpépw is not found 
thus used in the N. T., and we have the 
precedent of ref. Luke and Rom. xi. 26 for 
the transitive sense. The argument from 
ver. 19 tells just as well for it: ‘Repent 
and be converted, ..... for this was the 
object of Jesus being raised up, to confer 
on you this very blessing, the turning away 
each of you from your iniquities.’ This 
discourse does not come to a final conclusion 
as in ch. ii. 36, because it was interrupted 
by the apprehension of the Apostles. 
Cuar. IV. 1—4.|] APPREHENSION AND 


IMPRISONMENT OF THE TWO APOSTLES. 

1.] éméor., see reff. ot iepets, 
the officiating priests, as soon as they were 
released from their duties. The otpart- 
nyos T. tepov was the captain of the Le- 
vitical guard of the temple, mentioned by 
Jos. B. J. vi. 5. 3, Spaudvres S€ of Tod iepod 
gvaAakes Fryyeitkay TE oTpatnyd. We 
hear in Jos. Antt. xx. 6. 2, of 6 orparnyds 
“Avavos: and in B. J. ii. 12. 6, he is said 
to be son of the high priest Ananias. In 
2 Mace. iii. 4, we hear of the rpoorarns Tod 
iepov, who appears to have been the same 
officer. See Winer, Realw., art. Temple, 
end. _LadSou..] See note on Matt. iii. 7. 
Perhaps ¢hey on this occasion had moved 
the guard and the priests to notice the 
matter: for Stamov. seems only to refer to 
them. Cf.also ch. v.17. 2.| év r."Ine., 
—not, as E. V., ‘through Jesus,’ but in 
the person (or example) of Jesus, alleging 
Him as an example of that which the Sad- 
ducees denied: preaching by implication, 
inasmuch as one resurrection would imply 
that of all, the resurrection of the dead. 
The ev in reff. carries this somewhat fur- 
ther, but the usage is philologically the 
same. ‘The resurrection through Jesus’ 


42 


b constr., ch. 
ix. 3, 32, 37. 
xiv. 1. xxi. 
1,5. Matt. 
xviii. 13. 
Luke iii. 21. 
vi. 1, 6, 12 al. 
= ch. ili, 1 
reff. 

here only. 
Esth. v. 8 A. 
Matt. xxii. 
34. vv. 26, 
27, 31. ch. 
xi. 26 al. 
Neh. vi. 2. 
= ch. xiii. 27 


°® 


reff, g Col.ii.1. Herod. i. 57. vii. 185. 

ihere only+. Jos. Antt. xv. 3.1. 

m = Luke vi. 32, 34. ch. xxiii. 34. Rom. iii. 27 al. 
x. 17. ver. 10. ch, xvi. 18 al. 


TIPABEIS ATOSTOAON. 


avépav [as] xuruddes TévTe. 
an a \ 

lavpiov * cuvvaxOjvat avT@v Tovs 
lal 3 € / \ 

mpeaButépous Kal Tovs ypaumareis év ‘lepoveadip, © Kat 
»” e > \ ‘. os f \ | / ‘ 
Avvas 6 apyvepeds Kai Kaiadas Kai lwavyns Kat 
, . - 

"AnréEavdpos &xal dcor toav éx "yévous ‘ apxvEepaTiKod, 
Led \ k 2 ’ \ k b] nr / ] > fa} / EB 
i kal kotnoavtes avtous * év [t@| pwéow 'émuvGavovto Ky 
™ gota MOuvaper 7) °€v Troi@ ovo“aTL ETOLITATE TOUTO Lets ; 
h = ch. vii. 13. xiii. 26. 


k Matt. xviii. 2| 
2 Kings xv. 2, 


IV. 


5» éyévero O€ “leat TH 
fdpyovtas Kal TOUS 


Rey. xxii. 16. Jer. xlviii. (xli.) 1. 
1 constr., ch. x. 29. xxiii. 19. 


Mk. (John viii. 3.) 
o = Luke 


n = ch. iii, 12 al. 


rec wset, with EP rel Chr: ws B(sic, see table) D: om AN p vulg copt zth Hil. 


5. aft avpiov ins nuepay D}. 
avvas &e D, 


om avtwv D 3. 95! Syr copt eth. 
(supposed unnecessary), with EP rel: ins ABN bc 0 p. 


cuvnxOnoay or apx. K. ot mpeoB. kK. yp. and 


rec om 2nd and 8rd tous 
rec (for ev) ers (corrn to 


suit ovvax0jva, cf Matt vi. 26, xiii. 30; and esp xxvi. 3), with PN rel: txt ABDE 


bhko p 36 sah Chr,.—om ev tep. Syr. 


6. rec avvav Tov apxiepea kK. Kalabav K. wavynv kK. adctavdpov, with EP rel 36: txt 
AB D(see last verse) 8 p.—om o [bef apx.] B(sic; see table).—for :wavyns, wvabas D. 


7. om tw DEP rel Chr Thi: ins ABN p 386 Ce. 


rected a prima manu from emorerte) XN. 


does not appear on the present occasion to 
have formed part of their preaching. 

3.] €omépa, perhaps, from their adjourn- 
ing the case till the next day, the second 
evening, beginning with the twelfth hour: 
see Matt. xiv. 15, and note. 4.| éyev- 
748y—This form is unknown in good 
Greek: but common in Hellenistic,—see 
Col. iv. 11; 1 Thess. ii. 14; Wimer, § 15. 
It appears to have been originally a Doric 
form: and is commonly, though this can- 
not always be pressed (1 Thess. i. 5, 6; ii. 
5, and notes there), used where a passive 
sense is admissible, and an agent under- 
stood: ef. e.g. Matt. vi. 10; viii. 13; 
xxi. 42. Here the agent would be 
God: see ch. ii. 47. Tov avdpov | 
It does not appear whether we are to 
take this strictly as masculine, or more 
loosely as if it were av@pérwy: Meyer 
thinks the former: Olshausen, that as yet 
only men attached themselves to the church 
(but see ch. i. 14): De Wette objects to 
the stricter view, that Luke does not so 
reckon, ch. ii. 41 (see however Luke ix. 14, 
and ef. || Mt.): but leaves it undecided. 
The laxer use of avipéy occurs Luke xi. 
31, and James i. 20. In ch. v. 14, men 
and women both are mentioned as being 
added to the Lord. Wordsw. sees in 
the 5000 &vdpes a fulfilment of the pro- 
pheey contained in the miracle of feeding 
the 5000. But how will the circumstances 
tally, seeing that these were but new con- 
verts, babes in grace, not yet fed to the 
full as were those others? And again, it 
is not quite certain whether this number 


touto bef emomoare (so cor- 


was that of new converts on this occasion, 
or of the whole Church: but most pro- 
bably the latter. 

5—12.] Tuer APOSTLES EXAMINED 
BEFORE THE SANHEDRIM. PETER’S 
SPEECH. 5.| atvtav, of the Jews; 
a construction frequently used where 
there can be little chance of mistaking 
to whom or what the pronoun refers, 
see John viii. 44, note; Rom. ii. 26; 
Winer, edn. 6, § 22. 3.3 b. In this 
place, however, it kas been mistaken : 
for Meyer refers ait@y to the believers 
just mentioned, inasmuch as they were 
Jews: absurdly enough. apx: 
k. mpeoB. Kk. yp.| The Sanhedrim: see 
Matt. ii. 4; xxvi. 59; ch. v. 21. 
év ‘lepovoadyp | Why is this specified ? 
The difficulty of accounting for it has led 
in some Mss. to év being altered to eis, 
so as to imply that certain of them who 
dwelt out of town (Lightf. &e.) were sum- 
moned to Jerusalem. I believe it merely 
implies that the meeting was not held in 
the temple, but in the city. 6.] On 
Annas and Caiaphas, both called high 
priests, Luke iii. 2,—see note there. Of 
John and Alexander nothing is known. 
Lightfoot supposes John to be identical 
with the Jochanan ben Zacchai of the Tal- 
mud, who however (De W.) was not of the 
high-priestly, but only of the priestly race: 
—uand Pearson, Wolf, Krebs, and Mangey 
suppose Alexander to have been the brother 
of Philo Judweus, mentioned by Jos. Antt. 
xviii. 8. 1. But this is very improbable; 
for he was Alabarch of the Jews at Alexan- 


ABI 


Pra 
dfg 


lm 
1. 


5—13. IIPAZEI® ATOSTOAON. 43 

, , oes 
8 rote Ilétpos ? rrAnoGels mvevuatos aylov elev mpos Pci; 4te 
bd \ ” a n \ , a > r = Matt. xxi. 
exor- AUTOUS WApxovres Tod Naod Kai ™ rpecBvTepor [TODS “Io~ 25. Luke vi. 
. » Ch. XXV. . 
er. panr], 9 ef jets onuepov * avaxpwopeda " émt ¥ evepryecia shee only. | 


en 
3 


if avOparrov ao Gevods, * 


oTov éoTw Taow vpiv Kab TayTL TS AAD ‘lopann é OTe * ev 


me S 
> & a e x 
€oTaupwcate, Ov 0 Oeds 
ovTos ° TapéaTnKev 4 é 
0 Alos o 
hyevomevos eis | Kehaniy 


f \ 
adr ovdevi'} 1cwrnpia: * ore yap ™ 
° ¢ \ \ > \ \ } / b] ? / x > 
UTro TOV ovpavoy TO Sedomévov év avOparrots, * év 


Pdet TowOHvar Huds. 


Ps. ii. 3). Mark xiv. 47 al. 
13 al. (chiefly John) in gospp. Tit. ii. 8 only. 
only. 4 Kings xxii. 6. Herod. ii. 121. 
i Matt. xxi. 42 || & 1 Pet. ii. 7 (from 1. c.) only. 
xiii, 26). Rom. xi. 11. 
n= ch. ii. 40 al. 
q = ch. xvi. 30, 31 al. fr. 


8. 
36-7 vulg Syr wth Cypr. 


9. aft ¢ avakpivou. ins ap vuwy DE Syr eth-pl Iren-int Cypr. 


cecwTat &, 
10. for mavti, may N'. 
ins onmepov bef vyins HE: 
syr-mg Cypr. 
. queyv D-gr. 
EP rel Chr: txt ABDN c¢ 36 Orig Did. 
12. om 7 owt. D. 


hk 0 183. 36 copt Did Thdrt Bas: 
AE ach m 13 demid fuld Cyr: 
txt B rel. 


ov D: 


om vzo0 Tov ovpayov Pbe 


datum est D-lat, q.d. sit Iren-int: txt D%. 


vuas B. 


dria, Jos. ibid. 7.] év wotq Suvdper— 
not = ev m. egovala, ‘in what author ity,’ 
—but in what (manner of) power; of 
what kind was the enabling cause, the ele- 
ment in which, as its condition, the deed 
was wrought ?—év trot événaru—not ‘in 
what name,—i.e. ‘by whose authority, 
but by (‘7n,’ see above) what (manner of) 
name, spoken as a word of power: see ch. 
lili. 6,16; Jos. Antt. viii. 2. 5. TOUTO, 
not the teaching (Olshaus., &c.), — nor 
both the miracle and the teaching (Heinr.), 
but the miracle: and that only. 8. | 
wyo8. mv. Gy., i.e. specially, for the 
occasion. 9.] ei, if, with an implica- 
tion of the fact being so: see ch. xi. 17. 
ev tlvu, not * by (in) whkom,’—this is 
not yet brought forward: but wherein, in 
what, as the conditional element. No pev- 
son had been mentioned in the question, 
ver. 7,—nor does Peter afterwards say év 


> / e y A 10 Z io 
€V TLL OUTOS OCOWOTAL, YyVv@ 


13 Mewpodvtes Sé€ THY Tod Ilétpou 
1 Kings xvi. 21, 22. 
Xen. Symp. iv. 4 
Rey. vii. 10. xii. 10. xix. 1. 


och. ii. 5 reff. Job ii. 2. 


om Tou top. (as unnecessary aft Tov Axov?) ABN vulg coptt wth Cyr Fulg: 
DEP rel 36 syrr Chr, Thl Iren-int Cypr Ambr. 


€0., €T. 


t Luke xxiii. 14. 


ch. xii. 19 al3, 
1 Cor. ii. 14, 
15 (bis) al7. 
only. L. P. 
King 
ovopate “Incod ypictod Tod Natepalov, Ov vpeis 2 
b 4 > b a x2 , babes bea vi 
HYELpEV eK VEKPWV, €V TOUTW a Tim. vi. 2 
f ee ai Ls ile ux Sr only. Ps. 
EV@TLOV VULWV vyts. OUTOS €OTLV  ixxvii. 11. 
\ ? a tol e wceonstr., Rom. 
‘eEovdernbeis Ud’ vudv TOV § oiKOSoMmY, 0 ii.2Ix.2 
reff. 
a , ‘ i en 
kyovias. 2 nat ovK éorw év * gos 
” foes nw y= ch. xiv.9 
OVOLa E€OTLV ETEPOV reff. 
z ch. xiii. 38 


s reff. 
@ aver. 7. 
b 1 Cor. xy. 12 
reff, 
c ver. 26 (from 
Cit 2 reff. e Matt. xii. 
f Rom. xiy. 3 reff. here 
h constr., ch. v. 36 reff. Psa. exvii. 
ch. xxvi. 26 reff. 1 absol., John iy. 22 (ch, 
Obad. 17 AN3°(om 7 BN?). m = Phil. ii. 9 al. 
p = Luke xxiv. 7. ch. iii. 21. xiv. 22. Dan. ii. 28. 


Isa. xxxviii. 21. 


fom 


ins 
at end ins akovoate E 15-8. 


er Dm. 


ins Tov kuptov bef ino. xp. E vulg-ed(not am fuld demid). 
aft vy. Bede-gr. 


add kat ev aAAw ovderr H 


rec okodopouvTwy (corrn to suit Lxx and Matt xxi. 42), with 


* oUdE (philological correction? so Meyer) ABN a b 


ovre EP rel Chr. etepov bef eorw 
ov. D-gr Bas Iren-int Aug: et. ov. eo. X: 
glmo H' Thi. o Sedouevoy D!, quod 

om ev D 117-63 vulg Iren-int Cypr. 


*Inood xp., but ev TH dvou. 71. xp. On 
the other hand, év tovrw, ver. 10, may 
very well be masculine, as referring to 
*Inoovs xp. Himself, included in the pre- 
vious words 7@ éyv. I. xp.:—it may also 
be neuter, ‘in this Name:’ but the masc. 
is preferable, on account of obros following 
so soon in ver. 11. 1ON|RGvee... Ovi: 
the copula is omitted to make the contrast 
more striking. mapéoTyKev, Stands, 
asin E.V. He was there present. 

11.] See Matt. xxi. 42, note. 12.] In 
Jos. Antt. iii. 1. 5, Moses, praying to God 
for Israel, says, ev av’T@ yap elvar Thy 
cwTnplav a’rod, Kal ovK ev YAAW. GwTH- 
pta is used here in the higher sense of sal- 
vation, not with reference to the healing 
of the lame man. See reff. The article 
implies, ‘the salvation for which we all 
look ;? our salvation: éorly 7 cwT. is para- 
phrased in the next clause by de? cwOjvat 


44 


r= ch. ii. 29. 
XXVili. 31. 
1 Tim. iii. 13. 
Wisd. vy. 1. 

5 = ch. x. 34. 
Xxv. 25. 
Eph. iii. 18. 
see John i. 5. 

t here only tT. 

u 1 Cor. xiv. 


\ 5 rn 
16, 23,24.  OVOEV Y ELYOV * aVTELTELD. 
2 Cor. xi. 6 
only. Prov. 


vi. 8 (only ?). 
yv constr., 1 Cor. 
xiv. 37 reff. 

w = Luke vii. 
42. xii. 4 (ch. 
xxv. 26). 
Heb. vi. 14. 


OVTES 


Proy. iii. 27. 

x Luke xxi. 15 
only. Esth. 
Vili. 8. 

y Matt. xxvi. 
59. ch. v. 27, 
34. xxiii. 1 
al. Jer. xy. 17. 

xx..32. Gen. xx. 9. 

d constr., ch. i. 19 reff. 

xxix. 26 only. 
only. 


veto Oat: 


ech. xx. 9. xxiv. 4. 


Gen. xxvii. 42. {constr., ch. v. 28 reff.] 


13. om kat diet. D. 


IIPABEI> AITOZTTOAON. 


z = here (ch. xvii. 18 reff.) only $. see Josh. xi. 5 complut. 
b = here only. (ch. i. 19 reff.) 

2 Tim. ii. 16. iii. 9 only. 

g = John xxi. 23. ch. xx. 29. 


1's 


Yr oe / A / \g , (v4 v7 4} 
mappnolav Kal “lwdavvov, kat * katadaBopevot OTe avOpw- 
t= / iY > Nu? lal 20 / v2 / 
mou aypappatol eiow Kai“ idiatar, EOavpator, * éreywo- 

’ @ owes fo) / 
oKOV TE aUTOVS OTL GtY TO Inood joav: 14 Tov Te avOpw- 
mov Br€rovtTes aviv avTois EaT@Ta TOV TEeHEpaTrevpévor, 


15 xeXevcavtes O€ avTovs EEw Tod 


Y guvedpiov amedOeiv, * cuvvéBaddov Tpos addjdous eé- 
16 Ti *qoumowpev tots avOpwrots TovToW ; OTL 
bev yap »yvwortov onuetov yéeyovev ° bv avTav, Taaw ToIs 
“xatouodow ‘lepovearrm pavepov, Kai ov duvaueBa ap- 
17 aN wa py © eri mreiov * dvaveunOy & eis 
Tov Aaov, [* aed} i arevAnow@peOa adbtois pnKéTe Nadety 


a constr., Matt. 

ce = ver. 30. ch. ii. 43 al. 
f here only$. Deut. 

il Pet. ii. 23 


Jer. ii. 12. 
h ch. ix. 1 reff. 


for te, 6¢ D 36 E-lat copt. 


14. rec 8c, with P rel 36 copt Thl-sif: om D!: txt ABD3EN c vulg syrr sah eth Chr 


Thl-fin Lucif. avtwv D!-gr(txt D?). 
15. keAevoayTos N}(txt N-corr![? }). 
ataxOnvat D-gr. 


eLxoyv Tonga n avTermety D-gr. 
om de D-gr c eth. for ameAdewy, 


rec cuveBador (corrn to more usual tense), with D c 36 syr sah 


eth Thi fin: txt ABEPX rel vulg Syr copt Chr Thl-sif Lucif. 
16. rece roincouev, with D-gr P rel E-lat vulg Chr Thl-fin Lucif Ambr: txt AB 


E-gr & k m 13. 36 D-lat Thl-sif. 


yeyovevar D!-gr. 


avepotepoy cot D-gr. 


rec apyncacba (the more common N. T. word), with EP rel Chr Thi: txt ABD 


ce Bas-sel. 
17. om add D-gr. 
pnuata tavta E syr-mg Lucif. 


for pn, Se A?. 


mAcov Tt Dz aft Aaoy ins Ta 


om ameiAn (prob mistake in copying ; perhaps 


omd as unnecessary) ABDX vss Bas-sel ce Lucif: ins EP rel 36 syr Chr Thl. 
emiAncoucba ovy avtras D!-gr(ar. D8: -cwueba, adding ergo, D-lat).—(-coueda Ph de 


k2 0.) for unter, un A 142. 

Teas. ovte yap... . | lit. for 
neither is there another name under 
heaven (which is) given (by God) among 
men (not ‘to men,’ Vulg., Beza, Kuinoel), 
whereby we must be saved: i.e., as E. V. 
Dr. Burton’s rendering, ‘ For neither is the 
name which is given among men, whereby 
we are to be saved, any other than this,’ is 
ungrammatical. 

13—18. | CONSULTATION AND SENTENCE 
OF THE SANHEDRIM. 13.] katahaBo- 
pevot, having had previous knowledge; 
not as E. V., which would be the partic. 
pres.; see the past, ch. xxv. 25. i810- 
tat,—the word of contrast to those pro- 
fessionally acquainted with any matter : 
here therefore, laies, men of no knowledge 
on such a subject as this. érreyivwokov, 
—they recognized them; (so Od. 4. 215, 
avTap éyav marpos meipnooua TueTepo.o, 
al « ew emiyvoln Kk. ppdooetat dpbar- 
potow: Plat. Euthyd. 301 §£, dpa pol 
mote altn [% copla| mapayevioera dste 
prot otkela yeveo9ar; “Emvyvolns ty avrhy, 
& Saxpares, en, oixelay yevouerny ;) their 
astonishment setting them to think, and re- 


minding them that they had seen these men 
with Jesus :—not for a pluperfect, here or 
any where else: nor is #cav ;—that they 
(once) were with Jesus. 14.] This, ac- 
cording to De W.., is the only place in Luke 
where te couples two sentences. He there- 
fore objects to the reading; and also as 
destroying the contrast; but clearly the 
former is no sound critical reason, nor is it 
correct: see ch. i. 15 al. fr.:—and I cannot 
see that any contrast is intended: the two 
circumstances which the Sanhedrim found 
it difficult to gainsay were, the boldness of 
these illiterate men, conferred by their 
companionship with Jesus, and the pre- 
sence of the healed man standing with 
them. 17. StavepnOy | be scattered 
or spread: lit., be distributed: so Plato, 
Minos, 317 p, tls émothuwy Siavetuar em 
yi Ta onepuata; and afterwards, tls 5é 
Thy Tpophy émt Ta TOV avOpdrav cépaTa. 
diaveiuat &pioros ; [aarevdy | arreth. | 
for idiom, see reff. The construction 
of ameiAéw with an infin., stated by Dr. 
Bloomf. to be ‘so rare that even the best 
lexx. scarcely adduce an example,’ is its 


ABDI 
Prab 
dfgt 
kl m« 
13 


14—24. 


k ae, (eon SS 4 1 8 x ] > 0 , 
él TO ovopate TovTe | undevi | avOpwTrav. 
cavtes avtTovs ™ TapiyyetAay TO 
\ / k 3 \ an? , lal ai fal 
yerOar undé Sidaoxew * él TO Ovopate TOV Inaod. 

\ 

Tlérpos xat “lwavvns aroxpibévtes elroy mpos ators 
PEL Sixauv éotw Iévaruv tod Oeod tpov 


HGdXov 1) Tod Geod, * KpivaTe 


£ u »! t > Ve 
capevot “ aTéXNUTAaY avTOUS, 


TIPABREIS AIOZTOAQN. 


45 


18 Kab Kané- k Luke ix. 48, 


49. xxi. 8 |). 
° pbey- 


xxiv. 47. 
l constr., Mark 
19 6 oe 


2 ~aQorou 41) ch. v. 28, 40. 
xi. 2. "Luke 
xiv. 24. ch. 
xxiy. 23. 
James iii. 8. 
Exod. xvi. 


r2 , v 
QKOVELVY 29A._ Num. 
xvi. 15. 


20 od SuvdpeOa yap tpets & ™ oe * 
Y] here y ‘ A 
eldamev Kal HKOvTaMEV LT) AaXELD. 


n here only. 


21 o¢ 6€ * rposareiAn- Ezek. xii 3, 


pendev ¥ evpioxovtes “ TO Tras °3 Pet ji 16, 


18 only. Job 
xili. 7 al. 


v4 ty , 
XKokdowvTat avtovs, dia Tov Nady, STL TravTes edoEaCor p ~ Matt. 


\ \ + een lal , 
tov Oeov ¥ ért THe yeyovore. 


22 2érav yap Hv TAELOVOY 


xxvii. 49. 
Luke xiy. 28, 
31. Gen. 
xlii. 16 


4 « BA a 34°? a , x lal E 
TecoepakovTa 0 avOpwros *éh Ov YyeyovEel TO THMELOV 4g — Lake xi. 


TouTo THs  iacews. 


e 7 5 
0t mpecPUTEpot Eitrav. 


s = Luke vii. 43. 1Cor. xi.13. Ps. lvii.1. 
v = Luke y. 19. (and constr.) xix. 48. 

xi. 16. y Rom. vi. 21 reff. 
a constr., see Mark xy. 33. “Luke i. 65. 

Xxiv. 23 reff. d ch. i. 14 reff. 


for avO@pwrwy, avOpwrw Pah113. 


23." a@rroduOévtes Sé HAGov Tpos TOUS 
© idious Kal amnyyetNav boa Tpos avTOUs ot apxLEpEls Kal io. 


15. 1 Tim. 
ii, 3. v. 4. 

1 John iii. 22. 
3 Kings iii. 


r = Matt. xvii. 


ve 
24 of 6€ axovcavTes 4 OmoOvmadoy 521. Isa. 


xlii. 24. 


t here only +. u = ch. xxvi. 32 reff. 


w Luke i. 62. ix. 46. x 2 Pet. ii. (4v. r.) 9 only+. Wisd. 
z constr., Mark v.42. Luke ii. 42 al. Exod. vii. 7. 
b ver. 30 and Luke xiii. 32 only. Prov. iii. 8. ‘e—ch. 


18. for kat Kad. avt., cuveatatibcuevwy Se avTay TH yroun povncaytes avtovs D 


syr-mg(exe gwy. avr.) Lucif; D. goes on rapnyyeiAavto kara To un 8. 
Tapnyy. ins avto.s (a common filling up), with P rel vss Thl Lucif: om AB D-gr 


36 vulg syr arm Chr. om To N!.. 
19. amorpebers Se 7. x. t. D Syr eth. 


evmoy, With P rel Thl: txt ABDEN c k 13 vulg syrr coptt arm Chr.—e:ray B. 
6m py D'(ins D>). 
rec eidouev, with B2(see table) EP rel (-w- P a f) 


uu. Sikaov paweTa H. 
20. dvvoucba B. 
B!-corr: txt AB!DX Chr-wlf. 


21. for undev, un Dk vulg Syr coptt Lucif. 
KoAacwow B!: 


om 7o E 18. 
Tov Aaov wayTes yap EH. 


22. ins nv bef o av9., retaining nv above, D-gr. 
om tovto D-gr Iren-int Lucif. 
transp apx. and mpeoB. E. 


eyevero k: txt BD. 
23. exeivor Se aod. E. 


ordinary construction: see Palm and 
Rost sub voce, and cf. Il. o/. 161; r’. 143; 
o’. 179, al. freq.: Od. A’. 313; Xen. Mem. 
iii. 5. 4; Hell. v. 4. 7; Eur. Med. 287. 
The use of the middle in the active sense 
is confined to later Greek. 18.] én, 
soas to make that Name the subject (basis) 
of their discoursing. 

19—22.] THE APOSTLES’ ANSWER AND 
DISMISSAL. 21.| mposameth., having 
threatened them in addition; — with 
threats superadded to the inhibition of ver. 
18. pydsev, no means: not pndev 
airiv, see John xiv. 30. The difficulty 
with the Sanhedrim was, to find any means 
of punishing them which should not stir 
up the people; d:¢ roy Aady belongs to 
this clause, not to amréAvoay avr. 

22.] wi. teoo. for 7A. 7) Teo., aS some- 
times in classical Greek; so ovx €Aacocov 
mevte Kad etkoot, Thucyd. vi. 95. See 


rec aft 

r EX k 
ins o bef tway. A. rec mp. aut. bef 
TOUTO 


: o1dapev 


aft evpiok. ins atiav D Syr copt. 
-covTa: P Ser’s mss. poBovmevor 


rec eyeyovet, with AEPN rel: 


Lemay, so ABDN. ] 


Winer, edn. 6, § 37, 5. The constr. éd’ 
dv yeyover (see as in reff.) i is accounted for 
by the sense involved in it being the 
access, so to speak, of the event to the 
person mentioned. In the note on Rev. 
iv. 2, I have noticed that na@AoGat eri is 
commonly used when the fact is announced 
for the jirst time, with an accus.: but 
afterwards when the same fact is again 
referred to, with a gen. or dat. TO 
on. TAS ido.—the genitive of apposition ; 
so Toy appaBava Tov mvetpaTos, 2 Cor. v. 
5: onumetov mepiroujs, Rom. iv. 11, &e. 
The circumstance of his being more than 
forty years old both gave notoriety to his 
person as having long resorted there, and 
made the miracle more notable, his malady 
being more confirmed. 

23—31.] PRAYER OF THE CHURCH 
THEREUPON. 28.] Tots idious, the 
other Apostles, and possibly some others 


46 TIPASEI> AIOZTOAON. Ive 


e = Luke xvii. 
13. 1 Kings 
xxx. 4. 

f — Luke ii. 

29. Rev. vi. 

10. 2 Pet. 

ii.2. Jude 4 

only. (1 Tim. 

vi. 1, 2.al.) 

Isa. i. 24. 

iii. 1. 

ch. xiv. 15, 

Rev. xiv. 7. 

Exod. xx. 11. 

(Gen. i. 1. 

Isa. xlii. 5.) 

h ch. i. 16 reff. 

i = Luke i. 69. 
Isa. xliy. 26. 

k 1 Cor. x. 29 
reff. Psa, ii. 
1 


e 3 \ X\ X 0 \ \ > ¥. , A 
jpav pwviy mpos Tov Oeov Kai eimav * Aéortrota, ov 
‘ id fol 
[0 @cds] £0 mroujoas Tov ® ovpavoy Kai THY &yHY Kal THY 
& @adXaccav Kal TayTa Ta év avTots, * 6 TOD FaTpOs Huav 
e / g 4 
dua mvevpatos aylov atouatos Aaveld ‘mados cou 
eirov *"Iva ti lédptakav EOvn Kat aol ™ euedeTHcAaV 
"eva ; *9°qapéotnoav of Bacirels THs ys Kal ot Papxov- 
pq 4 qr 2, \ \ Ik 9 \ a“ / \s \ 
tes ovynyOnoav “eri TO avTO SKaTa TOU KUpioU Kal SKaTa 
A £ a ft > A o7 p f fa} \ u 3 ’ Xv 6. / 
tod *ypiotov  avTod. auvnyOncav yap “er arnOeias 
> lal / f eo EN \ oe Ww a) / J lol a 
év TH Toe TaUTH Y eri TOV Wytov “ Taida cov “Inaodr, dv 
” 
*éypicas, ‘Hpwdns te kai Udvtios Uivatos abv éOveow 


Proy. viii. 7. n= 1 Cor. xv. 10 reff. oBos Kevos, 
q = Matt. xxii. 34. Neh. vi. 2. r ch, i. 15 reff. 
uch. x. 34 reff. Deut. xxii. 20. 

x Luke iv. 18, from Isa. lxi. 1. ch. x. 38. 2 Cor. 


7 


L here only. l.c. 
2 Mace. vii. 
34 only. m Mark xiii. 11. 


1 Tim. iy. 15 only. 
Xen. Anab. ii. 2. 21. 


o ver. 10 reff. p ver. 5. 
8 = Matt. xxvii. 1 al. t Rey. xi. 15. xii. 10. 
v = Matt. xxvii. 27. w = ch. iii. 26 reff. 

i. 21. Heb. i. 9 (from Ps. xliv. 7) only. L.P.H. 


24. aft axovoavres ins kat emvyvovtes THv Tov Beov evepyeay D. Thy pov. 
avtwy KE syrr coptt eth: ty dav. c. [e:ray, so ABDPN. |] om o 6eos ABN 
am demid fuld copt Ath Did Ambr: ins DEP rel 36 eth Thl-fin Lucif.—xupte o 60s, 
omg ov, 13. 40. 96: ov e o Geos 32. 42. 69 lect-1 syrr sah Thl-sif Iven-int. (The 
variations may be explained by the difficulty found in the position of o 80s, some 
treating it as voc, others as nom, and glossing accordy.) 

25. rec o d1a oTouatos Aafid tov matdos cov (see below), with (P) rel 40 (om tov Pa 
edghkm 40) Chr, Thl-fin Hil: os 81a mvevparos ayiov dia Tov cro. AaAnoas daverd 
maidos gov D: alii aliter, see Scholz: txt ABEN 13.36. (J¢ seems to me that every tes- 
timony tends to confirm the more difficult and complicated readg of the text. Meyer 
dismisses it as @ congeries of various glosses. But glosses on what? Had the rec 
been the original, no reason can be assigned why it should have been glossed on at all,— 
nor, if it had been, why the glosses should have been inserted into the text in so unusual 
an order of constr. See note.) for exrwy, AaAnoas D. 

27. rec om ev TH TOAEL TavTn (as unnecessary, see note), with P rel Thl: ims 
ABDEX bc degko13 vss Chr Cyr Cosm Iren-int Tert, Lucif Hil.—aft woAe ins 
cov A. gov bef mada D 137 Hil,. 


assembled with them. Thereisnothingin has been an emendation and simplification 


ver. 31 to mark that only the Apostles were 
present on this occasion. 24.| 6p00. 
Weav pov., not, as Meyer supposes, literally 
all speaking together in a known formula 
of prayer, but led by some one, and all 
assenting ; not Tas gwvds, but dwyrhy: 
see note on ch. ii. 6. ov [6 Beds] 6 
ao..: Thou art God (or, if 6 Oeds be 
omitted, He) who hast made:—not Thou 
O God who hast made:—in this latter 
case, the first sentence would go on to the 
end of ver. 26, and there abruptly end, 
without any prayer being expressed: 
whereas now it is an acknowledgment that 
it was the same God, who was now doing 
these things, that had beforetime pro- 
phesied them of Christ. 25.] The 
text of this verse (see var. readd.) is in a 
very confused state. I have kept to that 
of the oldest MSS., adopted also by Lach- 
mann. Though harsh in construction, 
their words are not senseless,as De Wette 
styles them,—orduatos Aaveld.. . being in 
apposition with rvevuatos aylov. The rec. 


of the text, which bears, in this its original 
form, the solemn and stately character, in 
the accumulation of parallel clauses, of the 
rest of the prayer ; ef. ver. 27. iva ri 
k.7.A.] cited verbatim from the LXX. 

The Messianic import of this Psalm has 
been acknowledged even by those who 
usually deny all such reference, e.g. De 
Wette. Meyer endeavours to refer it to 
some circumstances then present, but is 
not bold enough to enter into any vindica- 
tion of his view. dpvacow is only 
found in the middle in good Greek (see 
Kypke, Observ. ii. p. 30 f. Meyer). pv- 
ayud eott Td GAdyioTov Klynua, Athanas. 
in Catena. 27.) The ydp implies an 
acknowledgment of the truth of God in the 
fulfilment of the prophecy: Thou art the 
God who hast, &c., for these events have 
happened accordingly. évy Ty moder 
TavTy, Which has been excluded from the 
text on account of its apparent redundance, 
answers to ém) Sidy dpos Td G&yioy avTod, 
Ps. ii. 6. See also Matt. xxiii. 37; Luke 


ABDI 
Prab 
dfg) 
klm 
13 


25—3]. 


Kal ¥ Naots ‘Taparin, 28 qroujoal boa * xelp gov Kal 1) yPlur, 
4 BovAn cou > mpocpiaey ryever Oar, 


TIIPAZEIS AMOSTOAON: 


47 


Rom, 
11 reff. 
z see ch, xi. 21 

reff. Ps. 

Ixxvii. 42. 


29 Kal °Ta °vbv, KUpLeE, 


a Grride emt Tas Samia ag avTov, Kal * dds TOtS SOVOLS TOV 2 ch. ii. 23 reff 


b 1 Cor. ii. 7 
reff, 


8 weTa © mappnoias " raons i rarely Tov: rdyov cov 205 ey I 56. 


n \ k tal / k > 
T® THY *KELPa TOU 


. m , / n 8 \ lol no > , fal € ty 
Kab TEPATA yiver Oat t@ TOU OvOMm@aTOS TOV ayiov Xi} 


extelvew [oe] els |iacw, Kal onueia *. 


xvii. 30. xx. 
XXVii. 22, 
Acts only. 
Gen. xi. 6 

- Mat- 
thie, 3 282. 


P gatos cou Incod. *! Kai 4 denOévtmv avtav * écarevOn 6 atures. 2s 
n 


s , > 3 er t / \ u > aN , 0 e/ 
ToTros ev w ‘Hoa ‘cuvnymevol, Kat “ erAnTEnoay aTravTes 


only. Ps. 
exi. 8. 
e ch. ix. 1 reff. 
f ch. ii. 4 reff. 


an is / 7 XN i an, if \ i Ly fa) fa} la) 
TOV AYLOU TTVEULATOS, Kab “€ aXovv TOV oyov TOU UV€EOU gch. ii. 29 reff, 


Ni Ie / 
8 weTa © Tappynotas. 


j = ch. iii. 26. Rom. xy. 13. 4 Kings v. 18. 
viii. 3. ch. xxvi. 1. 1 ver. 22 reff. 


i. 10 only. o = ch. iii. 16, viii. 12 al. 
viii. 33 B. Sir. xxviii. 2. r Matt. xi. 
Isa. Ixvi. 1. t = Matt. xxii. 41. 


Aaos E 8. 33 Syr Thl-sif Hil Aug. 


Neh. vi. 2. 


h = ch, xx. 19 
reff. 
ich. xi. 19 reff, 


k of God, here only, Exod. vii. 5. see Matt. 


m ch. vii. 36 reff. nch, x. 43. 1 Cor. 
p ver. 27. q absol., here only. 3 Kings 
7. ch. xvi. 26. Ps. xvii. 7. s = ch, vii. 49, from 


u ch. ii. 4 reff. 


28. om 2nd cov A!B am! E-lat! Hil Lucif Ambr. 


29. edide D. 


for ameAas, aytas D!-gr(txt D-corr!). 


mao. bef rapp. D-gr 


E vulg copt Hil Lucif: om mac. g 26. 36. 57. 137 lect-1 Syr eth Thl-sif-comm. 


30. “for XElpa gov ekTeel oe, X. ge EKT. As x. EKT. ce B: 


Tischdf’s note) e f 13 vss Chr: 


(txt D*) 133 Thl-sif. 
name.” 

81. mavres N). 
Chr: txt ABD am. 


xiii. 33. The parts of this verse corre- 
spond accurately to those of the prophecy 
just quoted. Tatoa, servant, as be- 
fore, ch. iii. 26. Jesus, the Servant of 
Jehovah, is the antitype and completion of 
David, and of all other servants of the 
Lord: what is said of them only partially 
and hyperbolically, is said literally and 
entirely of Him. 28.| There is an 
ellipsis in the thought between moijoa 
and éca: moijoa, [as mev eddner, Thy 
idlav BovAnv, bvtws 5] boa... As De 
Wette well remarks, cuvjx@noay rojo 
is used subjectively, ‘they were collected, 
to do,’ and then the speaker changes his 
ground to an objective one in éca—(as 
they believed any things 
as Thy hand, &e. Tmoijoat must not be 
rendered, with Kuinoel, ‘ita ut facerent.’ 
It does not express the result, but the in- 
tention, of their assembling. Still worse is 
it to take rowjoa with €xpioas, ‘Whom 
Thou hast anointed, .... todo,’ &, as 
some have proposed: the parenthesis, as 
well as the whole train of thought, for- 
bidding it. 1 xelpo. K.q Bovly | not 
a ey Oia dvoiv (Kuinoel) : xelp indicates 
the Power, BovAh the Wisdom of God. 
The Wisdom decreed, the Hand performed : 
but the same word mpoépioev is used of 
both by what grammarians call ee 
as in yaAa tuas érdtica, ov Bpoua, 1 Cor. 





om oe DE N*(see 


ins PN! rel 36 Thl (both pronouns here and cov in ver 
27 agree better with the character of the diction of the prayer). 


yeverOa D? 


syr-mg has a note that ‘some copies have not the word 


rec mv. ay.ov, omg Tov (see ch ii. 4), with EP 13. 36 rel vulg 
aft mapp. ins maytt Tw OeAovTt mioTevery DE Iren-int (Aug). 


iii. 2. See Winer, edn. 6, § 66. 2, e. 

30.] év Ta, see ref. ch. iii. and note there: 
In Thy stretching forth (while Thou 
stretchest forth) Thine hand for (eis, of 
the purpose) healing, and that signs and 
wonders may come to pass by means of 
the Name of Thy Holy Servant Jesus. 

31.] As the first outpouring of the Spirit, 
so this special one in answer to prayer, 
was testified by an outward and visible 
sign: but not by the same sign,—for that 
first baptism by the Holy Ghost, the great 
fulfilment of the promise, was not to be 
repeated. The rationalist Commentators 
have done good service by pointing out 
parallel cases, in profane writers, of sup- 
posed tokens of the divine presence. Virg. 
Ain. iii. 89. Ovid, Met. xv. 672. Schétt- 
gen, Hor. Hebr. in loc., produces similar 
notices from the Rabbinical writings. 

It was on every ground probable that the 
token of the especial presence of God 
would be some phenomenon which would 
be recognized by those present as such. 
Besides which, the idea was not derived 
from profane sources, but from the Scrip- 


tures: see Ps. xxix. 8; Isa. ii. 19, 21; 
xiii. 13; Ezek. xxxviii. 19 (especially) ; 
Joel iii. 16; Hage. ii. 6, 7. enhyo- 


Oncav, ack a fresh and renewed out- 
pouring. Tov Gy. mv. is personal: 
they were all filled with the Holy Spirit: 


48 TIPABEIZ ATOSTOAON. IV. 32—37. 


* 
32 Tod 6€ mAnOovs TeV ToTeVoaAYTOY HY Y Kapdia 


y here only. 


2 Chron. 
2 A ‘ , A b) \ A 4 , 
w Phi 2 Kat “ayuyn * pia, Kai *ovde eis TL TOV ¥ UTapyovTwY 
zis. auT@ ereyev *lOtov elvat, GAN Hv avtois amavta * Kowa 
x Matt. xxvii. ‘ Y 2 7 ‘ 
ry \ / / > / \ / e 
4. Jobni- 33 Kat > duvamer weyarn °aTredioovy TO 4 wapTupiov oi aTro- 
10 (2 Cor. vi. a , a > a 
svn). GTOAOL THS “avacTtacEews TOD Kuplov ‘Incod, ‘xapis TE 
2 gs : - a F ; 
yee piu, PeYGAn Hv & ext mavtas abtous. ** ode yap ” évdens Tus 
” part. w. dat. ¢ oa > Ses cr \ i / j s x > 
Luke viii.3.’ UTHPXEV €V aUTOIs' Ooo. yap ‘KTHTOpes i ywpiwy 7 oL- 


xii. 15 only. 


Gen. xxxi, 18 ‘) ary ry Ep , k ry A) ] ~, 
Ed-vat(B KL@)V UT) PNKOV; T@NOVVTES € €pov Tas TLLaAS THY TIT pa 

def). Job xx. 29 BN only. see ch. iii. 6 reff. z = John x. 3, 4, 12. a = ch. il. 44 reff. b = ch. i. 8 reff. 

c = here only. d = 1 Cor. i. 6 reff. see 1 Cor. ii. 1. = waptupta, John i. 7 and passim. e ch. i,22 reff. 

f = Luke ii. 40 al. see note, and ch. ii. 47. g = Luke x. 6. [Rom. iii. 22.] 1] Pet. iv. 14. h here 

only. Deut. xy. 4,7. i here only +. j ch. i. 18 reff. <= ch. v. 2,3. vii. 16. Matt. 

xxvii. 6,9 al. Isa. lv. 1. 1 Matt. xiii. 46. xviii. 25. xxvi. 9 ||. ch. ii. 45. v. 4. Rom. vii. 


l4 only. Exod. xxii. 3. 

82. rec ins 7 bef xapdia, with D3EP rel Orig, Chr, Bas, Leont Thl: om ABD'X 
Orig, (Ath Thdrt) Euthal Bas,. rec ins 7 bef ux, with EP rel 36 Orig, Chr, 
Bas, Leont Thl: om ABDX Orig, Ath Thdrt Euthal Bas,. aft ua ins kat ovK nv 
diakpiots ev avtois ovdeuia D(E) Cypr, Zeno Ambr.—for diak., xwpiopuos, and for ovd., 


wis E. om Kat E. ovders Del. om tt D. avtov D: avtwy P b? 
f ¢ k l'm 40: om H'18. 36. 133. ahAa D. mayvta BD: txt AEX 13 
rel 36. 


83. ree wey. bef duv., with EP rel coptt Thl: txt ABDN ac h vulg syrr Chr Iren- 
int Ors Aug. ot amoot. bef ro wapt. AE a g h k o Thl-sif Ors Aug. 
ins (aft imoov) xpiorov (A)DE(X) Syr copt zth-rom arm Chr: om BP syr.—w xu bef 
tov kv AN 36(addg nuwy).—for Kv w, w xv e Syr.—(Very usual varr where the name 
ino. or xp. occurs: the canon being in such cases, that the simplest well-supported 
form of expression was the genuine text.)—t. k. t. bef 7. avacr. B. 

34. for urnpxev, nv (corrn to avoid tautology) A(B)X Fr-coisl a h Cyr: txt DEP 
rel.—ny bef tis B. ogo yap KTNT. Noav Xwp. n o.xwy uTnpxov (combination) D': 
om umnpx. D-corr (and lat) &!. D has twdAouyTes. at pepovtes (aipepor [ ep. D5 | 


tas D? and lat, prefg kat) Tyas Twy mimpacko . . Twy (-cKouevwy D? and lat). 


the meaning being the same with zy. ay., 
the influence of the Holy Spirit,—but the 
form of expression varied. See ch. i. 8; 
li, 83, 08; 1X. dL; x. 45. 

32—37.] THE STATE OF THE CHURCH 
AT THIS TIME. This passage forms the 
conclusion of this division of the history 
and the transition to ch. v. 32. TOV 
muotevoavtTwv | Much the same meaning 
as Tay morTevdytwy, but with reference to 
their having become converts, and specially 
to those mentioned in ver. 4,—though the 
description is general. ‘ Ubi regnum habet 
fides, animos ita conciliat ut omnes idem 
velint et nolint. Hine enim discordie, 
quod non regimur eodem Christi Spiritu’ 
Calvin. On the community of goods, see 
note at ch. ii.45. We have the view there 
taken strikingly confirmed here by the ex- 
pressions used. No one called (reckoned) 
any thing of his goods (which were still 
7a brdpxovTa avT@, not alienated) [to be | 
his own. (€Aeyev, dicebat : hoc ipso pre- 
supponitur proprietatem possessionis non 
plane fuisse deletam. Bengel.) 33. | 
The Apostles were the specially appointed 
witnesses of the Resurrection, ch. i. 22: and 
this their testimony they gave with power, 





i.e. with a special gift of the Holy Spirit 
to enforce and illustrate, to persuade and 
dispute on, those facts of which their own 
experience (see ver. 20) informed them. 
That the Spirit did not inspire them with 
unbroken uniformity in matters of fact, 
our present Gospels, the remnants to us of 
this very testimony, sufficiently witness. 
Nor was this necessary : each man reported 
what he had heard and seen ;—and it was 
in the manner of delivering this report 
that the great power of the Spirit was 
shewn. See, on the whole subject, Pro- 
legg. Vol. I. i. § iii. 5 ff. xapts, better 
grace, i.e. from God, than favour, i.e. 
from the people, which would hardly be 
so absolutely designated. 34.] yap 
gives a proof of God’s grace working in 
them, in that they imparted their goods 
to the poor: see especially 2 Cor. viii. 7. 

muTpackopevey, the things which 
were being sold:—the process of selling, 
as regarded the whole church, yet going 
on, though completed in individual cases ; 
in the places cited by Wetst. from Demosth. 
and Appian the pres. retains its proper 
force, as here. In Appian, B. Civ. v. p. 
1088, the expression is, Timas Tay Ere 


V. 1—3. 


IIPASEI® AIOSTOAON. 


49 


, x n 
cKopevav % Kai ériovy “Tapa Todvs Todas TOV ATrO- ™ Matt. xv. 30. 


ch. v. 2. vii. 


oToNwy, ™ dvedidero Se ExadoTw °KaboTe av Tis °xpelay 4 Kinss 
eiyev. 35 Twond dé 6 ? émukdnbels BapvaBas 4 aro TOD ” xvi 22. 
aTocTON@v, 6 éaTtiv * weOepunvevopevov * vids * TapaKNz}- only. Josh. 
aews, Aeveitns, Kimpios TO “yévet, *7 Y brrdpyovtos ava ° (ret) 
VY aypov *Twadnoas nveyxeyv TOY yphpua Kat EOnKev ™ Tapa a ch. i 2 re 
Tovs TOooas T@Y aTocToNwyv. V.1’Avnp O€ Tis Avavias x23 
ovowatt avy Lardelpn TH yvvatxt avtov * éwwHAncev vr) 42. ch, 


“KThua, > Kal *évorghicato ato Tis 
x A 
Kat THS yuvaikos, Kat évéyxas 4 


Li lal / 
T00as TOV aTocTOAwy €OnKev. 


t = ch. xiii. 15. xv. 31. 
w here only, exc. gospp. Mt. Mk. L. 


2 Macc. xv. 11. 


Josh. vii. 1. 


a Titus ii. 10 only. 
Job xxvii. 6. 


iv. 4 (reff.) only. 


35. [d:ed.5eT0, so AB'DEN. | 
om ay P 31. 73. 


= Matt. xiii. 24, 44 al. 
y sing., here only. plur. Mark x. 23, 24 || L. ch. viii. 18, 20. xxiv. 26 only. 
2 Macc. iv. 32 only. 

d = John xix. 23 al. 


ins evt bef exactw D. 


xiii. 8 only +. 
Sir. prol. fin. 


b Ge c 6 y 
TLS, ~ TUVELOVLNS 5 = Mark iii. 


éoos tlk mapa Tods b xis * 
I. » Xvi. 5. 

a i ; ve at a yee te 

etrrev O€ 0 Ilétposg 2h; 2Xinss 


vy = ch. iii. 6 reff. 
x 1 Cor. x. 25 reff. 
z ch. li. 45 reff. 
c— tor. 

e ch. iv. 35, 37. 


u = ch. xviii. 2 reff. 

Gen. xxiii. 9. 

2 Chron. i. 11, 12. 
b = ch. iv. 34 reff. 

Gen. xlvii. 24. 


ka0o (for ca8ort) and 


36. rec iwons (see note, ch i. 23), with P 13 rel syr sah Chr, Thl: txt ABDE® 36. 


40 vulg copt Syr zth arm Chr, Epiph. 
adghI1m 40 Ht Thl. 
37. for aypov, xwpiov D?(-1ov D!). 


epunvevouevoy B: om c?. 
for mapa, mpos EX 36 Thi sif. 


rec vo, with D rel 36 Chr: txt ABEPX 
kump. bef Aevertns D. 


Cuap. V.1. ev avtw de Tw kaipw avnp (beginning of ecclesiastical portion) E. 


ovou. bef avav. AD be m vulg: txt BEPX Chr. 


cam¢epa (corrn) BDab?ghlo 


ore cappupa D'(-t¢a D-corr): capmoipt 13: cappipn R3(raudipn &'): txt A E(-popipn) 


m. 


2. om ka: X!(eadem manu suppletum videtur). 
cuveiduias (corn), with DP rel: txt ABEN. 


rel Thl: om AB D-gr & 13 arm Chr. 


for amo, ex D. rec 
rec aft yuv. ins avtov, with EP 
eOeto D. 


3. aft evrey Se ins pos avtoy H; aft wetposc; simly vulg-ms(Matthai) syr-w-ast Thl. 


Timpackomevov. 35.] mwapa Tovs 
addas,—not a Hebraism for the whole 
person—but literal. So Cicero pro Flacco, 
c. 28, ‘Ante pedes Pretoris in foro ex- 
pensum est auri pondo centum.’ (Rosenm.) 
Wetstein gives several other examples. The 
Apostles, like the Przetor, probably sat upon 
araised seat, on the step of which, at their 
feet, the money was laid, in token of reve- 
rence. 36.] Barnabas, M12) 73, is 
vis mpodytetas—and the interpretation 
has been generally made good by taking 
mapaxAnots as included in mpodnreta, and 
as in the sense of exhortation: see ch. xi. 
23. Aevetryns | The Levites might pos- 
sess land at all times within the precincts 
of the Levitical cities: such was the case, 
e.g., in Jer. xxxii. 7. At the division of 
the kingdoms, the priests and Levites all 
resorted to Rehoboam in Judah (and Ben- 
jamin), 2 Chron. xi. 13; from that time 
probably, but certainly after the captivity, 
when the Mosaic division of the land was 
no longer accurately observed, the posses- 
sion of land by Levites seems to have been 
allowed. The whole subject is involved in 
some uncertainty: ef. Levit. xxv. 32 ff. ; 
Num.xxxv.1—8; Deut. xii. 12; xviii. 8, al. 
Voz. II. 


Kuaptos]| For the state of Cyprus 
at this time, see notes on ch. xi. 19; xiii. 
4.—7. 37. xpypa] Very unusual in 
this sense. See Herod. iii. 38, em) mécw 
av xphuatt Bovadociato To's watépas amro- 
OvioKovTas arootréco bat, and other exam- 
ples in Wetstein. 

Cuap. V. 1—11.] THe HISTORY OF 
ANANIAS AND Sappurra. This incident, 
though naturally connected with the end of 
the last chapter, forms an important. inde- 
pendent narrative. 1.] ’Avavias, 722, 
Neh. iii. 23, or ™27, Dan. i. 6, in LXX: 
also 1 Chron. iii. 21, al. = The cloud of God, 
or The mercy of God. Lamdetpy, per- 
haps from the Greek cdmpeipos, sapphire, 
or from the Syriac xv=u, beautiful (Grot.). 

The crime of these two is well described 
by Meyer: ‘ By the sale of their field, and 
the bringing in of the money they in fact 
professed to give the whole price as a gift 
of brotherly love to the common stock : but 
their aim was to get for themselves the 
credit of holy love and zeal by one portion 
of the price, whereas they bad selfishly 
kept back the other portion for themselves. 
They wished to serve éwo masters, but to 
appear to serve only One.’ 3.| The 


50 


f John xvi. 6. 
see Eccles. 
ix. 3. 

g Matt. v.11 al. 
constr., here 
only. Deut. 
XXxiil. 29. 

h = ch. i. 18 
reff. 

i = here only. 


TIPAREIS AILOZTOAON. 


W. 


a \ / 
’Avavia, Sua tit émdjpwocev 6 Latavas tiv Kapdiav cov 
nr \ia@ \ / / 

Expetvoacbal ce TO TrEdMa TO dyLov Kai *vordicacbat | cE] 
fol lol la) ? A AF ee / \ 

amo THs» TYAS TOU" ywpiov ; * ovxt ' wEvoy Gol Euever, Kal 
k apabev | év TH of) 1 € la UTHpyev ; ™ Te OTL” EOov ev TH 
mpabev | év Th of | €Eovola UTHpXED 5 7 


r lal > 3 ¥, > , 
IMac x1, Kapola gov TO Tpayya TOUTO; ovK °eYevow avOpwTrois, 


k ch. iv. 34 reff. ~ 


A A ce , / ‘ / 
lent GNA TO Ged. ° axovwv dé 0 ’Avavias Tous AoyauS 
a ke Th : \ .er \ Seer 2 , , 
i  rovrous mecwv  eEevEev. Kai éyévero PoBos péyas 
2 Kings xix. 4 / \ > , 6r2 if Se fs , 
22. seeJohn €976 JAVTAS TOUS MAKOUOYTAS. GAVACTQAVTES O€ OL ~ VE®@- 
n TH 44. xxi. 14. Hag. ii. 19. see ch. i. 7. o constr., here only. Josh. xxiv. 27. 2 Kings xxii. 45. Ps. 
xxvii. 36. p ver. 10. ch. xii. 23 only. Judg. ivy.21 A. Ezek. xxi. 7 only. q = ver. 11. Luke 
i.65. Gen. xxxv. 5. see ch. ii. 43. r = ch. viii. 26, 27 reff. s = John xxi. 18. 1 Tim. 


y.1,2al. ov v., Tit. ii.6. Jer. xiv. 3. 


rec om 0, with DP rel: ins ABEN b m 13 Chr. 
for ewAnp., ernpwoev X}. 


mss(Lachmann). 


for avavia, mpos avaviay D vulg- 
70 ay. wv. D-gr. rec om 


2nd oe, with ABEN ¢ k 1 0 36: ins DP rel 38. 42. 95-6. 113-77 sah Leont. (I have 
inserted it doubtfully, as more in character, and very likely to have been omitted as 


unnecessary.) 


4. ewevoy (but corrd) X!: weooy D\(txt D?). 


syllable of mpadev) P. om on D. 


movnpov rovto D sah: facere dolose rem istam D-lat. 
5. axovoas de D-gr: Kat evdews axovwv KE. 


ins ABEPX abdfghkmo Chr Thi. 


om ev (confounded with last 
for To mp. TovTo, Tonoat (ins to D?) 
evevcov D}(txt D2). 

rec om 0, with D rel 36 Orig Ge: 
ins tapaxpnua bef recwy D. rec 


aft axovoyras ins ravra (see ver 11), with EPN% rel syr Chr Th]: om ABDN! yulg Syr 


coptt xth-pl Orig Lucif. 
6. aft avaor. Se ins rapaxpnua E. 


51a Ti implies the power of resistance to 
Satan—Why hast thou allowed Satan to 
fill, &c.? 4.| While it remained, 
did it not remain thine own? i.e. was it 
not in thine absolute power? and when 
sold, was it not (i.e. the price of it) in 
thine own power, to do with it what 
seemed good to thee? wt Stt, i.e. 
th éorw 6tt: see reff. eGov év T. 
kapd., = 25%y Dw, Dan. i. 8; Mal. ii. 2. 
Satan suggested the lie, which Ananias 
ought to have repelled : instead of that, he 
put it in his heart,—placed it there where 
the springs of action are, and it passed out 
into an act. ovk ey. avO., dAAG T. 0. | 
This ov«, AAG, is not always an absolute 
and exclusive negation and assertion, see 
Mark ix. 37; John xii. 44. But here it 
seems to be so, and to imply, ‘Thine at- 
tempt to deceive was not to deceive us, 
men; but to deceive the Holy Ghost,— 
God, abiding in His church, and in us its 
appointed superintendents. This verse is 
of weighty doctrinal import, as proving the 
Deity of the Holy Spirit ; unless it be held, 
that the Holy Spirit whom (ver.3) Ananias 
attempted to deceive, and God to whom 
he lied, are different. ‘ Hee est sententia : 
Ananias mentitus est Deo et ejus Spiritui, 
non hominibus et Petro. Aude si potes, 
Sociniane, ita dicere: mentitus est non 
Spiritui Sancto et Petro, sed Deo.’ Bengel. 

5.] The deaths of Ananias and Sap- 
phira were beyond question supernaturally 


inflicted by Peter, speaking in the power of 
the Holy Spirit. This is the only honest 
interpretation of the incident. Many, how- 
ever, and among them even Neander, at- 
tempt to account for them on natural 
grounds,—from their horror at detection, 
and at the solemn words of Peter. But, in 
addition to all other objections against this 
(see on éefolaovcryr, ver. 9),—it would make 
man and wife of the same temperament, 
which would be very unlikely. We surely 
need not require any justification for this 
judicial sentence of the Apostle, filling as 
he did at this time the highest place in the 
church, and acting under the immediate 
prompting of the Holy Spirit. If such, 
however, be sought, we may remember that 
this was the first attempt made by Satan 
to obtain, by hypocrisy, a footing among 
Christ’s flock: and that however, for wise 
reasons, this may since then have been 
permitted, it was absolutely necessary in 
the infancy of thechurch, that such attempt 
should be at once, and with severity, de- 
feated. Bengel remarks: ‘ Quod gravitati 
peenee in corpore accessit, in anima potuit 
decedere.’ k. éyév. Pop. x.7.A.] The 
a&kotoyres can hardly be (Meyer) those 
present, who (De W.) not only heard, but 
saw: the remark is proleptical, and = that 
in ver. 11. 6.| Were ot vedtepor a 
class in the congregation accustomed to 
perform such services,;—or merely the 
younger men, from whom they would na- 


4—10. 


cea om ‘auvéctetkay avtov Kat © é€evéyxavtes " eBarpav. +5 
7 é eyevero dé, “as copay Tplav *duaoTnwa, Kal yun) 
avuTov un) eidvia TO yeryovos eisAOev. 
avTny Ilérpos Eimé poe *ei *tocovrTov To 
°amédocbe ; 1) Sé ettrev Nal *tocovrov. 
mpos avtiy *Té rt * cuvepovn On 


h 


TIPAEEIS ATIOSTOAQN. 


51 


= here only +. 
ur. Troad. 
16. (1 Cor. 
vii. 29 only. 
Sir. iv. 31.) 
8 y amrekplOn oe pos u = vy. 9,10 


(15. Mark 
, "ii. 2% c 
» vwplov viii. 23. Luke 

¢€ 
96 O€ Tlerpos 


xv. 22. 1 Tim. 
vi. 7. Heb. 
Up Sqreipacat TO 


vi. 8) only. 
Luke vii. 


ss 


rca xv. 4 


TVEDMA * eeuptou 5 i600 of modes TOY Y BarbdvT@V TOV w ver. 36 al. 
avopa cou‘ éri TH Ovpa, Kai) éEolcovclv ce. 


x here only f. 
of space, Gen. 


10 kéqrecep 66 


xxxii. 16 al. 
y=ch.iii.12. Matt. xi.25al. Deut. xxvi. 5. z= Matt. xxvi. 63. Mark xy. 44. a gen. of 
price, Matt. x. 29. xxvi.9. Rey. vi.6. 4 Kings vii. 1. b ver. 3. ¢= ch. vii. 9. Heb. 
xii. 16 only. Gen. xxy. 33. d ver. 4 reff. e Matt. xviii. 19. xx. 2,13. Luke 
y. 36. ch. xy. 15 only. 4 Kings xii. 8. impers., here only. f dat., Matt. v. 21? James 
iii. 18. Winer, edn. 6, 3 31. 10. g1Cor. x. 9 reff. (= ext, ib.) h 2 Cor, iii. 17. see 
Luke iy. 18, from Isa. 1xi. 1. i = ch. iii. 10, 11 reff. j ver. 6 reff, k Mark 


V. 22. John xi. 32. 


7. ews N). 


Rey. i. 17 only. 


Siacteua D. 


8. for amrexp., ermev D vulg.—zpos ny o metpos ep EH. 


rec (for mpos aurnyv) 


av77, with P rel vulg Chr Thl: omb!: txt ABDX d e m 36. 40 (syr-w-ast) Orig Lucif. 


ree ins o bef. metpos, With DEP rel Orig Chr: 


Ol El, ETEpWTNOW oe et apa D-gr sah. 
for 2nd de, dn D!(txt D-corr!). 


9. rec aft merp. ins eve, with AP rel 36: 


om pos D!-gr(ins D3). 
ins tov bef kup. D. 
10. xa ex. D Syr Lucif. 


turally be expected? Meyer and Olshausen 
(also Mosh. and Kuin.) maintain the former ; 
Neander and De W. the latter. We can 
hardly assume, as yet, any such official dis- 
tinctions inthe congregation as would mark 
off of vedérepa from of mpecBitepor, which 
latter are first officially mentioned ch. xi. 30. 
Besides which, wehave nosuch ecclesiastical 
class as of vedétepor. And the use of of vea- 
viokot in ver. 10, as applying to these same 
persons, seems to decide that they were 
merely the younger members of the church, 
acting perhaps in accordance with Jewish 
custom,—perhaps also on some hint given 


by Peter. ouvéotethav] So mrepi- 
OTEAAw, Ezek. xxix. 5; Tobit xii. 13; Sir. 
xXxxviil. 16, wrapped the body up,—pro- 


bably in their own mantles, taken off in pre- 
paring to carry him out. The context will 
not permit any more careful enfolding of 
the body to be understood. The speedy 
burial of the dead, practised among the later 
Jews, wasunknownin earlier times, see Gen. 
xxiii. It was grounded on Num. xix. 11 ff. 
The practice was to bury before sunset of 
the same day. The immediate burial in 
this case adds to the probability that the 
young men obeyed an intimation from the 
Apostle. 7.| The construction is, éyé- 
veto 5€,... kal, It happened, that: and 
@s @. T. Sido. is parenthetical, not the 
nom. to éyévero. See a precisely similar 
construction, Luke ix. 28: and Winer, edn. 
6, § 62. 2. 8.] amexp., perhaps to her 


salutation ; or, it may be, to her manuer, 


aft 71 ins ovy &1(N% disapproving). 


evoTayTat emt TH 0. B. 


om ABN d 36. 
To xwpiov bef 1st tocovrov D-gr. 


Te ele 


evmey Oe metp. EH: txt BDN vulg. 
TvvVepwvngcev 


Tats Pupas A. 


challenging a reply. The word must at 
any rate be taken as implying some pre- 
vious communication, to which an answer 
was to be given. TooovT., naming 
the sum: or perhaps pointing to the money 
lying at his feet. The sense tantilli 
(Born.) is tmplied of course, but not ex- 
pressed by tocovrov. No stress on a- 
éd0c0¢ as referring to the smallness of price: 
it is the ordinary word for selling, see reff. 

9.] To try the omniscience of the 
Spirit then visibly dwelling in the Apostles 
and the church, was, in the highest sense, to 
tempt the Spirit of God. It was a saying 
in their hearts ‘There is no Holy Spirit :’ 
and certainly approached very closely to a 
sin against the Holy Ghost. Peter charac- 
terizes the sin more solemnly this second 
time, because by the wife’s answer it was 
now proved to be no individual lie of a 
bad and covetous man, but a preconcerled 
scheme to deceive God. ot modes | Not 
that Peter heard (Olsh.) the tread of the 
young men outside (they were probably 
barefooted), but it is an expression common 
in the poetical or lively description of the 
Hebrews, and indeed of all nations (see Isa. 
lii.7; Nah.i.15; Rom.x.15; Eurip. Hippol. 
656; Soph. did. Col. 890, al. freq.), making 
the member whereby the person acts, the 
actor. I take the words to mean, that the 
time was just at hand for their return: 
see James v. 9. The space of three hours 
was not too long: they would have to carry 
the corpse to the burying-ground, at a con- 


E 2 


52 TIPAZEIS AIOSTOAON. Ve. 
sii. 7 . l a k \ \ k / > r \ m ef : 

ich.ii-7 re. lorapayphuwa * pos tovs *odas abrod Kat } eFeyuxev 
¥ RIK es o> , \ e / > 

"za Mark eiseAOovTes 5€ of "veavicxor evpov avTiv vexpav Kat * é&- 
xiy-.02)(1D18)- , MY \ \ ” fis) ‘ Sites 
i.5. Luk v 0 11 P = 
ak. ange VEYRAVTES eVaypay mpos TOV avopa airijs. 1 kak? eye 
13, Hon veto poBos péeyas eh OAnV THY ExKANT LAY Kal ETL TAaVTAaS 
Gen. xiv. 24. = - 

o = Matt.iii.. TOUS aKOVOVTAS TAUTA. 

a oor 12 \ \ a n a 5) , Pie A 
ae 24 Aa 6€ TOV YELPOV TOV aTTOTTONWY EyiVeTO oNpELa 
ch. xi. 30 a a c 

‘rit. kal * TépaTa TOANA év TO RaW. Kal Toav * omoOvpadcov 

rch. vu 


ee > fol lal al 
et ge aTravTes ev TH 'aToa Loropovos: 
‘ lal a > - / 
ovdels éTOAMAa Y KOANaGOaL avTois, GAN ~ eueydduvev av- 
14 X wadXdov O€ Y mposeTiOevto * musTEvOVTES 
D fo, * ANON avdpa i “pI eee . 
T@ kupio, * TAO avdpav Te Kal yuvatkev aste > Kata 
~ f A 
Tas °Tratelas *éxbépery Tos acGevets Kal 4 Teévas © eri 
f / ‘ g / vA b Vy Tlé h x 
Kwapiov Kat § KpaBatTov, wa épxopuévou Ilétpov » Kav 


t ch. iii. 11 reff. 

u Eph. ii. 3. 

1 Thess. iv. 
13. 7y, 6. 

v = ch. ix. 26. 
x. 28. xvii. 
3£. “1 Cor. vi. 
16,17. Ruth 


TovS 0 Aaos' 


11. 8. 
w= ch. x. 46 
reff. 
x = Luke v.15. 
John xix. 8. 
ch. ix. 22 al. 
b = Luke x. 32 al. 
e = Rey. x. 2. Luke viii. 16. 
y. 8, &c. ch. ix. 33 only +t. 


y = ch. ii. 41 reff. 
c Luke xiy. 21. 


z absol., ch. iy. 32 al. fr. 
Rev. xxi. 21 al. 
f here only +. see Luke v. 19, 24. 
h = Mark v. 28. vi. 56. 


13 cr@v 6€ " AouTaV 


Ps. exlvi. 4. 
d ver. 6 reff. 
g Mark ii. 4, &c. vi. 55. John 


a plur., here only. 
Ezek. xxviii. 23. 


2 Cor, xi. 16. 


rec (for mpos) mapa (see ch iv. 35, 37, v. 2), with EP re] Lucif: em: 26. 37: vo 2: txt 
ABDR® Orig syr-mg, 7p. T- 7. atootToAov Syr.—for mp. tT. 7., evwrioy 15-8. 36. 


evpay A: nupay E: txt BDPN rel. 
11. om em A sah. 
12. for de, tre B Syr eth. 


guvoTetAartes eénveykay kat D-gr. 

akovoytes D, katroixouvtas P. 

Steph eyevero, with h 4. 13-4-5. 78. 127-80 
lect-12 Cyr-jer, Ee Thl: txt ABDEN rel 36 Chr Lucif. 


rec ev Tw Aaw bef moAAa, 


with P rel 36 Chr Thl: om 7oAAa k 133 lect-12: txt ABDEPX mm 0 13 vulg Syr Lucif. 
for amavtes, ravtes ABE 1: txt DPN rel Chr Th]: add cuynypeva Syr copt; ev 


tw tepw D 42 sah eth; ev Tw vaw cvynymevor E. 


aft ev Tn ot. ins Tn D 42. 


rec woAouwvtos, with A k o 36 Chr Thl: cadouwvtos NX: txt BDEP rel. 


13. Kou ovders Twy Aoirwy D eth. 
14. ins o: bef mior. A 13. 


ovOers B. 


15. for cata, cat ers ABD®X k 13. 36.40; kar ev Tas tAaTies E: om wth: txt D'P, 


none of the vss have rat. 
710. ins evrpoodev avtwy BE. 


Chr Thdrt : txt ABDN rel Cyr-jer—pref tw A. 


siderable distance from the city (Lightf.), 
and when there, to dig a grave, and bury it. 
éEoicovaw | This word, spoken before 
her death, decisively proves that death to 
have been not a result merely of her detec- 
tion, but ajudicialinfliction. 10.) eised- 
@dvres, when they came in: not implying 
that they immediately entered, but leaving 
room for some interval of time: see above. 
12—16.] ProGress OF THE FaiTH; 
MIRACULOUS POWER AND DIGNITY OF 
THE APOSTLES. 12.] 8€ is merely 
transitional, and does not imply any con- 
trast to the @dé8os just mentioned, q. d. 
‘notwithstanding this fear, the Apostles 
went on working, &e.’ See ch. ii. 43. 
Gmavrtes, the Apostles only, not all the 
Christians. It does not follow, from mavres 
referring to all the believers in ch. ii. 1 (see 
note there), that &ravres necessarily refers 
to the same here also. The Apostles are 
the subject of the paragraph: and it is to 
set forth their unanimity and dignity that 
the description is given. They are repre- 


om vas D}, 
rec KAwwy (corrn to more usual word), with E rel 


aft 


aft ac@ev. ins avtwy D. 


[kpaBattwy, so ABDN. | 


sented as distinct from all others, believers 
and unbelievers (both which I take to be 
included under the term of Ao:of): and 
the Jewish people itself magnified them. 
The further connexion see on ver. 14. 

ot. Sod.] See ch. iii. 11; John x. 28, 
note. 13.] tav o-rayv, all else; 
whether believers or not: none dared to 
join himself to (see reff.), as being one of, 
or equal to, them: but (so far was this 
from being the case that) the very peopl 
(multitude) magnified them. 14.] 
And (not parenthetical, but continuing the 
description of the dignity of the Apostles) 
the result of this was that believers were 
the more added to the Lord (not mov. 
7@ Kuplw, but mposeT. TS Kup., as decided 
by ch. xi. 24), multitudes of men and 
women. 15.] Sste now takes up 
afresh the main subject of vv. 12 and 13, 
the glorification of the apostolic office, in- 
somuch, that It is connected not 
only with éueydAuvey adr. 6 A., but also 
with ver. 12. kava Tas 7A. | down the 


11—17. 


ers Nok 3 , \ Fie 
) OKLA ~ETLOKLAGH TLWt AVTWY. 


fol cal / / lal 
TANHOos THV™ TépE TONEwY ‘lepovoarnu, PépovTes ac beveis 
‘ n z) / e \ oO / op bd / icf 
Kat “dyNoumEevous UIrO ° TVEvUaTwV  akabdpTwr, 4 oT Wes 


€epatrevovto amravTes. 


17 r "A \ be € > \ \ / e \ ’ an 
VvaoTas (Se) apXLEepeus Ka’ TAVTES OL DvUY aAUT®, L.). 


TIIPASEIS AIOSTOAON. 


53 


/ \ \ F es 
161 supnpyeto Se Kat TO i Matt, iv. 16, 


Luke i. 79. 
Col. ii. 17. 
Heb. viii. 5. 
x. l only. 
Judg. ix. 36. 
k and constr., 
Mark ix. 7 
(acc., | Mt. 
Luke i. 
35 only. Ps. 


 ovca Saipecis TOV Laddoveaiwr, ™ érrARCOncav © Ejrov , 3°; 


m here only+. Jos. B. J. ii. 19. 1. 
x. lal. fr.in gospp. Rey. xvi. 13. xviii. 2. 
r ch. viii. 26, 27 reff. 
v.20. 2 Pet. ii. 1 only f. 
uch. xiii. 45 (reff.). 


aft ox. ins avtov E 33 vulg Thdrt Thl-fin. 


avTw XN), 


Jos. Antt. xiii. 5. 9. see Ley. xxii. 18. 


ch. i. 6 reff. 


n here (Luke vi. 18 rec.) only+. Tobit vi. 7 (not &). o Matt. 
Zech. xiii. 2. p ch. x. 14 reff. q = ch. x. 41 reff. 
sch. xv. 5. xxiv. 5, 14. xxvi. 5. xxviii. 22. 1Cor.xi.19. Gal. 


t = ch. iii. 10 reff. 


emioxiace: B13. 58. 183 Thl-fin. 


aft avtwy add arnAAacoorTo yap aro macys acbevias ws ELXeV 


exaotos avtrav D; kat puodwow aro traons acbevias ns evxov E; et liberarentur ab 
infirmitatibus suis vulg(not fuld) Lucif.—liberabantur am Lucif ; ab infirmitate (omg 


s.) am demid. 
16. d:0 cuvnp. E. 


om kai(ins D2) ro D!. 


for mepié, wept D1(txt D*[? ]). 


rec ins ets bef tegovo., with DEP rel 36 demid Chr Thl: circa syr coptt: 
om ABN k vulg Lucif.—“from the other cities round about Jer” Syr (Etheridge). 


*-- yo, amo D. 


mavtes D. 


17. for avaor. de, kat Tavta BAeTwy avacr. HE: om Syr. 


streets, i.e. in the line of the stieets,— 
see Winer, edn. 6, § 49, d. note. 

kAwv. k. kpaB. |] Kuinoel’s distinction, that 
the latter is a poor and humble bed, the 
former a couch of richer character, appears 
to be unfounded. (So also Bengel.) 
Ilérpov] As the greatest, in pre-eminence 
and spiritual energizing, of the Apostles. 
Now especially was fulfilled to him the 
promise of Matt. xvi. 18 (see note there) : 
—and even the shadow of the Rock (Isa. 
xxxii. 2, Heb., and E. V., spoken primarily 
of His divine Master) was sought for. 
We need find no stumbling-block in the 
fact of Peter’s shadow having been be- 
lieved to be the medium (or, as is surely 
implied, having been the medium) of work- 
ing miracles. Cannot the ‘ Creator Spirit’ 
work with any instruments, or with none, 
as pleases Him? And what is a hand or a 
voice, more than a shadow, except that the 
analogy of the ordinary instrument is a 
greater help to faith in the recipient ? 
Where faith, as apparently here, did not 
need this help, the less likely medium was 
adopted. See, on the whole, ch. xix. 
12, and note: and remark that only in the 
case of our Lord (Luke viii. 46 |/) and His 
two great Apostles in the N. T.,—and of 
Elisha in the O. T., have we instances of 
this healing virtue in the mere contact 
with or accessories of the person. But 
what a fertile harvest of superstition and 
imposture has been made to spring out of 
these scanty examples! 16.| Keep, in 
both verbs, cuvnpxeto and e@epamrevovTo, 


for o:tives, kat D-gr 38. 113 sah Lucif. 


€LWYTO 


(maous B!. 


the imperfect sense; ‘the multitude, Xe., 
was coming together, bearing, &c.,—for 
all such (quippe qui) were heing healed :’ 
viz. when the next incident, dvaoras 8é 
k.7.A., happened. 

17—42.| IMPRISONMENT, MIRACULOUS 
LIBERATION, EXAMINATION BEFORE THE 
SANHEDRIM, AND SCOURGING OF THE 
APOSTLES. 17.] avaords is not re- 
dundant, but implies being excited by the 
popularity of the Apostles, and on that ac- 
count commencing a course of action hos- 
tile tothem: see reff. (* Non sibi quiescen- 
dum ratus est.2 Beng. Sinyép8n Kivybels 
em) tots yevouevors, Chrys.) To suppose 
that the H. P. ‘rose up’ after a council 
held (Meyer) is far-fetched, and against the 
érAyoOnoav fyAov, which points to the 
kindling zeal of men first stirred up to 
action. 6 apx-| Annas,—ch. iv. 6, 
and note on Luke iii. 2. ot ovv ata | 
those who were with him (see ch. iv. 
13; xix. 88; xxii. 9). Not the members 
of the Sanhedrim: but the friends and 
kindred (ch. iv. 6) of the H. P.: see ver. 
21: Kuinoel’s ‘qui a partibus ejus sta- 
bant’ is too definite (De W.): it was so, 
but this meaning is not in the words. 
4 ovca]} attr., but implying more than of 
bytes e& aipeoews T. S.:—the movement 
extended through the whole sect. On 
aip. r. &., see Matt. iii. 7, note. The 
passage of Josephus, Antiq. xx. 9. 1, is 
worth transcribing: méume: 5€ Kaioap 
(Nero) ’AABivoy cis thy "lovdalay erapxor, 
Gictov Thy TeAcuTHy TvOduevos. 6 GE 


54 


v ch. xxi. 27 


TIPABEIZ ATIOSTOAON. 


V. 


18 kal’ éréBanrov Tas  yeipas Yéml Tods atroaTéAous Kal 


reff. 

y ch. iv. 3 reff. / ” \ 
ySiiereoniy+. CevTO avtovs év “ tnpnoer * Onuocia. 19 a&yyeros Se 
see ch. xvi. 37 , \ , = x 
vie ig Kuplou ¥ dua vuxros iwoitev tas Ovpas ths * pudaxijs, 

g Ts an / \ / 
rai. €€ayayov Te avtovs eimev 9 IlopeverOe Kat otabévtes 
Herod. i. 62 an a a a n U A587, a rn 

_init: & fin. anelTe €v TO lep@ T® NAW Tavta TA phuata THs * Cwhs 
= Matt. ve « 

, s a \ 5 v 
Mige™ Tavtns. 21 axovcavtes 5é eisfAOov timo Tov ° dpOpoy 
passim. Heb. > \ c \ ‘ a , d , &é c > 
xi. 38. Neh. €6$ TO LEpOV Kab €dldacKoD. TAapayevomevos O€ O apx- 
sa : \ \ A \ , \ 

Tenney  FEPEUS Kal ol avy avT@ © ouveKahecay TO f supédpiov Kal 

b = here only. a \ , A tn > L en need 
Jonahiv.10, Tagav THY FyEepovtiay Tov viav Iopanr, Kal "ar- 
so UTO THY A a , e \ 
éwBuriv, éoTethay els TO iSecpwrtiptoy axOjvar avtovs. of dé 

olyb. i. 53. 4. 
Ud THY Wpatay (prima estate), iii. 16. 7. ce Luke xxiv. I [John yiii. 2] only. Joel ii. 2. d Luke 
xii. 51. John iii. 23. Acts, ch. ix. 26. xvii. 10 & passim. Gen. xiv. 13. e act., Mark xv. 16. Luke xv. 


6 only. Josh. xxiii. 2, mid., ch. x. 24 al. 
also w. ut. Igp.) 
i here bis. Matt. xi. 2. ch. xvi. 26 only. 


18. emeBadrdoy A. 
ABD® 36. 40 vulg Syr arm Thl Lucif. 


f ch. iv. 15 reff. 
h constr., w. pass., here only (?). 
Gen. xxxix. 22 bis. xl. 3, 5 only. 


g here only. Exod. iii. 16 al. fr. (there 
see ch. xiii. 42 note. act., ch. xxvi. 17 reff. 


rec aft xepas ins avtwy, with EP rel (syr) coptt Chr: om 


eis THpncew E-gr Lucif(omg dnu.). 


aft Gnu. ins Kat emopevOn eis exaoros es Ta Lia D. 


19. tore dia v. bef ay. x. D. 


rec ins tys bef vurtos, with EP? rel 36 Chr: 


om ABDR}. avoitas AX 36 vulg sah: avewtay D!-gr, avewkey D® Chr. for 
Te, de B73. kat &. E. 
21. for akovo. de, ekeAPovtes de E Syr. add ex rns muvAakns E. Tapa- 


yevouevoy B'(sic, see table). 


aft ovy avtw ins eyepfevtes To mpwx D. 


ouveodecapevor D, retaining the ca: bef aweoretAay. 


Bactrebs aetAeto péy Tov "Idonroy Thy 
apxtepwovvnv, TH Se *Avdvov madl, Kar 
avTG “Avdvy reyouev@, Thy Biadoxhy Tis 
apxijs edwke. Tovtoy 5é pact Toy mpec- 
Bitatoy “Avavoy evtuxéatatov yevérOat" 
mévTe yap toxe Taidas, Kal TovTOUs mdy- 
Tas ouveBn apxiepateioat TS Oe, abrds 
kal mpotepoy Tis Tins em) mAcioTOY azro- 
Aatoas, brep ovdevl cvvéBn Tav Tap’ juiv 
apxiepéwv. 6 5& vedTepos “Avavos.... 
Opacis jv toy tpdmov, Kal ToAunThs dia- 
pepdvtws: aipeow 8 peTyer Tav SaSSov- 
Kalwy, olmep cic) wep) ras Kploeis dol 
mapa mavtas Tovs “lovdalous, Kabws dn 
dednAGdKauev. This shews that the family 
of Annas, if not he himself, were connected 
with the sect of the Sadducees. They (see 
ch. iv. 1, note) were the chief enemies of 
the Apostles, for teaching the resurrection. 

18. typ.] see ch. iv. 3. 20. | 
THs Cwis TavTys, an unusual expression, 
seems to refer to the peculiar nature of 
the enmity shewn towards them by the 
Sadducees, for preaching the évdoracts 
(wijis—‘of this LIKE, which they call in 
question.’ Or perhaps 7. ¢.7. may import 
the religion of Jesus having its issue in 
life. A similar expression, 6 Adyos Tis 
cwtTnplas tavrns, occurs ch. xiii. 26. See 
also Rom. vii. 24. But beware of assuming 
in either of these passages the use of the 
figure called by the grammarians hypallage, 
so that ra p. ris ¢. tTavtns = 7a phuata 


Tabta THs Cwhs: for thus the sense is 
enervated, and the peculiar reference in 
each case lost. The indiscriminate appli- 
cation of these supposed figures of speech 
has been, and continues to be, one of the 
worst foes of sound exegesis. The de- 
liverance, here granted to all the Apostles, 
was again vouchsafed to Peter inch. xii., and 
is there related more in detail. Itistherea 
minute touch of truth, that he should mis- 
take for a dream (ver. 9) what he saw: 
having lain so long in prison, and his mind 
naturally dwelling on this his former mira- 
culous liberation. 21.| Ud +. opOp., 
at daybreak: see reff. Tapayevd- 
p-evos | to the ordinary session chamber in 
the Temple, on the south side of it (Winer, 
Realw.): and therefore, if the Apostles were 
teaching ix Solomon’s porch (ver. 12), not 
in their immediate vicinity. Perhaps the 
maparyevOmevos . . . . TUVEKGAETOV. ..., 
implying that the summons was not issued 
till after the arrival of the H. P. and his 
friends, may point to a meeting of the 
Sanhedrim hurriedly and insufficiently 
called, for the purpose of ‘packing’ it 
against the Apostles. If so, they did not 
succeed, see ver. 40: perhaps on account of 
the arrival of some who had been listeners 
to the Apostles’ preaching. Twacav 
T. yepovatay| Probably the mpecButepa, 
including perhaps some who were not 
members of the Sanhedrim; the well- 


18—26. 


a , e , > e > \ > ng ee erg 
Tapayevomevor vmrnpéTar ovy evpov avTovs ev TH * pu-i—ch-*: 
fal . iA 
Aakh Bidvactpépavtes Sé amyyyethay Réyovtes Ort 
j > 
TO iSeapwrnpiov eUpouey *Kxexdevopévov év Tracy | acda- 
A a a > / 
Aela Kat Tos PidNaxas éEcTaTas ™érl THY Oupav, avoi- 
Eavtes 5¢ "Eow ovdéva ectipopmer. 
Aoyous TovTovs 6 Te CoTpaTnyos TOD Clepod Kai ot 
apxvepets, P Sinmopovy mept avtav Ti av yévouTo TovTO. 
95 d / / > / > ° v4 dS \ e 
5 Iqapayevouevos S€ Tus AmiyyetNev avTOIS OTL Ldov Ot +) 
yy 8 “a »” > aA 7 lal TEN 2) Pye mw € fal 
aivdpes ods EOeabe ev TH? hudaKh eicly Ev TO lep@ ETaTES 


TIPASEI> AIOZTOAON. 55 


only. Gen. 


Vili. 9. 


12 al. 
k Matt. vi. 6. 


xxy. 10. ch. 

xxi. 30. Rey. 
94 be YA \ xxi. 29. 
Os € NKOUCAV TOUS Ezek. xliv. 


rays 

1 = 1 Thess. v. 
3 (Luke i. 
4) only. Ley. 
xxvi. 5. (-@s, 
Mark xiv. 


m = Matt. xxi. 
19. Gen. 


xviii. 1. (7p0, 
\ , l \ James y. 9. 
Kat SiddoKxovtes Tov acy. 6 TOTE 1aTrENO@Y 6 ° OTpaT- ch. si 6) 
\ \ ra) ¢ s y > \ > \ , n = John xx 
NYOS GUY TOLS UTNPETALS nyayev avTous ov * peta * Bias, Pie, Gen, 

2 a pS BS 4 A \ fal sh. iv. 1 reff. 
éhoBoovto yap tov adv, [Sta] pn ' UbacPdow. Deh th oi 

ren. 
q = Matt. ii. 22. ch. ix. 17. xxiii. 32. Gen. xix. 2. rch. xxiv. 7 (xxi. 35. xxvii. 41) only. Exod. 
i. 14. xiv. 20. s = John xviii. 28. xix. 31. see Winer, edn. 6, } 56. 2, note. t John 


{vili. 5.] x. 31, 32, 33. xi. 8. ch. xiv.19. 2 Cor. xi. 25. Heb. xi. 37 only. 2 Kings xvi. 6, 13 only. 


22. rec urnp. bef wapay., with DEP rel 36 sah: txt ABN a h vulg Syr copt zeth 


Lucif. 
nupov HK. for ev Tn pva., ecw D. 
23. for Se, cat D'(Se ar D-corr!). 


add kat avvéavtes Thy pudakny D vulg syr-w-ast. 


amnyyetAov &. 


ou« D. 


om ot: E-gr vulg Syr. 


rec aft ro ins pev (to answer to de follg), with H-gr P rel 36 vulg coptt Chr: 


om ABDX Hr E-lat syrr eth. 


nupauev (twice) E. 


eveekAciouevov D!. 


ree ins efw bef ear. (gloss to particularize, and to answer to ecw follg) with Chr-txt : 


om ABDEPN rel vss Chr-comm Th] Lucif. 


rec for em, mpo (more usual), with 


EP rel vulg-ed syr copt Chr: zpos c: txt ABDX m 36, ad am fuld demid D-lat E-lat 


Syr sah. 


24. rec ins tepevs kat o bef orparnyos, with P rel syr Thl-fin ic: o1 repers Kau 0, omg 


the preceding o re, E: 


apxuepevs kar o 67. 98. 104 Chr Thl-sif: for o re to apxtepes, o 


TE OTPATNYOS K. O Lepevs Tov tepov JG; of apXtepeEls K. OL OTHPATNYOL T. LE. Syr eth: txt 


ABDR e 36 vulg coptt arm Lucif. 


eat T. HE. 


aft avtwy ins To N1(N3 disapproving). 


eOavuatov mev Te Kal OinT. T. AUT. TL ay DeAoL 


yevntat D'(txt D4). 


25. ree aft avtos ins Aeywy, with 36 Thl-tin (Lucif): om ABDEPRX rel vulg syrr 


coptt «th arm Chr (ec Thl-sif. 
kat XN}. 


om ao: X}. 


om eotwres(ins X-corr') 


26. for nyay., nyev BD4N: deducebant D-lat: amayayovres 13: nyayov 1: txt AD'EP 


rel 36 vulg Chr Thl Lucif. 
D-gr. 


known foes of Jesus and his doctrine. 
The expression 7. T. yepous. Tay vi. 
*IopanA, common in the LXX, is perhaps 
translated from the form of words in which 
they were summoned. -yepovola, being 
the ordinary word for the mpeoBuvrepo:, 
would be the Hellenistic formal expression. 

23. év waa. aop.| Not, as Vulg., 
‘cum omni diligentia’ (so Luth.), nor as 
E. V. ‘with all safety’ (?); but in all 
security—‘ in a state of perfect safety.’ 

24.| If the fepeds of the rec. be 
genuine, it must designate the High 
Priest; not that the word itself can bear 
the meaning (compare 1 Mace. xv. 1 and 
2), but that the context points out the 
priest thus designated to be the H. P. 
(Meyer.) On 6 otpat. t. tep., see 
note, ch. iv. 1. He appears to have been 


om ov D}(and lat: ins D3 °F 5). 
om wa (to connect wn with epoB.) BDEX 13: ins AP rel 36 Chr Thi. 


poBovpmevat yap 


summoned to meet the Sanhedrim, per- 
haps as the offence had taken place within 
his jurisdiction. But he was probably 
one of the dapxiepets (see Winer, Realw., 
Tempel, end). ‘These latter were the 
titular High Priests, partly those who 
had served the office, partly the presidents 
of the twenty-four courses, partly the kin- 
dred of the H. P. (see Matt. ii. 4.) 

aitév] ‘ The Apostles,’ the avtovs of ver. 
22: not ‘these: words, as would appear 
at first sight. ti av yev. TovTo| To 
what this would come; ‘ whereunto this 
would grow,’ E. V.:—not ‘quomodo fac- 
tum sit,’ as Kuin.,—nor ‘ quid hoc esset 
rei’ (ri dy ety, as ch. x. 17), as Grot. and 
others. 26.] [tva] pn ALO. depends 
upon ov peta Bias, not upon ego. If, 
however, fva be omitted, then this latter is 


56 ITPA= 


u ch. iv. 7 reff. 

v = ch. iv. 15 
reff. 

w ch. xvi. 24. 
1 Thess. iv. 
2. 1 Timo 
5, 18 only +. 

x constr., ch. 
{iv. 17.) xxiii. 
14. Luke 
xxii. 15, 
John iii. 29. 
Gen. xxxi. 30 
al. 


y ch. iv. 17 reff. 
z John xii. 3. 
ch. ii. 2 al. 


avOpwrrots. 30 9 


b2 Pet. ii. 2, 
5only. Gen. 
vi..17. 

1 only +. 


c = Matt. xxiii. 35. xxvii. 25. 
Sir. xxx. 28 (xxxiii. 37). 
x. 8. ch. iii. 15? $. 


k = as above (i). 
above (i). 1 Pet. ii. 24. 


27. o vepeus D'-gr(txt D*) Lucif. 


EI] ATIOSTOAON. 


QT > , BY: > \ u 2% 3 ay 8 / 
ayayovres O€ avTovs “écTnoay ev TO * cuvedpio. 
> , > \ e \ 9 / / 
ETNpOTHTEV avTos O apxLepers *8 NEeywv “* Ilapayyeria 
- a ‘ n +? 
*rapnyyeiAapev tiv pr) OiodoKew Yeti TO ovopate 
s \ 
TOUTW, Kal idov ily aie THY 
*d.dayijs tueov, Kai BovdecOe ” 
Palpa TOU dvOporou TOUTOU. 


V. 


\ 
Kab 


‘lepovoa hips THS 


f 


d ver. 32, ch, xxvii. 21. Titus i iii. 

ech. iii. 13. xxii. 14. 1 Chron. pce 17 al. 

1 Cor. x. 1. see ch. iii. 25. = Matt. 
ich, x. 39. Gal. iii, 13, from Deut. xxi. 23. 
Gen. xl, 19. l—a-s 





28. rec ins ov bef wapayy. (making it a question, which has evidently been occa- 
sioned by ewepwrncev), with DEPN® rel 36 syrr sah eth Thdrt: om ABN! yulg D-lat 


copt Ath Cyr Lucif Preedest. 
1st ca: D!(and lat: ins D?). 
exewov D}-gr(txt D8) sah. 
29. rec ins o bef zrerp., 


30. ins de bef @eos AX copt. 


the case. 28.] Sov epwrijcat mpa- 
Tov, Tas efhAOeTE; Gs ovdevds yevomevou, 
€pwr@or A€youtes: k.T.A. Chrys. The same 
shyness of open allusion to the names or 
facts connected with Jesus and the spread 
of his doctrine may be traced in the évé6- 
pare TovT», and the av@pdrrov TOUTOU, 
end isa strong mark of truth and cirecum- 
stantiality. ‘ FE ugit appellare Jesum: Pe- 
trus appellatet celebrat, vv.30,31. Bengel. 
émray. ep) Huas | not meaning, that 
divine vengeance would come on them for 
the murder of Jesus: but with a stress on 
jyas—that the people would be incited to 
take vengeance on them, the Sanhedrim, 
for that murder, ‘The preceding clause 
(memAnp. «.7.A.) shews this to be their 
thought. Compare the pointed address of 
Peter to the Sanhedrim, ch. iv. 8—12, and 
the distinction between them and the people 
in iv. 21. This being so, the resemblance 
between this expression and the impreca- 
tion of the people in Matt. xxvii. 25 must 
not be too closely pressed, though the coin- 
cidence is too striking to escape notice. 
29.) Peter, by word of mouth; the 
Apostles, as a body, by assent, implied in 
his own utterance and their silence. There 
is no ellipse of @AAot before ardor. 
This defence of Peter divides itself into the 
propositions of an ordinary syllogism —(1) 
The statement of the general truth that we 
must obey God rather than men: (2) The 
reduction of the present circumstances 


for S:dacK., Aarhew A lect-17 Cyr Thart. 
ewAnpwoate AX Chr Cyr. 


with 13. 36 Thl: 


emav, adding at end of ver o Se merpos eimev mpos avTous. 


om 


epayayew D}(txt DS). 


om ABEHPX rel Chr.—D! omits azroxp. to 


[evray, so ABEN. | 


ins Toy maida avtov bef ino. E. 


under that general truth, as being the 
work of the God of their Fathers—shewn 
in his having raised and glorified Jesus, 
for a definite purpose, to give, &e. (3) The 
identification of themselves with the course 
of action marked out by the webapyetv 
Set . . . in that they were bearing witness 
to God’s. work, under the inspiration of the 
Holy Spirit given them as men obedient to 
God. The whole is a perfect model of 
concise and ready eloquence, and of unan- 
swerable logical coherence ; and a notable 
fulfilment of the promise, f00hcera dpiv 
ey exelvn TH Spa Tl AaANonTe (Matt. x. 19). 

meYapxetv| much stronger than 
axovev, ch. iv. 19,—as their conduct, in 
persisting after prohibition, had been more 
marked and determined. That was a mere 
‘ listening to’ the proposition then made to 
them: this, a course of deliberate action, 
chosen and entered on. Ged — opposed 
to THs 5:5. tpev of the H. P.; and to 
av@pHrov tovtov. In the background, 
there would be the command of the angel, 
ver. 20: but it is not alleged: the great 
duty of preaching the gospel of Christ is 
kept on its highest grounds. 30. Tay 
mar. np.| thus binding on Christ and his 
work, to the covenant whereof all present 
were partakers. jyetpev | both from 
the emphatic position of the verb, and 
from the context, it must refer to the 
resurrection, not merely, as in Matt. xi. 
11, Luke i. 69, Judg. iii. 9, to raising up 


errayayeiy ed Aas 76 Has 
29 "Atroxpibels 6é Tlérpos ofa. 
Kal ob am0aTONOL elav 4 Ileapyeiv det Oe@ paNNow 7) HPRs 
> ©Oeos TeV : 


A€- 


iba fy eey 8 nyelpev k lg 
"Iyoobr, dv bpets » dvexetpicac be * kpewacavtes ert | Evrov. 


2 Kings i. 16. 
Esdr. viii. 94 (90) only. 

f = John iv. 20. vi. 31. ch. iii. 13. vii. 11, &c. xiii. 17. xv. 10. xxii. 14, 
hch. xxvi. 21 only t. 

Luke xxiii. 39 (Matt. xviii. 6. xxii. 40. ch. xxviii. 4) only. 


27—33. 


TIPAHEIS AIOTTOAON. 57 


81 tovTov o Oeds ™ apxmyov Kal ocwTHpa ” typos Tip m = ch. i. 15 
bed avrov, ° dodvat ° peravovay TO span Kal P4 dpeow™, Be = ch. iin 8 


q cpapriay. 82 


q Matt. xxvi. 28. Luke i. 77. iii. 3. ch. ii. 38. 
xiii. 31. Job xvi. 20. 
u ver. 29 reff. 


81. for Seta, Sof D}(caritate D-lat : 


D}(and lat) sah eth-rom. 

82. for ecuev avtov, ev avtw B 69}. 
papt. bef eouey A am D-lat Syr 
Chr, Did: 


Kal jusels éopev avTovd 
* pnearoov TOUT@Y, ‘Kal TO mebpoa [t dé] To dryiov, 0 €dwKev 3° 
0 Geds Tois “reBapyotow adTe@. 
Col, i. 14 al. 


s double gen., Phil. i. 25. ii. 30. 


txt D?) sah Iven-int. 
B &!(88 disapproving) Chr, ; em: tw Chr). 


100-5 Iren-int : 
Iren-int : 
syr places avrov aft pnuatwr : 


Poh xi. 18. 

APTUPES TV 2 Tim. ii, 26. 
a p P S Wisd. xii. 19. 
Jos. Antt. xx. 


p Mark ili. 29, 
Eph. i. 7. 
Heb. ix. 22}. 
r = ch. i. 8 and Acts passim. constr., ch. 
Heb. xiii, 7. t ch, iii. 24 reff. 


33 Or 6€ aKkovoayTes” 


ins Tov bef Sovvar 
ins twy bef auapt. D®.—add ev avtw 


auTm Mm: om ecuey wth: 
om avtov AD!N g h vulg Syr sah 


txt (avtov was prob omd from not being 


understood, and transposed from being thought to belong to tT. pnuatwy tovtwr) 


D°EHP 36 (eth) Chr, Thi. 


Thl-sif. 
33. axovoytes P ch 104-5. 


in the ordinary sense. tpets, answering 
to the ed’ qpas of the H. P. émt EvAov | 
compare reff. and the similar contrast in 
ch. iii. 14, 15. The manner of death is 
described thus barely and ignominiously, 
to waken compunction in the hearers, to 
whom the expression was well known as 
entailing curse and disgrace on the victim. 
31, 32.] apxny. K. owr., not, ‘to be 
a Prince and a Saviour: but the words 
are the predicate of rotrov—as a P.anda 
8. dpxnydv, as ch. iii. 15, which see. 
K. owt. not = THs cwrTnplas. Jesus was 
to be King and Captain of Israel, and a/so 
their Saviour. The two offices, though 
inseparably connected in fact, had each its 
separate meaning in Peter’s speech: @ 
Prince, to whom you owe obedience— 
a Saviour, by whom you must be saved 
from your sins. Ty Sefuq, by (not to) 
His right hand, as in ch. ii. 33, where see 
note. The great aim here, as there, is to 
set forth God as the Dorr of all this. 
Sodvat, in his Kingly prerogative; per. k. 
ad. ap., to lead to salvation (eis owrnplay, 
as 2 Cor. vii. 10: eis (wy, as ch. xi. 18) 
by him as a Saviour. Somewhat similarly 
Bengel: ‘per., qua Jesus accipitur ut Prin- 
ceps: &peo. qua accipitur ut Salvator’ 
The key to this part of the speech is 
Luke xxiv. 47—49, where we have, in our 
Lord’s command to them, the same con- 
junction of pert. x. &peor. au.—and imme- 
diately follows, as here, twets udprupes 
TovTwy, appointing them to that office 
which they were now discharging,—and, 
corresponding to T6 mvedpa TS Gy. of our 
text, iSo0 eyw etamooTéAAw Thy eTayye- 
Alay tod Tmatpos pov ed buds. By con- 
joining the Holy Ghost, as a witness, with 


ins mavtwy bef twy p. t. D'(and lat). 
(corrn ?) ABD'X m vulg sah arm Did Thl-fin Iren-int : 


om de 
ins DE (HP?) P rel 36 Chr 


for 8, ov D'E: om B 17. 73 copt: txt AD-corr HX rel 36. 
aft axov. ins ravra EK 28 syr-w-ast sah. 


themselves,—they claim and assert the 
promise of John xy. 26, 27: see also the 
apostolic letter of ch. xv. 28. When we 
remember, how much of the apostolic tes- 
timony was given in writing, as well as 
by word of mouth, this declaration of Peter 
becomes an important datum for judging 
of the nature of that testimony also. See 
a very similar conjunction, 1 John vy. 9. 

They were God’s witnesses, in the 
things which they had seen and heard as 
men: the Holy Ghost in them was God’s 
Witness, in purifying and enlarging by His 
inspiration that their testimony to facts, 
and in unfolding, from (and as inseparable 
from) these witnessed facts,—the things 
which eye hath not seen, nor ear heard. 
And in the Scripture THESE SAME TESTI- 
MONIES are conjoined ; that of the Apos- 
tles, holy men under the guidance and 
reminding of the Holy Spirit, faithfully 
and honestly reporting those things which 
fall under human observation: and that 
of God the Spirit Himself, testifying, 
through them, those loftier things which 
no human experience can assure, nor human 
imagination compass. Popov | his- 
tories, things expressed in words: see 
note on Luke i. 4. tots me. | Not 
nuty, which might make an unreal dis- 
tinction between the Apostles and the then 
believers, and an implied exclusion of the 
hearers from this gift,—but generally, to 
all the weBapxotow aire, by this word 
recalling the opening of the speech and 
binding all together. So that the sense 
of the whole is,‘ We are acting in obe- 
dience to God, and for the everlasting good 
of our common Israel: and otherwise we 
cannot do.’ And a solemn invitation is 


58 


v ch. vii. 54 
only $. 
1 Chron. 
xx. 3 only. 
w = Luke xiv. 
31. John (xi. 
53 v. r.) xii. 
10. ch. xxvii. 
39. 2 Cor. i. 
ke 
Esth. iii. 6. 
x Luke xxii. 


Vv p>) / \ 
LETPLOVTO Kal 


Luke only, exc. Matt. ii. 16. Heb. x. 9. 


. see Neh. viii. 7 Ald. a 1 Cor, iii. 12. 
20 reff. Hom. Od. a’, 38, c= 
d ch. xxvii. 28 reff. e Luke xii. i. xvil. 3. xxi. 34. ch, xx. 


g = Mark vi. 52. 


eBovadovto (corn, eBovdev. not being understood) ABE e 1 copt «th Chr, : 
eBovAcvoayto k Thl-fin: txt DHPN rel vulg syrr Chr-comm Thl-sif Lucif. 
ex Tov ouvedpiov D-gr E copt: 


cavto b: 


34. aft cured. 


ins avtwy E: 


IIPABEIS ATIOZTOAON. 


W €BovNevovto * avedely avTous. 
atas O€ Tis ev TO Youvedpiw Papicaios dvopati Vamarujr, 

” yomooloagKanos * TiLos 
4 Bpayd tovs avOpwrovs ° Toujocat, * eimév Te TpOS 

> \ A é ci | lal e , ef £ lal g ae 
avrovs “Avodpes “Iopandital, © mposéyete “ éavtois & emt 
~ ois avOpwrrots TovToLs Ti wéddAETE TPdooeEL. 


Ezek. xxvi. 8. 


here only see Job xi. 14. xxii. 23. 


We 


34 Gva- 


fal fal v 
>avtl TO Na@, éxédevoev ° EEw 


\ 3 
36 apo yap 
z Luke v.17. 1 Tim. 
b dat., ch. vii- 
Xen. Anab. vi. 6. 5, 25. 
f 2nd pers., 2 Cor. vii. 11 reff. 


y = ver. 27. 


Heb. xiii. 4." Prov. iii. 15. 


(Deut. iv. 9.) 


THUTO eToinge 70 Kal ent ™7m Ouyarpt, Herod. iii. 14. 


emeBovAeu- 


om e. T. cuvedp. Syr. 


rec aft Bpaxv ins 71, with (H) P rel Thl-sif: Bpaxurnt: o: txt ABDEX Chr,.— 


Tt. am, Bp. Tt Hdeo: 7. am. ekw Bp. rornom D. 
txt ABN vulg copt arm Chrg. 
for avtous, Tovs apxovTas kat Tous cuvedpiuus D sah. 


with DEHP rel 36 Syr sah wth Chr, Thi: 
35, for Te, 5e C k 58 copt. 


eautous D}, 


implied. ‘Be ye obedient likewise. It 
is remarkable that a similar word, t1- 
qkovov 77 mice, is used of the multitude 
of converted priests, ch. vi. if 33. 8t- 
emplovto] sc. Tais Kapdics as ch. vii. 54. 

From its conjunction there with €8puxov 
7. dddvTas, it does not appear to have any 
connexion with the phrase mplew or d:a- 
mplew 7.65. with which Hesych. and Wetst. 
identify it. They were cut asunder (in 
heart). So Persius, iii. 8, ‘ turgescit vitrea 
bilis: Findor, ut Arcadie pecuaria rudere 
credas.. And Plautus, Bacch. ii. 3. 17, 
‘ Cor meum et cerebrum, Nicobule, finditur, 
Istius hominis ubi fit quaque mentio.? And 
Euseb. H. E. v. 1 (in Suicer, sub voce, where 
he cites other authorities also), éxaAémawwov 
kK. dtemplovto Ka? juav. eBovdevovTo | 
they were purposing, ‘taking counsel with 
the intent,’ see reff. 34.] Topadtuyrd = 
sry, (see Numb. i. 10; ii. 20,) is gene- 
rally, and not without probability, assumed 
to be identical with the celebrated Rabban 
Gamaliel, j737 (the old man), one of the 
seven, to whom, among their Rabbis, the 
Jews give this title Rabban (= fafBovrt, 
John xx. 16),a wise and enlightened Pha- 
risee, the son of Rabban Symeon (tradition- 
ally the Symeon of Luke ii. 25) and grand- 
son of the famous Hillel. His name often 
appears in the Mischna, as an utterer of 
sayings quoted as authorities. He died 
eighteen years before the destruction of the 
city. (See Lightf. Centuria Chorogr. Matth. 
premissa, ch. xv.) He was the preceptor 
of St. Paul (ch. xxii. 3). Ecclesiastical 
tradition makes him become a Christian 
and be baptized by Peter and John (Phot. 
cod. 171, vol. iii. p. 118 b. Winer, Realw.), 

and in the Clementine Recognn. (i. 65, p. 

1242), he is stated to have been at this 


ato Twy avOpwarwy Tovtwy E tol. 


rec (for av@pwrous) amoaToAous, 


mpatrew &. 


time a Christian, but secretly. The Jewish 
accounts do not agree, which make him die 
a Pharisee, with much more probability. 
Nor isthe least trace of a Christian leaning 
to be found in his speech: see below. And 
considering that he was a Pharisee, oppos- 
ing the prevalent faction of Sadduczism in 
a matter where the Resurrection was called 
in question,—and a wise and enlightened 
man opposing furious and unreasoning 
zealots,—considering also, that when the 
anti-pharisaical element of Christianity 
was brought out in the acts and sayings of 
Stephen, his pupil Saul was found the fore- 
most persecutor,—we should, I think, be 
slow to suspect him of any favouring of the 
Apostles as followers of Jesus. (See par- 
ticulars respecting Gamaliel collected in 
Conybeare and Howson’s St. Paul, edn. 2, 
vol.i. p. 69, f.) He does not here appear as 
the president of the Sanhedrim, but only as 
a member. ew Tovar | see reff. to put 
out—‘ cause to withdraw.’ They are re- 
called in ver. 40. 85. | The words ém) tr. 
avOp. TovT. may be joined either with zpos- 
éx. €avt., or with ti uéA. apace. The latter 
would give the more usual construction : 
and the transposition of words is not un- 
exampled in the Acts, see ch. i. 2; xix. 4. 

36.| A great chronological difficulty 
arises here. Josephus relates, Antt.xx.5. 1, 
@ddov 5 THs “lovdalas emitpomevovtos yéons 
Tis Gvhp Oevdas dvduate welBer Toy WAELOTOV 
bxAov avadaBdévTa Tas KThoELS EmeoOau 
mpos Tov “lopdavny motauby ait@: mpo- 
pirns yap erAcyev elvat, kal mpostaymare 
Tov mwoTaudy axlcas, Siodov epn mapetew 
avtois padlav. Kal tadta Aéywy moA- 
Aov’s jmatnoev. ov phy elacey avtovs 
THs appootyns bvacOa badus, GAN ef- 
éreuev YAnv inméwy em’ avrovs, Hrts 


C ear... 
ABCD 
HPNa 
cdfg 
k]) me 
13 


34—37. 


id a ¢ aA hott e 8a , 3 
TOUT@Y TOV HuEepav »avéotn Bevdds éyor Elvat 
c , 2 k ‘ > 8 an 
éavTov, w * mposexdi0n avdpav 
Kooliwv: os ™ avnpéO L wa boot ” éreiO ) 

npéOn, Kat TavTes boot ™ érreiMovTo avT@ 
A 
° SueAvOnoav Kal P éyévovTo P eis ovdév. 


h2 


peo, Polyb. iv. 51. 5. 
v.7. James iii. 3. 


1 = ver. 7 al. 
Proy. xxvi. 25. 


p Matt. xxi. 42, ch. iv. 11 and 1 Pet. ii. 7, from Ps. exvii. 22. 

3 = here only. (ver. 38.) Deut. xiii, 10. 
t = Luke xxiii. 5 al. 
Luke iy. 38, 


r Luke ii. 2 only +. 
classics passim. 
xiii. 3, constr. pregn., see ch. xiii. 8. 


2 Mace. ii. 1 only. 


36. ins peyay bef cavtoy D: 
vulg syr coptt Kus Chr Thl. 


appositi sunt Jer: inclinaverunt syr: 


IIPASEIZ ATMOFTOAON. 


f ? e a lal an 
avéotn ‘lovdas 0 Tadtnraios év tats iuépas Tis * atro- 
ypadbhs, Kai Samréotnoev tXaov “oTlicw avtod' Kaxelvos 


59 


irwa h = ch. vii. 18, 


from caesar i. 

> 5 line 8. see ch. vi. 
aptOuos | @s TeTpa- 3. 

P ie i — a Cor. iii. 7 


k hers only t. 
Hom. Od. ’. 
138, 7pos-_ 
KAtvov Tots 
“Podiots 0 
II7oA. Kart. 
7. OAnV at- 
m = ver. 33. n= ch. xxiii. 21. xxvii. 11. Gal. 
ohere only$. Suad, Thy oTpartiay, Xen. Cyr. v. 5. 43. 
Luke xiii. 19. Rom. xi. 9. q ch. xiii. 25 reff, 
Herod, i, 154, and 
1 Tim. v.15. Rey. 


87.4 weTa TOUTOV 


u= ch, xx. 30, 
Rom. xvi. 20, 


aft, A?E k 0 13. 36 tol Syr Cyr Jer: om A1BCHN rel 

aft » ins ka: D-gr. 
fk o Chr Thl Ge: mposexAnOncay Cl(appy) : mposexAccOnoay D-corr : 
adheserunt copt: 


rec mposexoAAnOn, with 
mposeTeOy 36: 
secuti sunt Syr sah eth: 


accesserunt arm: txt ABEHN a? b d hm, mposexandy (ttacism) C?D'P a} g 1, consensit 
vulg E-lat, adsensum est D-lat (the varr have been interpretations of or substitutions 


for the amat rey. in N T, mposeras6n). 
syr Chr: txt ABCEN m demid. 
b. TeTpakooior XN}. 


dteAvOnoay D'(ins Dé). ovOey D 33. 


rec wset, with HPN! rel 36 Thi: 
os 5teAvOn(avnpeOn D*) avtos 60 avrov D. 


rec ap.0. bef avdp., with DHP rel vulg 
txt ABCDER? 
om 


37. rec aft Aaoy ins txavoy, with HP rel 36 syrr sah Thl: pref Ek 40 copt Chr: Aa. 


Gmposdénntos emimecodoa moAAoVS ev 
Gveihe, ToAAOUS be C@yTas EAaBev" avTdy 
Te Toy Oevdav Cwyphoaytes amoTéeuvovar 
Thy Kepadhy, kal KoutCovaw eis ‘lepood- 
Aupa. But this was in the reign of Clau- 
dius, not before the year A.D. 44; and con- 
sequently at least twelve years after this 
speech of Gamaliel’s. On this difficulty 
I will remark, that we are plainly zz no 
position (setting all other considerations 
aside) to charge St. Luke with having put 
into the mouth of Gamaliel words which he 
could not have uttered. For Josephus him- 
self, speaking of a time which would accord 
very well with that referred to by Gamaliel, 
viz. the time when Archelaus went to Rome 
to be confirmed in the kingdom, says, éy 
TouTm 5& Kal Erepa pupla BopiBwy ex6- 
peva Thy *lovdatay KareAduBave, TOoAA@Y 
moAAaxdoe Kat oikelwy eAmidas Kepdov 
kal “lovdalwy ExOpas én) Td moAcuety 
&punuevwy. And among these there may 
well have been an impostor of this name. 
But all attempts to identify Theudas with 
any other leader of outbreaks mentioned by 
Josephus have failed to convince any one 
except their propounders: e. g. that cited 
in Biscoe from Usher, Ann., p. 797, who 
supposes him the same as Judas the robber, 
son of Ezechias, Jos. Antt. xvii. 10. 5,— 
of Sonntag, who tries to identify him with 
Simon, mentioned Jos. Antt. xvii. 10. 6; 
B. J.ii. 4. 2,—and of Wieseler, who would 
have us believe him the same with Matthias 
6 MapyadAéOov, Antt. xxvii. 6.2, 4. The 
assumption of Josephus having misplaced 
his Theudas is perhaps improbable; but 
by no means impossible, in a historian 


teeming with inaccuracies. (See this abun- 
dantly demonstrated in an article on ‘the 
Bible and Josephus,’ in the Journal of 
Sacred Literature for Oct. 1850.) All we 
can say is, that such impostors were too 
frequent, for any one to be able to say that 
there was not one of this name (a name by 
no means uncommon, see Cicero ad divers. 
vi. 10, and Grot. h. 1.) at the time spe- 
cified. It is exceedingly improbable, con- 
sidering the time and circumstances of the 
writing of the Acts, and the evident super- 
vision of them by St. Paul, the pupil of 
Gamaliel, that a gross historical mistake 
should have been here put into his mouth. 
The Aéywy eiva: of our text is curiously 
related to the EAeyev eivat of Josephus. 
@s TeTpakogtov hardly agrees with 

the roy mAciorov bxAov of Josephus above, 
and confirms the idea that diflerent events 
are pointed at in the two accounts. But 
the Jewish historian speaks very widely 
about such matters: see note on ch. xxi. 38. 
37.] The decided peta todrov fixes 
beyond doubt the place here assigned to 
Theudas. This Judas, and the occasion 
of his revolt, are related by Josephus, Antt. 
xviii. 1. 1, Kuphvios 5¢ ... . emt Suplas 
mapyv, tm Katoapos Sdiraodétns Tod 
€Ovous amectaApmévos, K. TiUNTHS TOY 
ovol@v yernoduevos .... mapny Se Kal 
Kup. cis thy “lovdatwy mposOqkny ths 
Suplas yevoueyvny aamotiunodmevds Te av- 
TOY TOS ovalas, K. amodwodmevos TO. 
"ApxeAdov Xphuara. Oi 5é, kalmep 7d 
kar’ apxas ev SewG pépovtes Thy enh 
Tals amoypapats axpdact, en ee 
TOU eis aAEOV evavTiovaba.. . . “lovdas 


60 TIPAH EIS ATIOSTOAON. V. 38—42, 






7 . e ,? lal 
vxer 36 reff. Gar@NETO, KAL TaVTES Ocor YeTrE\OovTO aUT@ * SvecKopTria On- 
31 (fro \ fal con > , \ al 
Zech xii.7 CAV. 8 kal *Ta *vov A€yw viv, YawTooTHTE aTO TOV 
A®3). Luke , , SSE > , ¢ 2\ S a2 
iol, John QVOp@Ta@V TOUTwY Kal * adeTe avToUs’ OTL eav Wy *€& 
ertanie te , , \ ° \ Y a / 
i 29 ver, VOp@OTraV 7 » Bourn ai'ty 7) TO Epyov TodTO, 4 KatadvOn- 
y = Luke iv. rn a 
“ia. chxsi. geTau 99 ef d€ *€x Oeod éativ, ov * Sivaabe * KaTaddoat 
9. 2Cor. 
aa 2 , s A = / 
sie Sis adrous, © untrote Kal f Peomayor SevpeOhre. 4° ¥ érretaOnoav 
z = Matt. xv. Se ee) \ / \ > / h 8 , 
Mak O€ @UT@, Kal TposKadeoapevor TOUS aTOGTOOUS © CEl- 
xiv. 6. ings 
iv. 27. 5 k 


i / \ lal le lal b] s fol 

pavtes Tapnyyetkbav pn Aare ‘ETL TW oOvopaTL TOU 
id \ i / / 

41 Ot pev ody érropevovTo yaipov- 

e John vii. 21, d = Rom, xiy. 20, 2 Mace. ii, 22. e constr., here only. see note. 

Symm. only, Job xxvi. 5. Prov. ix. 18. xxi. 16. (-xetv, 2 Mace. vii. 19. Eur. Iph. in Aul. 1409.) 


h Matt. xxi. 35. ch. xvi. 37. xxii. 19 al.t 2 Chron. xxix. 34 A (€K6. B) only. i= ch.i.4 reff. 
1= ch. xxvi. 32 reff. 


a see Matt. xxi. 
25. -) a Wipe t 
take xxiii. Inoov, Kat ! amréXuaay. 
51. ch. xxvii. 
12, 42. 
f here only t. 
g = 2 Cor. iv. 2 reff. 
k ch. iv. 17 reff. 


modvy C D-gr: txt A'BN vulg D-lat Eus Cyr. om tavtes D 95. for ocot, ot Cl-3, 

38. om ta (not B!: corrd eadem manu: see table) E. aft vuy ins ero. adeAdor 
D (cio is marked for erasure). om vuiv X!(ins X-corr!). rec (for apete) 
eacare, with DEHP rel 36 Chr Thi: txt ABCN. aft avrous ins wn miavayTes Tas 
xeipas D 34: un modvvoyTes Tas X. UUW KE. om avtn HPabef gh! Thl-fin Ge. 

39. for et, cay E. * 6uynoeo Oe BCDEN a h k 13(appy) 36 vulg Syr sah Orig 
Chr (ec Thl-fin (alteration to agree with the foregoing future, and the conditional e.? 
see note): Suvvacbe AHP rel fuld syr copt Chr, Thl-sif. rec auto (alteration to suit 
epyov), with C'HP rel demid Syr coptt Chr Thl (ec: avtoy 180: rouvtou bibacKkadray 
Orig: txt ABC?DEX am fuld syr eth arm Bede. aft avtous add oute umes 


ouTe ot apxovTes vnwy Es ovre umes ovte BaciAcis ovte Tupavvoly ameXeoOat ovy amo 


twy avOpwray tourwy D: simly 33-marg 180 demid syr-w-ast. 


lat : ins D?) 163 coptt. 
40. for emeioOnoay, eweloT .... 
deletis”) D'(txt D?/?]). 


Twit EH: avtous A. 


dé Tavaavirns avip ek méAews dvoua 
Tapyadra qmelyeto ém) amoorace. 
And, in returning to the mention of him as 
the founder of the fourth sect among the 
Jews (xviii. 1. 6), he calls him 6 Taadiaios 
*Iovdas. From the above citation it is 
plain that this adroypap} was that so 
called kar’ efox7jv, under Quirinus: see 
Luke ii. 2 and note. His revolt took a 
theocratic character, his followers main- 
taining pdvoy nyeudva Kal beamdrny Toy 
Gedy (Jos. as above). amederto | Not re- 
lated by Josephus. Steoxopticlycay | 
Strictly accurate—for they still existed, and 
at last became active and notorious again, 
under Menahem, son of Judas tov kadov- 
pévov TadiAalov, ds hv copiotis deivd- 
rTatos, Kat emt Kupnylov more “lovdatovs 
éveidioas. (B. Jud. ii. 17. 7; see also Antt. 
EXyD ss) 38. | éavq,et...eoriv: imply- 
ing by the first, perhaps, the manifold de- 
vices of human imposture and wickedness, 
any of which it might be, (q.d. 671 &y 7 
ef avOpé7.,) and all of which would equally 
come to nought,—and, on the other hand, 
the solemnity and fixedness of the divine 
purpose, by the indicative, which are also in- 
timated, in our text, by the pres. ob divacbe. 

Or perhaps the indicative is used in the 


aft dep. ins avtouvs E: ce@sis cis D-lat. 
rec aft aed. ins avrous, with DEHP rel 36 vulg Chr: om ABCR. 


om «at Dl (and 


es (“una litera ante ez. et quatuor fere ante es 


aft AaAey ins 


second place, because that is the case as- 
sumed, and on which the advice is founded. 
% BovAy | The whole plan—the scheme, 

of which this €pyov, the fact under your 
present cognizance, forms a part. 39. | 
The somewhat difficult connexion of pyrote 
k. 0. evp. may be explained,—not by paren- 
thesizing 671 avTovs, but by under- 
standing ‘and ye will be obliged to give up 
your attempt’ (which thought is contained 
in ov dtvac. Kat. avt.), lest ye be, Xe. 
kat] Opponents not only to them, 

but also to God :—‘ even,’ in E. V., does not 
givethesense. As regards Gamaliel’s ad- 
vice, we may remark that it was founded on 
a view of the issues of events, agreeing with 
the fatalism of the Pharisees: that it be- 
tokens no leaning towards Christianity, nor 
indeed very much even of worldly wisdom ; 
—but serves to shew how low the supreme 
council of the Jews had sunk both in their 
theology and their political sagacity, if such 
a fallacious /aissez-aller view of matters 
was the counsel of the wisest among them. 
It seems certainly, on a closer view, as if they 
accepted, from fear of the people (see ver. 
26), this opportunity of compromising the 
matter, which Gamaliel had designedly af- 
forded them. 40. Sefpavres | See Deut. 


ABCD 
HPN a 
cdfg 
k L mi 
13 


Weed, 2. IIPABEI> AIOSTOAON. 61 


n / x4 ° / aes 
auvedpiov, OTe ° KaTnEWOnoap ™ ch. vii. 49 

n ch. iv. 15 reff. 

o Luke xx. 35. 


, lal 

Tes “amo Tposwtrou TOU 
p ec ‘ fol p ILE q b) On 42 r a / pf / 

vTep Tov ? ovopaTos I aTimacOjnvat, 42 * racdy TE * wEpav 


> Pe ~ vor > 5 > t2 , , (xxi. 36 y. r.) 
€V To lepw@ Kab KAT OlLKOVY OUK €77 AUOVTO SLOG KOVTES aeeGes, 


Xxxi. 28 com- 
plut. 2 Macc. 
Xili. 12. 
3 Mace. iii. 21 
(only ?). 


\ u > , \ \ ’ n 
Kat “ evayyedtCopevor Tov xpLtaTtov ‘Inaodv. 
VI. 1°Ev 6€ tats jpépats TavTas Y rANnOvVOYT@Y TOV 
lal \ la) ¢ fal Pe . 
panto eyévero “ yoyyuopmos Tov * EXAquieréy Tos 2 
7 onl 
1 y “EBpaious, é OTL * mapelewpovyro év TH * diaxovia a) g Mak ose 


r) Cw 9 Luke xx. ll. 
Joh 
> ka Nmepwwy al Vpat aUTOV. T POSKANETALEVOL 38 ol 49. "Ro aan 
i, 24, ii. 23. Jamesii.6 only. Proy. xxii. 22. 


r Jer. xx. 7,8. see Matt. xxviii. 20. 2 Pet. ii. 8. 

s ch. ii. 46 reff. t ch. xiii. 10 reff. u constr., ch. xi. 20 reff. y intrans., here only, 

i. 20. see ver. 7 reff. w John vii. 12. Phil. ii. 14. 1 Pet.iv.9 only. Exod. xvi. 7, 9. 

x ch. ix. 29 (xi. 20 rec.) only +. see 2 Mace. iv. 13. y 2 Cor. xi. 22. Phil. iii. 5 only. Gen. xxxix. 14. xli.12. 

z here only +. Xen. Mem. iv. 8, 7, but not = a=ch. xi. 29. 2Cor. ix. 1,12, 13+ (1 Macc. xi. 58 only). 
b here only+. Judith xii. 15 only. c ch. ix. 39, 41 reff. 


41. aft ovy add amooroAo D 180 syr. rec um. T. ov. bef karné., with DEHP rel 
syr Chr Th] Lucif: txt ABCX adh m vulg Syr (coptt) Orig, Thdrt Ambrst, Quest. 
rec aft ovou. ins avrov, with e d eth Orig, Lucif; tov kupiov incov Eb fg |? syr 
Thl-sif; imoov k 0 13 vulg Thdrt; 7. mo. 36; 7. xpeorov ae h m fuld tol Chr Thdrt, 
Thl-fin Ambrst Quest (all plainly shewing the additions to be spurious): om ABCDHPN 


Syr coptt Ammon-e. 

42. for te, de D vulg E-lat coptt Lucif. 
tol Syr copt eth-rom Lucif: 
Xp» k: 7. kup. ino. xp. D sah eth-pl: 
—(om ver c.) 


Cup. VI. 1. tavtas bef rt. nu. D-g 
7™ D}(ins D6). 


xxv. 2,—for disobedience totheir command. 

41. tov dv.] Not ‘this Name’ (as 
Beng. and Kuin.), but the Name, kar’ 
efoxhv, viz. of Christ. So the Heb. ow 
is used Levit. xxiv. 11, 16: see ref® and 
compare THs 650v, ch. ix. 2, and Euseb. 
H. E. v. 18, «éxpirac (sc. Alexander) .... 
ov 51 Td bvoua, GAAG BV as eTdAUNCE 
Anotetas. 42. mwacav wp.| every 
day, not ‘all day long,’ which would be 
Tao. THY He. On Ka? olkov see note on 
ref. Tov Xpto. Ino.| According to 
the true reading even more pointedly than 
in the rec., rbv xpior. is the predicate, 
and "Ino. the subject: preaching (that) 
Jesus (is) the Christ. 

Crap. VI. 1—7.] ELECTION OF SEVEN 
PERSONS TO SUPERINTEND THE DISTRI- 
BUTION OF ALMS. _1.]} 8¢, in contrast to 
the former entire unity of the church: in- 
troducing that great and important chapter 
in her history of Judaizing divisions, which 
from this time onward disquieted her. 
év T. Hp. T.} See ch. i. 15:—but not ne- 
cessarily as there, ‘within a very few days?’ 
the expression is quite indefinite. Some 
time must have elapsed since ch. iv. 32. 
‘EAAnvictav—EBpatous| The Hellenists 
(from éAAnvi¢ew) were the Grecian Jews : 
not only those who were themselves prose- 
lytes, nor only those who came of families 


ino. xp. EK 65 Chr: 


at end ins ev 77 diakovia Twy eBpaiwy D}(and lat). 


rec ino. bef tT. xp., with HP rel am 
T. Kuptoy ino. C 13: Tov Ky ww, omg 


txt ABN 36 fuld syr Bas Cyr-jer (Iren-int). 
r: for tavt., exervars C3 73 vulg sah. om 2nd 
xerpar P. 


once proselytized,—but all who, on ac- 
count of origin or habitation, spoke 
Greek as their ordinary language, and 
used ordinarily the LXX version. 
The Hebrews were the pure Jews, not 
necessarily vesident in Palestine (e. g. 
Paul, who was ‘E8paios e& ‘EBpatwy, Phil. 
iii. 5. See also 2 Cor. xi. 22),—nor ne- 
cessarily of unmixed Jewish descent, else 
the é& ‘E8p. would hardly have been an 
additional distinection,—but rather distin- 
guished by language, as speaking the Syro- 
Chaldaic and using the Hebrew Scriptures. 
mapedewpovvto | The use of this ap- 
propriate word shews, I think, that Olsh.’s 
supposition, that xjpo implies all their 
poor, is not correct. Those poor who could 
attend for themselves and represent their 
case were served: but the widows, who re- 
quired more searching out at their own 
houses, were overlooked. And this because 
the Apostles, who certainly before this had 
the charge of the duty of distribution, being 
already too much occupied in the ministry 
of the Word to attend personally to it, had 
entrusted it apparently to some deputies 
among the Hebrews, who had committed 
this oversight. For the low estimation in 
which the Hellenistic Jews were held by 
the Hebrews, see Biscoe, History of the 
Acts, pp. 60, 61. év TH Stak. T. Kad. | 


62 IIPAS EIS ATIOSTOAON. Ae A 
d=chiv.@- So@dexa TO I mARO0s TeV pabnray eirav Ovx * apeotov ABCDI 
10. 37 Pral 
aL abl, éoTw nas ‘Katadepavtas Tov =doyov Tod * Geod » dua- edfgl 
ver. aE Ss = a e m o 
e John v5i.29. xovety | tpaméCas. °° *érucxéWracbe ody, adedpoi, avdpas ~ 13 
John iii. 22 ~ , ; 
ong. Lev e€ vuav | waptupoupévous érta, ™ TAjpers ™ TvevpaTos Kal 
"13. constr., ; : 
here only.” 0 cogias, ovs ° KATAO THO OPEV él THS P ypelas TavTNS 
Geni a + nyets O€ TH Tposevyn Kai TH %dvaKovia Tov Royou 
2 Pet. n. 15. 


g ch. xi. 1 reff. 


xvi. 21. ch. xvi. 34. 2 Kings ix. 7. 


Gen. xli. 33. 1=ch. x. 22 reff. 1 Tim. v. 10. 
n = Col. iv. 5. o Matt. xxiv. 45,47. Luke xii. 42. 
x. 37. 2 Mace. viii. 9. 


2. om ée D!-gr(ins D-corr’) sah. 
avtous D, eis Syr sah Cypr. 
Chr Thl-sif.—kataa. bef nu. E 13. 180. 

3. emicxevopeba B. 
13 xth Bas Mare Orig-int Quest: 
rel vss ff. 


h = here only. see Matt. iv. 11. Luke x. 40. John xii. 2. 


(see Matt. xxi. 12 ||. 
Heb. xi. 2, 394. 


for ovy, 5n A: 5¢ BN: om eth sah Quest : 


ef uu. autwy bef avdp. D Marc. 


i = Matt. xv. 27. Luke 
Ezek. xxxiv. ll. =OK., 


m ch. > 
p = here only. 1 Macc. 


k = here only. 
(Num. xxxv. 30.) 
Gen. xli. 33, 41, 43. 


q = ch. xii. 25 reff. see ver. 1 reff. 


[e:rav, so ABC. ] aft eum. ins mpos 


nuw CD Thl-fin: txt ABEHP rel 36 Bas Mac Mare 


KkataAuroyvtas E 5. 13. 40. 180 lect-12. 
om adeAd. A 


Tt ovy ect adeAda emoxevacba D: txt CEH 


mAnpyns AEHP k. rec 


aft mvevu. ins ayov, with A C!3(appy) EHP rel 36 demid sah Bas, ins kupiov pov 


aytou Syr: 


om B C2(appy) D(X) am fuld lux (syr) copt Chr Thl-sif-comm. (The 
omission may have been made to suit ver 10: 
Srom ver 5 was very obvious, and is the more probable of the two.)—N!s 


at the same time the insertion of arytou 
syr omit Ka: also. 


rec KataocTnowuer (corrn), with HP e 13 vulg D-lat E-lat Mare Thl-fin: txt 


ABCDENX rel Syr sah xth Bas Chr c Thl-sif. 
. Tposkaptepourtes D(sumus and perseveramus D-lat): mpos- 


4. nu. de ecoucba . 


avtns D}(txt D[?]). 


Kaptepnowuey EH | m coptt Ephr Bas Chr Mare Procop. 


Some have argued from this that there 
must have been ‘deacons’ before: and that 
those now elected (see below on their names) 
were only for the service of the Hellenistic 
Jews. But I should rather believe, with 
De Weite and Réthe, that the Apostles 
had as yet, by themselves or by non-official 
deputies, performed the duty. The é:a- 
xovia was the daily distribution of food: 
see on ver. 2. 2.] Td wANGOs T. p.-— 
‘the whole number of disciples in Jeru- 
salem: summoning a general meeting of 
the church. How many they were in 
number at the time, is not said. Clearly 
the 120 names of ch.i. 15, cannot (Lightf.) 
be meant. ovK apeotoy éotiv| ‘non 
placet :’ it is not our pleasure: not ‘non 
zquum est,’ as Beza, Calv., Kuin., and 
others (and E. V.), defending this render- 
ing by apeoréy being used in the LXX for 
the Heb. 11m: but even there it never sig- 
nifies good or right absolutely, but is used 
subjectively, with =prp3, ‘in thine eyes?’ 
see Gen. xvi. 6, &s By cot dpeatoy 7: also 
Deut. xii. 28, 7d dpecroy .. . . évavtiov 
xuplov T. Beod cov. KatadetWavras | 
For to this it would come, if the Apostles 
were to enquire into, and do justicein, every 
case of asserted neglect. Stakoveiy 
tpaméLats] It is a question whether this 
expression import the service of distributing 
money (see reff. and Luke xix. 23 al.)—or 
that of apportioning the daily public meals. 
The latter seems to me most probable, both 


on account of the xa@nuepivy above, and 
of the usage of d:axovety (see reff.). That 
both kinds of tables may be meant, is pos- 
sible: but hardly probable. 3. émick. 
ovv| The similarity to ref. Gen. seems to 
shew that the look ye out of the E. V. 
is the right rendering. p-apTupov- 
pevous] For this use of the pass. not 
found in the Gospp., compare besides reff., 
Jos. Antt. ili. 2. 5, by orparnyoy *Inoovv 
éveykwutace, papTupotmevoy ép’ ois émpak- 
ev imdb maytbs tov otparod—and Mare. 
Antonin. vii. 62, cuvexa@s egiotdvat, tives 
eicly oro, ig ay paptupeioba GéAcis. 

émta | Some have supposed a re- 
ference to the number of nations of which 
the Hellenistic Jews would perhaps be 
composed : some, to 7000, to which num- 
ber the believers would by this time amount 
(Bengel): some, to the mystic number 
seven, so common in Jewish writings 
(Meyer, De Wette):—bui the best remark 
is Lightfoot’s :—‘quare septem eligendi, 
dicat cui est audacia.’ Some present 
consideration of convenience probably re- 
gulated the number. emi T. xpetas T. | 
‘super hoc opus,’ Vulg.:—‘ad hune usum,’ 
Grot. :—‘ over this requirement (desidera- 
tum),’ Meyer :—but the occurrence of the 
very same expression 1 Macc. x. 37, é« 
ToUTway Katactabhoerat éeml xpei@y THs 
Bacirelas Tay ovcay eis miotiv, seems to 
make the sense business (as E. V.), duty, 
more probable. The duty (see above) was, 


3—6. 


T Tr pOosKapTEpIgOMEV. 


TIPABEIZ AITOSTOAON. 


63 


5 Kat * jpecev 6 Royos ™ éve@rtoy r=ch.i.us 


er. 
\ la \ Yi {— 
mavtos Tov YwAnOous, Kai “ éEeréEavto Xréhavoy avdpa * Mt uy. 6- 


= / L. ‘ , £ / \ \ 
TANPN TiaTews Kal TVEVpaTOS aylov, Kal DiduTToy Kat 


Paul (Rom. 
viii. 8 reff.). 
t Jer. xviii. 4. 


IIpéyopov cai Nixavopa xai Tiwwva kai Ilappevay cai 3M v 


Nuxodaov Ymposndutov ’Avtioyéa, ° ods *éoTnoav * év- 


@TLOY TOV aTrocTOAMV" 


w ch. xv. 7 reff. x ch. xix. 28 reff. 
z ch. i. 23. iv. 7. xxii. 30. Num. xxvii. 19, 22. 


5. aft Aoy. ins ovros D Syr sah eth. 


pabntwy D. efeAcEay Tov (sic) X&. 
and mvevpatos XR}. Tmpoxwpov E 1. 
syr-ng-gr. Tteuova BID: timova C2. 


avtioxeay C. 
6. ovrat eorabnoay D-gr Syr sah. 


not that of ministering to the Hellenistic 
Jews only, but that of superintending the 
whole distribution. 4.) +. Staxovia 
+. Adyou, in opposition to the d:akovia 
tpame(av. ‘ He partes sunt nobilissime, 
quas nemo episcopus alteri, quasi ipse ma- 
joribus rebus intentus, delegare potest.’ 
Bengel. ‘Hine apparet non frustra pre- 
candi studium commendari verbi minis- 
tris.’ Calvin. 5.| miorews,—not in the 
lower sense (Kuin.) of ‘truthfulness,’ — 
but in the higher of faith, the root of all 
Christian virtues: see ch. xi. 24 (De W.). 

Of these seven, Stephen and Philip 
(ch. viii. 5, 26, 40; xxi. 8) only are else- 
where mentioned. On the idea of Nicolas 
having founded the heretical sect of the Ni- 
colaitanes, Rey. ii. 6, 15 (Lightf. and Grot. 
from Iren. adv. Her. i. 26, p. 105, and 
Epiph. Her. 25, p.76), see note ad loc. From 
his being called aposjAvroy *Avtioxéa, 
some have argued (Heins.) that e only was 
a proselyte, and none of the rest: some (Sal- 
masius), that all were proselytes,—but the 
rest, of Jerusalem. But neither inference 
seems justified: rather I should say that 
the addition simply imports that he became 
better known than the rest, from the very 
circumstance perhaps of Antioch having 
been afterwards so important a spot in the 
Christian history (ch. xi. 19, note). These 
names are all Greek : but we cannot thence 
infer that the seven were all Hellenists: 
the Apostles Philip and Andrew bore Greek 
names, but were certainly not Hellenists. 
There does appear however, in the case of 
these two Apostles, to have been a con- 
nexion with Greeks of some sort, see John 
xii. 20—22. Possibly, though ‘Efpato., 
they may not have been ef ‘E8palwy (see 
above on ver. 1), but sprung from inter- 
marriage with Hellenists. And so these 
seven may have been partly ‘Efpaiou, 
though their names seem to indicate, and 
their office would appear to require, that 
they were connected with Hellenists, and 


mAnpns DP(-pis) &. 


u = Luke xiv. 
10 al. Num. 
xiii. 34. 


\ / b > / 5 Pr 
Kat Tposeveapevot eveOnkav * ae 
y ch. ii. 10. xiii. 43. Matt. xxiii. 15 only. Exod. xxi. 48, 49 al. 


a= ch. ii. 25 reff. b ch. viii. 17, 12 reff. 


aft 7An@. ins Twv 

transpose mio Tews 

vicavwpa B°E: vikopa D-gr: vinapivoy 
tmapyeva, D}(txt D-corr? [?]). 


evavtiov C. 


for kat, o:tives D-gr. 


not likely to overlook or disparage them. 
The title of ‘deacons’ is no where applied 
to these seven in Scripture, nor does the 
word occur in the Acts at all. In 1 Tim. 
iii. 8 ff. there is no absolute identification 
of the duties of deacons with those allotted 
to the seven, but at the same time no- 
thing to imply that they were different. 
And ayvéyraAnrtor, ib. ver. 10, at all events 
is parallel with our waprupovpévous, ver. 3. 
The universal consent of all Christian 
writers in regarding this as the institution 
of the office of deacons should not be over- 
looked: but at the same time we must be 
careful not to imagine that we have here 
the institution of the ecclesiastical order 
so named. The distinctness of the two is 
stated by Chrysostom, Hom. xiv. p. 115, 
dmotov d¢ Gpa adkiwua elxov obra, Kat 
molay edé€tayto XeElpoToviay, avayKatoy ma- 
Gciv. Gpa thy Tay BSiakdvev; Kat phy 
TvvTO éy Tals eKKAnGias ovK ~oTLW* GAAG 
TaY TpecBuTépwy eoTtly 7 oikovouta. obey 
ote Siakdvwv, odte mpecBuTépwy oiuar Td 
dvoua civar OjAov Kal davepdv. GAA Téws 
eis TovTO éxeipoTovnencav. So also Heu- 
menius in loc.: tovds éxAeyévtas eis Siakd- 
vous €xepoTéyncay, ov Kata Toy voy ev 
Tats éxKAnociars Babudv, GAAG Tov Siave- 
pew meTa akpiBelas Kal éppavois kal x7- 
pais T& mpos Siatpophv. See Suicer sub 
voce. But that the subsequent office 
of deacon was founded upon this appoint- 
ment is very probable. The only one of 
these seven who appears in the subsequent 
history (ch. xxi. 8), is called SiAimros 6 
evayyeAtotns, probably from the success 
granted him as recorded in ch. viii. 12. In 
these early days titles sprung out of reali- 
ties, and were not yet mere hierarchical 
classifications. 6.] éme8ykayv, viz. the 
Apostles. Their office of giving themselves 
to prayer is here specially exercised. 

The laying on of hands, the earliest men- 
tion of which is connected with blessing 
only (Gen. xlviii. 14), was prescribed to 


64 IIPASEIS, ATIOSTOAON. Ae 6 


Sees: , A XA b nw 7 4 e c / lal c lal de A 
ilh tly, @rois Tas * yelpas. Kai 6 © Xoyos Tob Oeob nvéavev, 
ii. 24 al. \ > > \ a a \ 
Brot 7. Kat “éadnOvveto 0 apiOuos TOV wabnrav ev “lepovcadnm 
e as above (d) 


c . , , v lal € / h e / i an 

ch. xix. 20. g tq 1 

ch. xix. 20, opodpa, ToXNUS TE oxAOS TOV LEepEewV, “UTNKOVOV *77 
Luke i. 80 
al.~ trans., 
1 Cor. iii. 6. 

f as above (d). 
ch. ix. 31. 
1 Pet. i. 2. 
see ver. l. 

gch.i.15. Luke 
Wei cOanvie kis 


oh 
TlOTEL. 4 

8 Yrépavos S€ J wAnpns yYapiTos Kai Suvapews €7roler 
Krépata Kal onueia peyada év 7@ Naw. 9 lavéotnoay 6é 
TWEes TOV eK THS Tvvaywyns Ths Aeyouévyns AtBepTivor C ves 


Ezek. xxiii. ABC 

24, h = Rom. vi. 16,17. x. 16 al. Deut. xx. 12. see Rom, i. 5. xvi. 26. i Luke xviii. 8. ch. xiii. 8. 1 Tim. HP 
y. 8. j ver. 5. k ch. vii. 36 reff. 1 = Luke x. 25. Mark xiv. 57,60. 2 Chron. xiii. 4, 6. é aa 
klt 


7. for @eov, kuptov DE vulg syr Chr: txt ABCHP rel. pavOavovtwy E. | 
for repewy, tovdaiwy Ne o. umnkovoy ay (or rather av, Scriv) D!: -ovey AE g vulg 
Chr. at end ins Tov evaryyeAtov syr-mg. 

8. rec (for xapitos) misteEws (corrn from ver 5), with HP rel: xapitos kt. mort. E: 
xapitos Oecov eth: txt ABD k 36 vulg Syr coptt arm Bas Did Nyss Chr Aug. 
transp Tep. and ony. E 40. 96. aft Aaw add 81a tov ovowaros Kuptov inoou xp. 

D sah Aug; 81a Tov ovouatos Tou Kup. ino. xp. k 133; ev ovouati Tov kupiov E; 8. 7. ov. 


kup. syr-w-ast. 


9. Ka0 o avert. Twes E: adversus quem &e E-lat. 


Moses as the form of conferring office on 
Joshua, Num. xxvil. 18, and from that 
time was used on such occasions by the 
Jews. From its adoption by the Apostles, 
it has ever been the practice of the Chris- 
tian church in ordaining, or setting apart 
her ministers. It was also used by the 
Apostles on those who, having been bap- 
tized, were to be fully endowed with the 
gifts of the Holy Spirit: see ch. viii. 17; 
xix. 6, and Heb. vi. 2. 7.|] wat (not 
‘therefore,’ as Kuin.), and, i.e., on this 
measure being completed; as would be 
the case, seeing that these seven were not 
only servants of tables, but men full of 
the Holy Ghost and of wisdom :—and we 
soon hear of the part which Stephen bore 
in the work. Trodts OxA.T. tepéwv | The 
number of priests who returned from Ba- 
bylon, Ezra ii. 36—39, was 4289: and the 
number would probably have much in- 
creased since then. No eyasion of the his- 
torian’s assertion is to be attempted. Ca- 
saubon, approved by Beza and Valcknaer, 
would read, woAvs Te bxAos, kal TY fepeéwy 
(sc. tives) ba.; and Heinsius, Wolf, Kui- 
noel, and Elsner attempt a distinction 
between dxAos tary iep., ‘sacerdotes ex 
plebe,’ and the ‘sacerdotes docti.’ But, 
besides that the words will not bear this 
meaning, the distinction is one wholly un- 
known in the N.T. At this time was 
probably the eulminating point of popu- 
larity of the church at Jerusalem. As 
yet, all seemed going on prosperously for 
the conversion of Israel. The multitude 
honoured the Apostles: the advice of Ga- 
maliel had moderated the opposition of the 
Sanhedrim: the priests were gradually 
being won over. But God’s designs were 
far different. At this period another great 


om Ist tay &. Tov 
element in the testimony of the church is 
brought out, in the person of Stephen,— 
its protest against Pharisaism. This ar- 
rays against it that powerful and zealous 
sect, and henceforward it finds neither 
favour nor tolerance with either of the 
parties among the Jews, but increasing 
and bitter enmity from them both. 
8—Cu. VII. 60.] Tur accusation, 
DEFENCE, AND MARTYRDOM OF STEPHEN. 
8.] This is the first instance of any, 
not an Apostle, working signs and won- 
ders. The power was perhaps conferred 
by the laying on of the Apostles’ hands ; 
though, that having been fora special pur- 
pose merely, and the working miracles 
being a fulfilment of the promise, Mark xvi. 
17,18, to all believers, I should rather refer 
the power to the eminence of Stephen's 
faith. Xapitos, divine grace (not ‘fa- 
vour with the people’): the effects of which, 
the miracles, were called yapitopara. 
9.] AtBeptivey is rightly explained 
by Chrysostom: of “Pwualwy amreActOecpot. 
Philo, Legat. ad Caium, § 23, vol. ii. p.568, 
speaks of tv mépay Tob TiBépews moTamod 
peydaAny Tis ‘Pduns arotouiy ....kaTexo- 
eéevnv kal oikoupévny mpds “lovdatwy, and 
adds, ‘Pwuato: 5€ Foav oi mAclous Gmedevbe- 
pwhevres: aixudrdwto yap axdevtes eis 
IraAlav, brd Tov KTHTAMEvwWY HAEvOEpA- 
Onoav, ovdéy TaY maTpiwy mapaxapaiat 
BiacGevres (p. 1014, Potter). Tacitus, Ann. 
ii. 85 (A.D. 19), relates, ‘ Actum et de sacris 
igyptiis Judaicisque pellendis: factum- 
que Patrum consultum, ut quatuor millia 
libertini generis, ea superstitione infecta, 
queis idonea ztas, in insulam Sardiniam 
veherentur.... caeteri cederent Italia, nisi 
certam ante diem profanos ritus exuissent.’ 
In this Josephus agrees, Antt. xviii. 3. 5, 


7—12. TIIPASEIS ATOZTOAON. 65 


= ch. ii.5 reff. 


\ / Ay ted / \ a TSN / 
kal Kupnvaiwy cal ’ArdeEavdpéwv kat tov ™ amo KiduKias Pant ions, 
i? , n in A s 10 Ne Mark viii. 11. 
kat Acias ™aovv&ntobvtes TO Yrehavo, 19 Kai ovK °tayvov ix.11 tw 
7pos, ch. ix. 
p > nr lal / \ nr q / Gy 3 Py! ila , 29. 
aVTLOTHVal TH Copia Kal TH I TrvEeUMATL w ENAXEL. TOTE | vi, 
¢e / / / ’ ‘ > a 28. ch. xv. 10. 
“uméBadov avdpas *éyovtas OTL aknKkoamev avTov *ra- xxv Fal 
aS 5 UT 7 , Ae = \ \ , Isa. Is 2. : 
Rovvtos ' pnuata Praopnpa els Movojy Kal ay Deov, p Matt: v. 39. 
¢ / / x \ \ 
12. W guvexivnody Te Tov NaoV Kai TOUS TpEeaRuUTEpoUS Kai 


Rom. ix. 19. 
xiii. 2. Lev. 


xxvi, 37. Job xli. 2. q = Lukei.17 al. Dan. vi. 3. rhere only+. Josh. 
xxiii.4 Symm. so UroBAnTOs, Jos. B. J. v. 10. 4. s constr., ch. xv. 27. 2 Pet. ii.4. Winer, 
edn. 6, $ 45. 1. t ch. xi. 14 reff. u=2 Pet.ii.11. Rev. xiii. 5 only t. (1 Tim. 
i. 13. 2 Tim. iii. 2 only. Isa. Ixvi. 3 only. Wisd. i. 6 al.) v constr., Mark iii. 29. 2 Macc. 
yili. 4. Bel and Dr. 9 Theod. w here only +. 


Aeyouevwy AN k coptt Chr-mss. om kat agias AD‘(and lat: ins D?). 
[ouv¢yr., so AB!CDEN. | 

10. for kal, o:rwes ovk D: om ka sah. TN TOP. TH OVTN EV GUTH K. TW TY. TH 
ayiw w eAadel, Sia TO cAeyXETOaL avTous (SioTt eAeyXovTO E) um (er D!: um D?) avtov 
feta Taons mappynoias: wn Svvauevor ovy (ov D') avropbaduery (so syr-mg, emdn ovK 
nduvavTo aytiAeyw E) rn adndera DE: simly from d:a To eAeyx. am? syr-mg. 

11. Aeyovtes AN, so probably D'. for AaAouyTos, AceyovTos XN}. 
BAacgonuras D-gr &'(but corrd) 137 vulg. 

12. ins rat Tavta evmovtes bef cuver. Te E. 


pnt. 


relating a story as one of its causes, in 
which Ida, a freedwoman, was the agent of 
the mischief. Here then we have abundant 
reason for numbers of these Jews ‘libertini 
generis’ having come to Jerusalem, being 
among the eeteri who were ordered to quit 
Italy : and what place so likely a refuge for 
Jews as Jerusalem ? Those who find 
a difficulty in this interpretation suppose 
them to have been inhabitants of Libertum, 
a town in Africa propria, or proconsularis, 
from which we find an episcopus Liberti- 
nensis sitting in the synod of Carthage in 
411 (so Suidas, A:Beprivo:, dvoua eOvous, 
—Schleusn., al.); or conjecture AiBuctivwy 
to have been the true reading (so the Arm. 
version, Libyorum, (@cum., Lyra, Beza, 
Le Clere, al.),—or even AiBt@v Tey Kata 
Kupjvny (Schulthess) ;—or suppose them 
(Lightf.) to have been freedmen from Jew- 
ish servitude,—or Italian freedmen, who 
had become proselytes. (The Arabic ver- 
sion given in the Paris polyglott curiously 
renders it Corinthiorum.) But none of 
these suppositions will bear examination, 
and the best interpretation is the usual one 
—that they were the descendants of Jewish 
freedmen at Rome, who had been expelled 
by Tiberius. There is no difficulty in their 
having had a synagogue of their own: for 
there were 460 or 480 synagogues at Jeru- 
salem (Vitringa, Synag. p. 256. Lightf., 
Meyer). Kvpnvatwy | See ch. ii. 10, 
note. ’Adefavdpéwv | Two of the five re- 
gions of Alexandria were inhabited by Jews 
(see Jos. Antt. xiv. 7.2, 10.1; xix. 5. 2al.). 
It was also the seat of the learning and 
philosophy of the Grecian Jews, which was 
now at its height. This metropolis of the 
Hellenists would certainly have a synagogue 
in Jerusalem. I understand three distinct 
Vou. II. 


synagogues to be meant, notwithstanding 
the somewhat equivocal construction,—and 
Aeyouevyns only to apply to the unusual 
term A:Beptivey. Tav aro K.| It 
seems doubtful whether this genitive also 
depends on cuvaywyis. At first sight it 
would seem not, from the repetition of 
T@y, answering to the téyv before. But 
then we must remember, that as Kupnvaley 
and ’AActavdpéwy both belong to towns, 
and towns well known as the residences of 
Jews, a change of designation would be 
necessary when the Jews of whole pro- 
vinees came to be mentioned, and the 
synagogue would not be called that of the 
KiAuces or "Actavol (ch. xx. 4), but that of 
ot amo K. x. A.:—and, this being the case, 
the article could not but be repeated, with- 
out any reference to the tv before. 

Cilicia was at this time a Roman province, 
the capital being the free city of Tarsus, see 
note on ch. ix. 11. Asia,—not exactly 
as in ch. ii. 9, where it is distinguished from 
Phrygia,—here and usually in the Acts 
implies Asia proconsularis, a large and im- 
portant Roman province, including Mysia, 
Lydia, Caria, and Phrygia—known also as 
Asia cis Taurum. 11.] Neander well 
remarks (Pfl. u. Leit., p. 81 ff.) that this 
false charge, coupled with the character of 
Stephen’s apologetic speech, shews the real 
character of his arguments with his oppo- 
nents :—that he seems to have been the first 
who plainly set forth the transitory nature 
of the law and temple, as compared with 
the permanence of the latter and better co- 
venant, thus being in a remarkable manner 
the forerunner of St. Paul. 12.] Tov 
Aady, first,—that by means of the popular 
feeling they might act upon the mpeoB. k. 
yp-, the members of the Sanhedrim. 

K 


66 TIPABEIS AILOSTOAON. VI. 13—15. 


x absol., Luke 


\ al / 
TOUS Ypaupareis, Kal * érioTavTes Y ouvnpTacay avTov 


Eas Al isp > May tS 13 az / / 
vith ving, Kal Hyayov eis TO * cuvédpuov, éoTnody Te wapTupas 
” xxvii. 15. ~ 
ture vii.20 Paevdets Aeyovtas “O avOpwros obTos ov © maveTaL 
only. rov. 
a ear re , a A , a a 
wip a Mace t onwata thadkov “Kata Tov © TOTOU TOU *aylov Kal TOD 
‘3 ‘oS / a , i? al e 
zch.iv.15se. VOMOV. |! axnkoapev yap avTovd éyovTos OTL “Inoods o 
ach. 1. 23. ~ f n f A 
bie, Nafwpatos obttos !xaTadvces Toy TOTOV TovTOY Kal 
xi. 8 only. ‘ ; a a \ 
Brox ae Eadrater Ta €On & imapédmxey tyuiv Mavojs. © kat 
32 (xxx. 9). 


see 1 Cor. xy. K 
15. 


> te > oe ee e ] la > an 
arevioavtes eis avTov amavtes of | Kabefopevor ev TO 
r / 
7 guvedpl@ ElOov TO TPOSWTOY AUTOD WSEL TPOSwWTTOY wyYE- 
reff. 5 Ps 
a=Mattv.u.Xov, WIT. | eizrev d€ 0 apysepeds ™ Ei [dpa] tadTa “ovT@s 
xii. 32. 
Ps. Ixyii. 5. f — Matt. xxvi. 61 ||. -2 Cor.v.1. Ezra v.12. 1 Cor. 


e Matt. xxiv. 15. ch. xx1. 28 only. g 
xy. 51, 52 reff. = Luke i. 9. ii. 42. ch. xy. 1. xxi. 21 al. Luke only, exc. John xix. 40. Heb. 
i= 1 Cor. xi. 2,23. 2 Pet.ii.21. Jude 3. k ch. i. 10 reff. 


¢ and constr., 
ch. xiii. 10 


Tessier fe, Like i ie; John tye: miepoax- lech ce 8 only. Ley. xii. 5. Job xxxix. 27. Ezek. xxvi. 16 only. 
m ch, viii. 22 reff. n ch, xil. 15. xvii. 11. xxiv. 9. 

om 2nd tous C! k. 
ob) coptt. 

13. eor. 8¢ H 13.40.96 E-lat copt: Kat eor. D. aft Wevd. ins xata(kar D-corr) 
avtov D. Acyovtes &. out. bef o av@p. C some-vss Chr Thl. rec aft pnu. 
ins BAaodyua (insertion from ver 11), with EHP (k) 36 lux eth arm Procl, Thl: om 
ABCDX® rel vulg syrr coptt.—kata 7. tom. T. ay.ou kK. T. vomov Aadwy pnu. BAach. k 13 
Chr Procl,. Aaa. bef pnu. BCR (k) vulg syrr coptt Procl: txt ADEH rel Chr Thl. 

rec aft ay. ins tovtov (to agree with ver 14: or perhaps because the meeting of 
the Sanhedrim seemed to have been in a part of the temple), with BC 13 rel 36 tol 
syrr sah Chr Thl-fin: bef, k: om ADEHPN ab cefh1o vulg copt «th arm Nyss-ms 


om emortaytes &. aft nyayov ins avtoy A e (Syr syr-w- 


Chr comm Damase Thl-sif. 
14. «6vm B'(corrd appy eadem manu). 


15. nrevi(ov Se av7w D!-gr(txt D*[and lat]): om ezs X}(ins X-corr!). 


for a waped., amep cOwxey Pd 78. 116-23. 
for 


amavtes, Tavytes ABCD2EN! ¢ Thl-sif: om 13: txt (see proleg) D!HP rel Chr Gc Thl- 


fin. Kkabyuevor D c 187-80. 
Tov Oeov eth sah. 


Crap. VII.1. aft apy.ins tw ctepayw DE tol. 
ins D-grEHP rel syr Chr Thl ec: enim E-lat: not expressed in vulg D-lat. 


émotavtes| The same persons,—acting 
now by the authority of the Sanhedrim ; 
Saul, among of amd KiAikias, being, as 
is afterwards (ch. vii. 58) implied, among 
the foremost,—came upon him (see reff.), 
and seized him. 18. Wevdeis] The 
falsehood of their witness consisted, as in 
the similar case of our Lord, in taking 
Stephen’s words out of their context, and 
misrepresenting what perhaps, totidem ver- 
bis, he had actually said. TOU TOT. 
7. ay-| The temple, see reff. 14.] We 
may either take the words thus, dr: Inoods 
6 Nawpaios, ovtos Kxat., ‘that Jesus of 
N., he it is who shall destroy’... . (see 
ch. vil. 35; 1 Cor. vi. 4),—or é71 ?Inoods, 
6 Na(wpaios otros, xat., ‘that Jesus, this 
Nazarene, shall destroy ... .,—or, which 
seems by far the best, take the whole to- 
gether, that this Jesus of N. shall destroy, 
asin EK. V. Compare 6 Maidaos oiros, ch. 
xix. 26. 15.| It is a question with re- 
gard to this verse, Does it relate any super- 
natural appearance, glorifying the face of 
Stephen,—or merely describe the calm and 


aft ayy. ins eotwTos ev wetw avtwy D: 


om apa (as unnecessary) ABCX 36: 
touTo D. 


holy aspect with which he stood before the 
council? The majority of Commentators 
suppose the latter: and certainly the fore- 
going description of Stephen would lead us 
to infer, that there was something remark- 
ably striking in his appearance and de- 
meanour, which overawed his adversaries. 
But both from the plain language of our 
text, well understood among the Jews to 
signify supernatural brightness (see exam- 
ples in Wetstein), and from the fact that in 
Luke’s own narrative we have supernatural 
brightness associated with angelic appear- 
ances more than once (see Luke ii. 9; ch. 
xii. 7), l should be inclined to think that the 
face of the martyr was lighted up with a di- 
vine radiance. That the effect on those pre- 
sent was not such as toprevent the examina- 
tion proceeding, is no argumentagainst this 
view: in the very mildness of the question 
of the H.P. which follows, I see the trace 
of some unusual incident exercising an in- 
fluence over him. Chrysostom (who does 
not, however, seem to adopt the above in- 
terpretation, his todrvo kal) déta Mwvoéws 


ABCD 
HPra 
cdfg 
kilm 
13 


Vil. 1, 2. 


néyer; 20 O€ pn “Avdpes adeddoi Kal matépes, axovoare. 
0 °Oeds Tis °d0ENS PAPOn TO Irratpl judy 4’ ABpadw 


q Luke i. 73. (xvi. 24, 30.) John viii. 39, 53 (56). 


Pp ch, ii. 3 reff. 
ii. 21 only. 


2. adeApy (sic) D!-gr(txt D2). 
being apparently only rhetorical) explains 
well the effect on the council: émixapw 
dé avroy Soxe? mot wornom Toy Oedv, Taxa 
émel EueAAe Tid epeiv, Kal tva evOews TH 
mposdWer KaTamAnin avtovs. eat. yap, 
fort Kal mpdswra xXapitos yéuovTa mvev- 
parikhs éméparta Tots Todova.y-eival, Kal 
aldéoiwa Tots puicodor Kal doBepa. 7 Kab 
@s aitlay TovTo cimey, OC hy nvécxovTo THs 
Snunyoplas avtov. Th bai 6 apxiepeds;... 
Opas m@s meTa emietkelas 7 epwTnois Kal 
ovdev Tews popTikdy €xovoa; In Act. Homil. 
xv. p. 120. Cuap. VII. 1.] On the 
H. P.’s question, see Chrys. just quoted. 
It is parallel with Matt. xxvi. 62, but 
singularly distinguished from that question 
by its mildness: see above. 2—53. | 
STEPHEN’S DEFENCE. In order to under- 
stand this wonderful and somewhat difii- 
cult speech, it will be well to bear in 
mind, (1) that the general character of it 
is apologetic, referring to the charge made 
against him: but (2) that in this apology, 
forgetting himself in the vast subject 
which he is vindicating, he every where 
mixes in the polemic and didactic element. 
A general synopsis of it may be thus given : 
(1) He shews (apologetically) that, so far 
from dishonouring Moses or God, he be- 
lieves and holds in mind God’s dealings 
with Abraham and Moses, and grounds 
upon them his preaching ; that, so far from 
dishonouring the temple, he bears in mind 
its history and the sayings of the prophets 
respecting it ; and he is proceeding,—when 
(interrupted by their murmurs or inatten- 
tion ? but see note, ver. 51) he bursts forth 
into a holy vehemence of invective against 
their rejection of God, which provokes his 
tumultuary expulsion from the council, and 
execution. (2) But simultaneously and 
parallel with this apologetic procedure, he 
also proceeds didactically, shewing them 
that a future Prophet was pointed out by 
Moses as the final Lawgiver of God’s 
people,—that the Most High had revealed 
His spiritual and heavenly nature by the 
prophets, and did not dwell in temples 
made with hands. And (3) even more re- 
markably still does the polemic element run 
through thespeech. ‘“Jéis not I, but you, 
who from the first times till now have re- 
jected and spoken against God.” And this 
element, just appearing ver. 9, and again 
more plainly vv. 25—28, and again more 
pointedly still in ver. 35, becomes dominant 
in vy. 39—44, and finally prevails, to the 


IIPARETS ATIOSTOAON. 


67 


o here only. Ps. 
XXVili. 3. see 
1 Cor, ii. 8. 
Heb. ix. 5. 
Ps. xxiii. 7,9. 

Rom. iy. (1) 12,16. James 


exclusion of the apologetic and didactic, in 
vv. 51—53. That other connected pur- 
poses have been discovered in the speech, 
as e. g. that so ably followed out by Chrys. 
Hom. xv.—xvii. (similarly Grot. and Calv.), 
of shewing that the covenant and promises 
were before the law, and sacrifice and the 
law before the temple,—is to be attributed 
to the wonderful depth of words uttered 
like these under the immediate inspiration 
of the Holy Spirit, presenting to us, from 
whichever side they are viewed, new and 
inimitable hues of heavenly wisdom. Many 
of these will be brought out as we advance. 
The question, from what probable 
source Imke derived his report of this 
speech, so peculiar in its character and cita- 
tions as to bear, even to the most prejudiced, 
decisive evidence of authenticity, can be 
only conjecturally answered: but in this 
case the conjecture can hardly be wrong. 
T have discussed the point in the Prolegg. to 
this vol. ch. i. § ii. 12 (a). Another ques- 
tion has been, in what language the speech 
was delivered. (1) It isa hardly disputable 
inference from ch. vi. 9, that Stephen was 
a Hellenist: (2) his citations and quasi- 
citations for the most part agree with the 
LXX version. Hence it seems most pro- 
bable that he spoke in Greek, which was 
almost universally understood in Jerusalem. 
If he spoke in Hebrew (Syro-Chaldaic), 
then either those passages where the LXX 
varies from the Hebrew text (see below) 
must owe their insertion in that shape to 
some Greek narrator or to Luke him- 
self,—or Stephen must have, in speaking, 
translated them, thus varying, into He- 
brew: either supposition being in the high- 
est degree improbable. 2. avdp. ad. 
«. wat.| So Paul, ch. xxii. 1, before a 
mixed assembly of Jews. The avdp. a8. 
would embrace all: the mat. would be a 
title of respect to the members of the San- 
hedrim, in this case, but hardly in ch. 
Soy Is 6 Ged T. 86Eqs | Not = beds 
éydokos, but the God of (i.e. who possesses 
and manifests Himself by) Glory, viz. the 
Shechinah, see Exod. xxiv. 16, 17, and ver. 
55. The words t@ watpt Hpev decide 
nothing as to Stephen’s genuine Hebrew ex- 
traction. Any Jew would thus speak. 
opby .... wpiv q Kat. ait. éy Xap.]| This 
was the Jewish tradition, though not as- 
serted in Genesis. Thus Philo (de Abrah. 
§ 15 end, vol. ii. p. 12), having paraphrased 
the divine command, says, d.a tovto Thy 


F 2 


68 


r Matt. i. 18. 
Mark xiv. 30. 
ch, ii. 20. 
Isa. vii. 15. 

s Gen. xii. 1. 

t Luke i. 61. 
ver. 14 only. 
Exod. xii. 21. 
Job xxxii. 2. 

u ver. 34 (from 
Exod. ili. 10). 
Matt. xix. 

21 ||. John xi. 43. 


av coe elEw. 

, 7 re rs 
oev ev Xappav. 
Rom. i. 13. 


IIPABZEI> AILODTOAON. 


Vir 


” > an M / r \ XK fo] rhe. > 
OvTL eV T ecoTroTauia “Tpliv 7) KaTOLKhoal avToV eV 
d py 7) ay 
SCNT: \ s \ lol lol 
Xappav, 3 Kat eirev mpos avtov *"EEeMMe Ex Tis ys cov 
\ nr r fol 
Kal [é€x] THs touyyevetas cov, Kal “dedpo els THY YRY tv 
9 ) | 
4 Tote éeNwv ex yhs XadOalov KkatoKn- 
Kakeiey Y peta TO aTroOavely Tov TraTépa 


Rey. xvii. 1. xxi. 9 only. 


v ch. xix. 21 reff. 


xappa E m2(Aug): xapa m!: xapay D-gr vulg(not am demid fuld &e). 


3. for lst ex, aro D'(txt D8, de D-lat). 


(so xxx) ACEHPX rel 36 vss Thl-fin Iren-int Aug. 


kat €k Tov olKov Tov TaTpos cov E 65-7 Aug. 


om 2nd ex BD-gr sah Thl-sif: ins 
aft cuvyy. cov ins (from LXX) 
aft devpo ins e« D!. rec om 


Thy (perhaps an error owing to similarity of endings: perhaps an attempt to render 


ynv more indefinite), with HP rel 36 Chr Thl: ins ABCDER. 
kat KatwKnoev D'(and lat). 
for kareey, kaker nv, insg Kat bef wetwx., DI 


4. aft rore ins aBpaop D Syr. 
ef mo Thl: om 65-7: em 13. 


mpotny amolay ard THs Xaddalwv yijs eis 
Thy Xappalwy A€yeTar woretc@at. But he 
accurately distinguishes between the Ady:ov 
which he obeyed in leaving Chaldza, and 
the devs &pOn afterwards, adding a reason 
after his manner, why God could not be 
seen nor apprehended by him while he was 
yet xadrdat(wy and an astrologer. The 
fact of his having left Ur by some divine 
intimation is plainly stated in Gen. xv. 7, 
and referred to in Neh. ix.7. It was surely 
both natural and allowable to express this 
first command in the well-known words of 
the second. But we can hardly suppose 
that Stephen adopted the pluperfect ren- 
dering of px) in Gen. xii. 1, as the LXX 
has ¢irev. (Josephus, ordinarily cited as 
relating the same tradition, throws, as he 
often does, the whole history into confusion, 
saying, it is true, Antt. i. 7.1, karadelre: 
7. Xaddalay... ToD Oeod KeAcVoayToOS Eis 
thy Xavavalay peredbety, but omitting 
entirely the sojourn in Haran, and connect- 
ing the migration with an outbreak of the 
Chaldzans against him for teaching the 
worship of the true God.) Xappav| So 
the LXX for 7, Gen. xi. 31, &e.; 4 Kings 
xix. 12; Ezek. xxvii. 23,—Kdppar tijs 
Meoorotraulas, Herodian iv. 13 (Ptol. v. 
18.12. Strabo, xvi. p. 747),—‘Carras cede 
Crassi nobiles,’ Plin. v. 24,—‘Miserando 
funere Crassus Assyrias Latio maculavit 
sanguine Carras,’? Lucan i. 104. It lay 
on an ancient road, in a large plain sur- 
rounded by mountains; it was still a 
great city in the days of the Arabian 
caliphs. See Winer, Realw. 4. peta 
7d amo8avety Tov tat. a’t.| In Gen. xi. 
26, we read that Terah lived 70 years 
and begot Abram, Nahor, and Haran ; 
in xi. 32, that Terah lived 205 years, and 
died in Haran; and in xii. 4, that Abram 
was 75 years old when he left Haran. 
Since then cir. 70 4+ 75 = cir. 145, Terah 
must have lived cir. 60 years in Haran 
after Abrain’s departure. It seems 


eay &}. 
for ev, es H 


evident, that the Jewish chronology, 
which Stephen follows, was at fault here, 
owing to the circumstance of Terah’s 
death being mentioned Gen. xi. 32, before 
the command of Abram to leave Haran ;— 
it not having been observed that the men- 
tion is anticipatory. And thisis confirmed 
by Philo having fallen into the same mis- 
take, de Migr. Abrah. § 32, vol. i. p. 464, 
mporepoy mev ex THs Xaddaikhs avarras yijs 
’ABpadu Sknoev cis Xappdv’ TeNevTyAoav- 
Tos S€ avTOU TOU TaTpos exeEtIe Kal eK Tad- 
Tns meTaviotatat. Itis observable that the 
Samaritan Pentateuch in Gen. xi. 32, for 
205, reads 145, which has most probably 
been an alteration to remove the apparent 
inconsistency. The subterfuge of under- 
standing the spiritual death of Terah, who 
is, as a further hypothesis, supposed to 
have relapsed into idolatry at Haran, ap- 
pears to have originated with the Rabbis 
(see Kuinoel ad loc. and Lightf. Hor. 
Heb.) on discovering that their tradition 
was at variance with the sacred chronology. 
They have not been without followers in 
modern Christendom. It is truly lament- 
able to see the great Bengel, warped by the 
unworthy effort of squaring at all hazards, 
the letter of God’s word in such matters, 
write thus: ‘Abram, dum Thara vixit in 
Haran, domum quodammodo paternam ha- 
buit in Haran, in terra Canaan duntaxat 
peregrinum agens; mortuo autem patre, 
plane in terra Canaan domum unice habere 
cepit.’ (This alteration of relation iz the 
land being expressed by pet¢kicev abrdy 
eis!) The way in which the difficulty has 
been met by Wordsworth and others, viz. 
that we have no right to assume that 
Abram was born when Terah was 70, but 
may regard him as the youngest son, would 
leave us in this equally unsatisfactory posi- 
tion:—Terah, in the course of nature, 
begets his son Abram at 130 (205—75): 
yet this very son Abram regards it as in- 
credible that he himself should beget a son 


++ T POS 

avutov © 

ABCD. 

HPNa 

cf gt 

kilmc 
13 


3—S8. 


IIPABEI> AIOSTOAON. 


69 


avTOU “ METHKICEV AUTOV Els THY Yhv TavTny * eis Hv pets ¥ ver: 43 only. 
METS 5 TID yh my * eis iy bpets 


a x lal 5 s b) ES > n / 
vuv * K@TOLKELTE, ° KAL OVK EOWKEY AUT@ Y KANPOVOMaY 


1 Chron. viii. 
6. (-Keota, 
see Matt. i. 
ll 


> a a nr . 
év avth, ovdé * Bia odds: Kab *émnyyeidato * Sodvas x Mitt. itz. 


avT@ 


ce e / a ny \ d 
ovUT@s O Oeos, OTL ExTat TO 


> / \ ‘ ry 
els “KATATYETLV AUTIY Kal TO 
’ / > Yj Qn 
®weT avToV, ovK dVTOS avT@ TéxVoOU. 
I a 
oTeppa avTov 


iv. 13. 
2 Chron. xix. 


/ rn 
4 orépuate avTov 


6 éNarnoev O€ 
f 


y = Heb. xi. 8. 
Josh, xiii. 14. 

z = here only. 
Deut. ii. 5. 
(ch. xii. 21 
reff.) 


/ 
TapotKov €Vv 


a > / \ UA \ i 
yn ® adroTpia, Kat » Sovlwsovaew avTd Kal ‘ KaK@booUCL 4 Gry xii.15. 


én + TeTpAaKocLA. 


d Rom. ix. 7 reff. 

g Rom. xiv. 4 reff. 
Gen. l.c. Wisd. xix. 14. 
iii. 13 only. Exod. v. 22 al. 


e ch. xiii. 25 reff. 
h Rom. vi. 18, 22. 


1 Cor. vii. 15. ix. 19. 
1 Mace, viil. 11 only. 
k = 1 Cor. xi. 31, 32. 


constr., Mark 


\ \ e . 
7 Kal TO €Ovos @ éav SovAEvTovVGL , xv. 1 
k a > , c Q Ny Ly \ \ a ’ 7 
Kpw@® éyo, o Geos eimrev, Kal meta TavTa éEeNeVooVTAaL 
\ , nan / s, 
Kat! Xatpevoovaly wot €v TO TOTW TOUTY. 


b = Mark xiii. 
9. xiv. 9 al. 
Gen. xvii. 8. 

Nin tay c ver. 45 only. 

8 Kal €d@KEV Num, xxx, 

Eph. ii. 19. 1 Pet. ii. ll only. GEN. xv. 13. 

Gal. iv.3. Tit. ii.3. 2 Pet. ii. 19 only. 

iver. 19. ch. xii. 1. xiv. 2. xviii. 10. 1 Pet. 

Rey. xviii. 8. xix. 2. Gen. 1l.c. 


f ver. 29. 


1 Matt. 


iy. 10 (from Deut. yi. 13). ver. 42. ch. xxiv. 14. Rom.i.9al. Exon. iii. 12. (-peta, Rom. ix. 4.) 


(and lat: kareide D?). 


perournoev D!(txt D2). 


aft avt. ins o @eos K Syr. 


aft KaTowk. ins kat o. Tatepes nuwy DE syr-w-ast Aug, but for nuwy, vyuwy K 
syr-w-ast Aug; D adds further o: rpo nuwy, syr-w-ast o: Tpo up. 
5. for 2nd cat, aAA D am &e sah Iren-int: txt ABCEHP® rel fuld syrr copt Chr 


Thi. 
karacx. autw AENahk 13. 


D Tren-int: Aeywy mp. avtoy Syr. 
coptt eth: avtw e 13. 
auto k. Sova. EH. 


7. to Se C e 120 sah eth-pl. 


av BD: txt ACEH rel Chr. 


rec avtw bef Sovva: txt ABCDEHP b ce f g1mo Thl.—dovva avtny ets 
for last avtw, avtouv C. 
6. for ovtws, avtw H'8 k: avtw ovtws b 49. 96 Ath. 
for avrov, cov N. 
aft kakwo. ins avto C vss Thl-sif-comm ; avtw 13.—Kak 


aft o 0. ins mpos avtov 
for avto, avtovs D vulg 


rec dovAev- 


ocwow (corrn to suit LXX), with BEHP® rel vulg Chr: txt AC D-gr syrr coptt Iren-int. 


ree exrev bef o 6., with DEHP rel 36 vss Chr Thl Iren-int: txt ABCN. 
Aatpevowow C1K. 


efeA. ins exedey HE. 


at 99 (Gen. xvii. 1, 17); and on the fact 
of the birth of Isaac being oué of the 
course of nature, most important Scrip- 
tural arguments and consequences are 
founded, cf. Rom. iv. 17—21, Heb. xi. 11, 
12. We may fairly leave these Commenta- 
tors with their new difficulty: only re- 
marking for our instruction, how sure those 
are to plunge into hopeless confusion, who, 
from motives however good, once begin to 
handle the word of God deceitfully. ret. 
avr. eis] In these words Stephen clearly 
recognizes the second command, to migrate 
from Haran to Canaan: and as clearly 
therefore made no mistake in ver. 2, but 
applied the expressed words of the second 
command to the first injunction, the Adyov 
of Philo. 5. ovx edwxev] There is 
no occasion here to wrest our text in order 
to produce accordance with the history. 
The field which Abraham bought for the 
burial of his dead surely did not come 
under the description of kAnpovouia, nor 
give him any standing as a possessor in the 
land. To avoid this seeming inconsistency, 
Schéttgen and Bengellaya stress on 2dwxev, 
‘agrum illum... non ex donatione divina 
accepit Abraham, sed emit, ipsa emtione 
peregrinum eum esse docente’ (Bengel). 


aft 


Kuinoel and Olshausen take ov« for ote. 

kat before éemrnyy. is not ‘yet’ 
(Beza), nor is éernyy. to be construed 
pluperfect (id.); and he promised is the 
simple rendering of the words, and the 
right one. The following kai is by Kuin. 
rendered ‘ nimirum :? but again it is only 
the simple copula, UN. G5 well YN 
free citation from the LX X, with the words 
kal AaTp. mot ev T. Tém. TOUTH adapted 
and added from Exod. iii. 12. The shifts 
of some Commentators to avoid this plain 
fact are not worth recounting : but again, 


. the student who would not handle the 


word of God deceitfully should be here 
and every where on his guard against 
them. The round number, 400 years, 
given here and Gen. 1. ¢., is further spe- 
cified Exod. xii. 40 as 480. (See Gal. 
iii. 17, and note.) 7.] 6 Oeds ctmev 
is inserted by Stephen in passing from the 
narrative form (td oz. avtod) into the 
direct (xp. éy#). 8.] On the institu- 
tion of circumcision, it is called a d:a67K7, 
Gen. xvii. 10, and the immediate promise of 
that covenant was déo0 cot k. TG oreppatl 
Gov meta oe THY YHv hv wapotkeis, Tacay 
Thy yav Xavaay eis natdoxerw aiwviov 
Kod Exouat avTors eis Oedy, id. ver. 8. 


70 


m = ch. iii. 25. 


TIPABEI> ATOZTOAON. VIL. 


avTa ™ diabn n As lL °ouTws éyévynoey TO 
Heb. ix. 4. ck NKNV “TTEPLTOLNS’ KAL ~ OVUTWS EYEVYNTEV Vv 
Exod. xix. 5. aT \ \ p / > 4 a c , a oI] 36 \ 
n 1 Cor. vii.l9 IoaaKk Kal » TTEPLETEMEY AUTOV TI) NMEPA TH OYOO?, Kat 
> 9 ’ , , \ \ , 

o—kom.v-2 "Tgqax tov “laxwB, cat “lax@B8 tovs dwdexa “7ratpt- 
plCor. vii.18 + 9 \ © q / r G x , \ | \ 

reff. Gry. apxas. Kat ol 4 TaTpLapyat NAWOAVTES TOV wand 


/ > c \ > an 
Samédovto eis Alyumtov: Kai ‘hv o Oeos ‘per avtov 


lal n / > la) 
10 kat “é€eiNato a’tov éx Tacdv TaV ‘ O\XUWyewv avTod, 
xxiv. 31 B. \ oo» Ln we , \ / x2 / @P \ 
emi. Kal o@KEey avT@ “ yapw Kat codiav * évavtiov Papaw 
0 <lil \ r / b] \ e If 
i jamesiv, Bacthéws Alyumrov, Kal ¥ katéoTnoev avTov *nYyoumevov 
2 GEN. er 2 a is 
xxx. Veg? Alyumtoy xai ddov Tov *oixov avrov. 11 HdOev 
s= cn. vy. 5. v ke = q ~ 
Hep xe Oe PAywos ef GAnv tiv AlyuTtTov Kat Xavaay kat 
XXXVii. 28, v AXLE on \ > cee i ad a Hee of 
, ae is peyadyn, Kal ovy °ntpicxov “ xoptadcpata 
GEN. xxxix. 


12 axovoas 6¢ laxwf  ovta £ cutia » eis 
2 \ / fal lal 
Aiyurtov ‘éEatréoteibev tTovs © maTépas © av TPMTV, 
' nk / ’ a a 
13 gat * év to * Seutépm | aveyvapicOn lwand Tots adeddots 
>) r \ m \ m 3 ie n \ \ n / 
avtov, Kal ™davepov ™éyévero TH Papaw To ™yEévos 
"Iwond. | adrocteinas 5€ “lwond ° wetexarécato ‘la- 
] 


e , Deke 

2 23, TATEPES © NMOV. 

u = ver. 34. ch. 
xii. 11. xxiii. 
27. xxyi. 17. 
Gal. i. 4. 
(Matt. v. 29. 
xviil. 9) only. 
Exod. ili. 8. 

v Rom. v. 3 reff. 

w = ch. ii. 47 


ff. GEN. 
ay 21. \ \ uA > a \ n \ p f 
x Mark ii. 12. KO TOV TTATEPG avuTov, KaL TaACAV THV OVYYEVELAV 
Luke i. 6. =x. 
26. xxiv. 19. ch. viii. 32only. Gen. vi. 8. y Luke xii. 14. vv. 27,35. Heb. vii. 28. Gen. xli, 41. 
z — Matt. ii. 6. Luke xxii. 26. Heb. xiii. 7,17, 24. Deut. i. 15. a = ch. x. 2 reff. b Luke 
iv. 25. xv.14. GeEn. xli. 54. e = Luke ix. 12. [Rom.iv.1.] 2 Tim.i.18. Lam.i. 6. d here 
only ¢. Gen. xlii.27. Deut. xi. 15 al. ech. v. 30 reff. f constr., ch. xxiv. 10 reff. g here 
only. Prov. xxx. 22. @tT0s, GEN. xlii.2. ota, Job xii. 11 al. = ch. xix. 22 reff. ich. ix. 30. xi. 
22 al4. Gal.iv.4,6. Luke i. 53. xx. 10,11 only. L.P. Gen. xly. 1. k = here only. 1 here 
only. Gen. xly. 1. m 1 Cor. iii. 13 reff. n= ch. iy. 6 reff. o ch. x. 32, xx. 17. xxiv. 
25 only. Hos. xi. 2. p ver. 3 reff. 


8. for oy5on, «Bboun &}. rec ins o bef 2nd toaak, with DHP rel 36 Chr Thl-fin 
(Ec: om ABCEN Thl-sif. aft io. ins eyevynoe HH. rec ins o bef 2nd takwB, 
with D?HP rel 36 Chr @e Thl: om ABCD'!EN. 

10. [ cfetAato, so ABCDEPN m 36 Thl-fin. | 

evayTt Nk. ins ep bef oAov AC E-gr & g vulg Syr copt: om BDHP rel 
36 E-lat Chr. for avtov, Tovtoy B'. 

11. ree thy yoy aryurrov, with EHP rel 36 syr wth Chr: ed odns rns avyurtov D, 
super omnem terram egypti D-lat (see LXX): txt ABCN vulg Syr coptt. [ qupicKor, 
so B(sic: see table) EP k. ] 

12. rec cita, with HP rel Chr: oiroy 13 Thl-sif: citera 15. 40.100: txt ABCDER. 

rec ev aryumtw (corrn, as more usual: Meyer thinks es ay. to have been a 
gloss to ckaweareiAcr, and then to have found its way into the txt to the exclusion of 
the original ev avy., but this is far-fetched), with DHP Chr Thl: txt ABCEN 40. 
etameoteiiay X}. 

13. for ev, em D 18. eyvwpicn AB: eyvwobn 25: agnitus est E-lat: recog- 
nitus est D-lat: cognitus est vulg: txt CDEHN rel 36 Chr Thi. om adeAgas P. 

for eyeveto, eyevnOn D. om Tw [bef dapaw| &. rec ins tov bef wand 
(added for clearness), with DHP rel Chr: om BC.—for wwo., avrov AEX 40 vulg arm. 

14. ree tov mar. av. bef taxw8, with HP rel syrr Chr: om takwf 15-8. 47}. 163 
wth: txt ABCDEN ah m vulg coptt arm. rec aft ovyy. ins avtovu (for ex- 
plicitness), with DE rel: om ABCHPN bf g m o 36 am demid fuld arm Chr Thl. 


xapw bef avr. D-gr: om avtw A. 


ovTws, thus, ‘in this new covenant state ;’ 
—or, ‘in fulfilment of the promise of seed 
implied in the above words.’ In this word 
ovtas lies hid the germ of the subsequent 
teaching of the Holy Spirit by St. Paul, Gal. 
iii. 9.| Here we have the first hint 
of the rebellious spirit in Israel, which the 
progress of the history brings out. 


10.] Observe (Mey.) the simple coupling 
of the clauses by «af, as characteristic of 
this speech. Xdpw K. god.| No 
Hendiadys: favour, so that he was ac- 
ceptable to Pharaoh (see reff.) : and wis- 
dom, so that Ph. consulted him and followed 
his suggestion, especially in the important 
case recorded Gen. xli. 38. KaT- 


ABCD 
HPNa 
ef gl 
klm-« 
13 


9—16. 


4 gy tabuyais éBdounKkovtamevTe. 
pn 


> Al \ t >? / > \ \ 
eis Aiyurrov, Kal téreXevTnoev avTos Kal ol 


. LOY, 


IIPAEEIS AIOZTOAON. 


16 Kal Y wereTéOnoay els Luyew Kar © ereOnaay ép & 5, ch. xiii 


(iat 


\ / 3 % — iv 
15 Kat § ae lax 45. fade 
_X. V2 


De 
 marépes r = ch. ii. 41 
re 


22 Aa Gen. 


A ® , > A 
TO * pyvypate Yo *a@vncato “ABpaap * tips ” apyupiov tc ii. 39 rex. 


u ch. y. 30 reff. 


v Gal. i.6. Heb. vii. 12. xi. 5 bis. Jude 4only. Sir. xliv.16. Deut. xxvii. 17. w = John xix 41, 
42 al. 3 Kings xiil. 31. x Luke viii. 27 || Mk. xxiii. 53. xxiv. 1. ch. ii. 29. Rev. xi. 9 only. Exod. 
xiv. 11. y attr., ch. i. 1 re off. z here only +. a = ch. iv. 34 reff. b ch. 
iii. 6. xx. 33. Exod. xxi. "32. 


85. bef ux. (see xX) DH a (c) fhm: 6 kat €y D: D syr Chr seem to join ev 
e. 7. y. with xateBy follg (see LXX Deut x. 22). 


15. rec cateBy Se, with BH rel coptt Chr: 


kateBn (alone) D 40, 73. 96 syr: txt 


ACEPR 36 vulg Syr wth. (From similarity of ko kat., nat dropped out as in I), and 


then Se was supplied. ) 


authority is too weak.) 
16. wetnx9noay D. 


éotyoev | viz. Pharaoh: a change of sub- 
ject: see reff. Gen. 14. év Wuxais 
EBSopnnovtameévte | In ee Hebrew text, 
Gen. xlvi. 27; Exod. i. 5; Deut. x. 22, 
seventy souls are reckoned viz. sixty-six 
born of Jacob, Jacob himself, Joseph, and 
his two sons born in Egypt. So also 
Josephus, Antt. ii. 7.4; vi.5.6. But the 
LXX, whom Stephen follows, insert in 
Gen. xlvi. 20 an account of the children and 
grandchildren of Manasseh and Ephraim, 
five in number: and in ver. 27 read viol 5€ 
"Iwan of yevouevor aiT@ ev yi Aly., Wuxat 
évvéa. Tacat Wuxat olxov lakB ai eised- 
Bodoa mere "IaxwB (om peta “laKkdB, and 
Wuxal below, A, but obviously without any 
effect on the general statement) eis Atyu7- 
Tov, Wuxat éBdSopnkovtamévte :—reckon- 
ing, as it appears, curiously enough, among 
the sous of Joseph, Joseph himself, and his 
wife Asenath; for these are required to 
make up the nine, according to their ver. 
20. And similarly in Exod. i. 5, and in 
Deut. x. 22 A. (Wordsw., who is careful 
to note that A omits wera "IakéB in Gen. 
xlvi. 27, omits the fact that it reads révTe 
here, by stating “seventy” as the LXX 
testimony.) With regard to the various 
attempts to solve the difficulty (66 + 12 
wives, minus { Joseph and his wife, and Ju- 
dah’s wife who died in Canaan] = 75, Seb. 
Schmid and Wolf:—that Stephen spoke 
of those who were znvited,—Moses of those 
who went, Krebs and Loesner :—that 7way- 
tes should be read for wevre, Beza:—&c.), 
see above on vy. 6, 7. The remarks of 
Jerome are curious :—he is arguing, on 
Gen. l. c., that the number really was 
seventy,—and adds, ‘Quod si e contrario 
nobis id opponitur, quomodo in Actibus 
Apostolorum in concione Stephani dicatur 
ad populum, septuaginta quinque animas 
ingressas esse Aigyptum, facilis excusatio 
est. Non enim debuit sanctus Lucas, qui 


om evs avyurtoy B. (Omitted as superfluous? or perhaps 

it was a gloss from the marg. Tischendorf [ed 7] excludes it from the txt : 
aft avros ins exer EK Syr: te D. 

ouxev (1st) D-gr. 


but the 


rec (for @) 6, with HP rel Chr Thl- 
ipsius (istius?) historia scriptor est, in 
gentes Actuuin Apostolorum volumen emit- 
tens, contrarium aliquid scribere adversus 
eam scripturam, que jam fuerat gentibus 
divulgata.’ Philo, de Migr. Abr. § 36, vol. 
i. pp. 467 f., mentions both numbers (read- 
ing 75 in Gen. and 70 in Deut., see above), 
and gives allegorical reasons for both: 
and really Wordsworth’s solution, that 
Stephen includes those born of Jacob’s line 
in Egypt to shew that they “ were equally 
children of the promise with those born in 
Canaan,” is hardly better. When we come 
to understand petexakéoato... macay Thy 
auyyeverav ev Wuxats EBdounkovtameyte, 
as represented by zncluding, for a purpose, 
those already in Egypt, it seems to me 
that a stigma is cast on St. Stephen far 
more serious than that of mere numeral 
inaccuracy. 16.| peterébyoav, viz. 
avTos Kal of matépes quay, not the latter 
only,—as Kuin., Olsh., and Wordsw., to 
evade part of the difficulty of the verse. 

The facts, as related in the O. T., were 
these: Jacob, dying in Egypt, was (Gen. 
1. 13) taken into the land of Canaan, and 
buried in the cave of Machpelah, before 
Maumre (on the rest of the verse see below) : 
Joseph, dying also in Egypt, was taken in 
a coffin (Gen. 1. 26) at the Exodus (Exod. 
xiii. 19), and finally buried (Josh. xxiv. 32) 
at Shechem. Of the burial of the other 
patriarchs the sacred text says nothing, 
but rather by the specification in Exod. 
xiii. 19, leaves it to be inferred that they 
were buried in Egypt. Josephus, Antt. ii. 
8. 2, relates that they were taken and 
buried in Hebron, and adds, B. J. iv. 9. 7, 
@v Kal TH uynweta wéexpt TOD voy ev THdE 
™m ToAlxyn (Hebron) Selxvurau, mdvu Ka- 
Ais fapudpov kal pidotiuws eipyacmeva: = 
the Rabbinical traditions mentioned by 
Wetst. and Lightf. report them to have 
been buried in Sychem: and Jerome (Ep. 





12 TIPABREIS ATOZTOAON. VIE 


“Fuge ° Tapa TOV VL@V "Eppa tod Xvyéu. 17 4xabws Se 
xxiv. 21. 


a—(hereonly?) © HryryuGev 0 Sypovos Tis & erayyedias Yas } @poroynaev Po xp 


2 Macc. i. 31 


SP om Ucos aa 'ABpadp, thes 0 dads Kal em pBbv0n BCI 


28. xxii. 1 al. 


rae €v Abybrrro, 18 k dypt ov ' avearn Bactreds ™ EtEpos Os Sef gh 
= ch. lll. « mo 
tg OVK goer TOV “lwaond. 19 obTos “ KaTacodicdpevos TO 13 
h= ee xiv. , tA Dyers \ q L r Ov s TrOLELV 
7. det. yevos nuov Pexaxwoevy Tovs “I7aTEpas * TOU 
ee 6 . . 0 6€ MmodAGyet, Xen. Anab. vii. 4. 13. ich. vi. 7 (reff.). Exop.i.7. k w. indic., 
ch. xxvii. 33. Rev. xvii. 17. see Heb. iii. 13. 1= ch. y. 36, 37. Exop.i. 8. m = ch. ii. 40 al. 
n here only. Exop.i.10. Judith y. 11. x. 19 only. o = ch. xviii. 2 reff. p ver. 6 reff. q absol., 

John vi. 58. vii. 22. ch. xiii. 32. xxvi.6. Rom. ix. 5. xi. 28. xv.8. Heb.i.1. 2 Pet. iii. 4 only. Pr —0ne 

iii. 12 reff. s = Matt. iil. 3 ||. v.36. Rey. xxi. 5. : 
fin: txt ABCDERN c g 1m Thl-sif. aft aBp. ins o marnp nuwv H(sic). rec 
exmop, with EP rel Thi-sif: txt ABCDHR® a ch copt Chr. for tov, ey BCR! sah 
arm: tov ev AEN? tol copt: tov ex syr: et Sychem D-lat: txt D-grH(P) rel vulg eth 
Chr Thl Ge. (Lhe varr arise from this cvxeu having been mistaken for a place, as 
above.)—rTov xeu (passing from v to v) P. 

17. for radws, ws A. rec wuocev, with HP p rel syr-txt: ernyyetAato DE tol 
syr-mg: txt ABC N(opodoy.), confessus erat vulg. (The varr have arisen from the 
unusual sense of wor.) 

18. rec axpis (corrn), with AB2EHPN 36 Chr: txt B'CD Thl-sif. aft eTepos ins 
em avyurtov ABCN o 36 Syr syr-mg coptt: om DEHP p rel syr-txt Chr Thl Ge. 
for nde: tov, euyvynabn Tov DE. 

19. for ovtos, cat D-gr(om D-lat). rec aft marepas ins nuwy, with ACEHP rel 
ad Eustochium: Epitaph. Paula, 108 [27] above cited!), that the other patriarchs 
13, vol. i., p. 703) relating the pilgrimages were buried at Shechem :—a priori reasons 
of Paula to the sacred places, says: “trans- why Stephen should have chosen to bring 
ivit Sichem,....atque inde divertens forward Shechem and not Hebron; reasons 
vidit duodecim Patriarcharum sepulchra.” (see Wordsw.’s note) not very creditable, 
These traditions probably Stephen fol- if they existed: &e. Ke. The fact of 
lowed; and, in haste or inadvertence, the mistake occurring where it does, will 
classed Jacob with the rest. © @vy- be far more instructive to the Christian 


oato ABpadp | The burying-place ‘which student than the most ingenious solution 
Abraham bought was not at Sychem, but of the difficulty could be, if it teaches him 
(Gen. xxiii, 83—20) at Hebron, and was fearlessly and honestly to recognize the 
bought of Ephron the Hittite. It was phenomena presented by the text of | 
Jacob who (Gen. xxxiii. 19) bought a field Scripture, instead of wresting them to > 
where he had pitched his tent,near Sychem, suit a preconceived theory. I entirely 
of the childrenof Hamor,Shechewm’stather: agree with Wordsworth, that “there is 
and no mention is made of its being for @ nothing in these difficulties which invali- 
burying-place. The two incidents arecer- dates the claims of St. Stephen to Inspira- 
tainly here confused: and no ingenuity of tion,” any more than those expressions 
the Commentators has ever devised an es- in Scripture “invalidate its inspiration,” 
cape from the inference. The mention of which imply that the sun revolves round 
a few such attempts may suffice.—(1) The the earth. But as Wordsw. lives in days 
omission of "ASpadu (Beza, Valck., Kuin., when men are no longer burnt for asserting 
Schott., al.) against all Ms. evidence [not that the earth moves, he surely might 
excepting KE, the reading of which, vari- abstain from railing in such unmeasured 
ously stated by Meyer and Tischendorf, terms (see his Acts, p. 35, col. i.) at those 
has been ascertained by inspection],—and who in contending for common fairness 
against the construction also; for after and honesty find it necessary to carry some- 
peteTeOnoay, lakéB could hardly be the what further the same canon of reasonable 
subject to avjoaro:—(2)rendering,against interpretation. Humble searchers after 
all grammar, while omitting "ABpadu, avj- divine truth will not be terrified by being 
caro ‘emptum erat’ (Kuin.): —(3) con- charged with “assumption and conceit,” 
struing "ABpadu, Abrahamides, i.e. Jacob being told that their exegesis can produce 
(Surenhus. al.) :—(4) that of Wordsworth, no result but “degeneracy, degradation, dis- 
made up of—omitting Jacob from the _ belief, and demor: alization. % “But they will 
grammatical construction (see above); deeply feel it to be their duty, to caution 
—proving, from Jerome and Bede (with- the student against all crooked and disin- 
out any allusion to the passage of Josephus  genuous ways of handling the word of God. 


17—23. TIPAZ ETS AMOSTOAON. 73 


\ , ” a > \ \ a) . 
Ta ‘ Bpedy “exOera abtav “eis TO pr  Swoyoveic@an. tisreit, 

lal > / an i lal i 
*xaip@ eyevvnln Mavons Kxat iv Y aoretos 


xviii. 15. 


0 xdy xg 
c 


2 Tim. iii. 15. 
Z tal 6 _ a a2 / a a. 5) a y n ree i. 2 
To Uew. O05 *aveTpadn pijvas Tpels ev TO OlKM TOD onlyt 
, ° , \ ~ s AIST 2 
matpos. 7!” éxreBévtos 5é °avTod 4 aveiXato avTov  Ouya- ,, Pe: S38 Ae 
ram) \ NT Wace? y ie DS e ee a) er Ezek. xli. 3 
Tp Papaw Kai *aveOp&pato “avTov éauvTH © eis viov. Ais in 
* \ y ; pe C 3 lexap. 
2 Kal *émradev0n Mavois év macy copia Aiyurrtiav, jy (érBéva., 
\ Ni 3 , \ y ~ C Wy & aS S 
dé 8 duvaros ev Noyous Kal Epyous avTov. 73 ws S€™ érAy- He,” 
a TAs , \ Hist. ii. 7. 
povTo avT@ ‘TeccepakoytaeTns ypovos, * avéBn emt THv Philo, Vi 
oys. $3, 
vol. ii. p. 83. €x@eous, Wisd. xi. 14.) V ch. iii. 19. Rom. i. 11, 20 al. w Luke 


xvii. 33. 1 Tim. vi. 13 only. Exod. i. 17, 18, 22 al. 
1. évéxety. T. K., Matt. xi. 25. €v TO K, TOUT., Mark x. 30. 
sie: z dat., Jonah ili. 3. 2 Cor. x.4. James ii. 5. (1 Cor. ix.2.) Winer, edn. 6, $ 31. 4. see Gen. 
x. 9. xxiii. 6. xxx. 8(Heb.). Lukei.15. 2 Cor. i. 12. a here bis, ch. xxii. 3 only +. Wisd. 
vii. 4 BN F(not A) only. b= here only}. Wisd. xviii. 5. (ch. xi. 4 reff.) see ver. 19 reff. 
e constr., John viii. 30. xil. 37. = here only. Exop. ii. 10. see ch. v. 33 reff. e = ver. 
5. ch. xiii. 22. Isa. xlix. 6. f = ch. xxii. 3. 2 Tim, ii. 25 (1 Cor. xi. 32 reff.). Prov. xxix. 17. 
g ch. xviii. 24 reff, h = Luke xxi. 24. ver. 30. ch. ix. 23. xxiv. 27. Gen. xxv. 24. ich. 
xiii. 18 only. k w. €mt, 1 Cor. ii Yonly. Isa. lxv.16. Jer. iii. 16. w.év, Luke xxiv. 38 only. 
36 am-corr! vss Chr: om BDN am! fuld. rec exOeta bef ta Bpepn, with DEHP rel 
36 Chr Thl: ra Bpepy avtwy exbera m p: txt ABCN. aft Cwoyor. ins Ta appeva E. 

20. rec aft matpos ins avtov, with DE gmo13 Thl: om ABCHP rel Chr.—N! has 
wov, but marked for erasure by the same hand. 

21. rec exteBevta Se avtov, with HHP rel: txt ABCDN p 36. 
ABCDEH f! p.|—add es (rapa D) troy motawoy DE syr-w-ast. om avtoy [aft 
avetAaro|acehk o Chr Thi. om kat D}-gr(ins D2 or 4), om avTov 
[aft ave@p.| D1(and lat) ce, ins syr-w-ob ; for eavtn, avtn D! 180, ev avtn 18: txt D3. 

om eis B. 

22. rec om Ist ev, with B D-corr HP rel 36 vulg Orig-ms, Chr, Thl: ins ACEN 
vulg-ms syrr coptt eth Orig, Ps-Just Bas Thdrt.—zmacav tnv cogiay D!. for de, 
te D H-grl vss: txt ABCHPN rel 36 E-lat copt Chr, Thl. rec ins ev bef epy., with 
E-gr Pg] m 13 vulg eth: om A B(sic: see table) CDHN a b fh o p 86 E-lat copt Chr 
Thl.—epyois «. ev Aoyots c.— ev Aoyw k. ev epyw k. rec om avtou (as unnecessary), 
with HP rel syr Ps-Just Chr: ins ABCDER p 36 vulg Syr coptt. 

23. uw’ erns (sic) bef avtw D. for em, evs H. 


« Non tali auxilio, nee defensoribus istis.” 


x here only. év avr. T. K., Luke xiii. 
y Heb. xi. 23 only. Exon. 


[avesAato, so 


thematics, and its teachers were the 


17.] KaOds, not ‘when’ (as E. V., 
Beza, Kuin.), but as, ‘in proportion as.’ 
See ref. 19. tov movetv|] so that 
they exposed, see ref. Meyer maintains 
that the inf. of the purpose is not to be 
departed from,—‘in order that they might 
expose :’ but I do not see that this mean- 
ing would express the fact. The purpose 
is afterwards expressed, eis TO K.7.A. 
20. aor. tH Ged] add to reff. (Meyer), 
Hesiod, Op. 825, avalrios abavaroow,— 
and Aisch. Agam. 352, Oeots dvaumAdKntos. 
The expression here seems borrowed from 
tradition: Josephus calls the infant Moses 
maida popdy Getov. Philo de vita Mos. 
§ 3, vol. ii. p. 83, says, yevynbels ody 6 mais 
evOds dw eveédnvey aoreroTépay 7) Kar 
ididr Hv. 22.] That Moses was in- 
structed in the wisdom of the Egyptians, is 
not found in the O. T., but derived from 
tradition, and followimg as a matter of 
course from his adopted station as the son 
of Pharaoh’s daughter. This wisdom of the 
Egyptians, celebrated by so many ancient 
writers (seeWetst.ad loc.), consisted mainly 
in natural philosophy, medicine, and ma- 


priests. Philo de vita Mos. § 5, p. 84, enters 
into minute detail: dpibuobs wey ody k. 
yewpetpiay, kK. THY TE puvOuK}y K. apmovt- 
Khy kK. meTpiKyy Oewplay, K. pmovaoltkiy THY 
otpnacav, Oi TE xphoews dopydvwv, K. 
Adywv tav ev Tats téxvais, kK. Stetddors 
TomiKwTépas. Aiyumtiwy of Adyior Tap- 
édocav, Kk. mposéTt Tov dia ouuBdrAwy 
piroccoplay, hv ev Tots Aeyouevors ftepots 
ypdumaciw éemidelkvuTat, kK. dia THs TeY 
(éwv amodoxis, & Kal Oc@y Timats yepal- 
povot. tiv Se &AAnY eyKUKALOY maidelay 
“EdAnves edldackov" of & ex TGV TANOLO- 
Xépov, TAT ’Acoupiwy ypdupata, kK. Thy 
Tay ovpaviwy Xaddaikhy emothuny. 

Suvatos év Adyous] So Josephus calls 
Moses mAnOeow 6uiretvy mibavdraros, but 
late in his course, during the journey 
through the wilderness;—when the di- 
vine Spirit, as the book of Deuteronomy 
abundantly testifies, had turned his ‘ slow- 
ness of speech’ into the most fervid elo- 
quence. That he was so thus early, during 
his Egyptian course, was probably reported 
by tradition, but hardly seems to agree 
with Exod. iv. 1O—16. 23. teooepa- 


74 IIPABETS AIIOZTOAON. VII. 


l=ch. xy. 36. k y > ~ 12? I \ 5) \ > a \ 
Matt, say 38 Kapdiav avtod | émurKéyrac Oat Tors adedpovs avrob Tous 
43 a Si. e > > s 
zi inde. ™ ylovs lopanr. 4 cal idov Twa ™ adicovpevoy ° nuUVaTO 


U6 
m ih x. 36 reff. 
Exon. ii. 11. 


na , ae 
Kat ® érotncey 1 éxdienow Te * KaTaTOVoULév * TaTakas 


1 Cor. > \ m4 \ / \ 2 \ 
Con uiw. TOV Adydrrtiov. % évomitev S& tavviévar Tos adeAPovs 
Isa. i. 17. A E ‘ if 3 ; 
onereonly. [ayrod] OTe 6 Beds “Sud yYeLpos avo ¥ didwaw VY cwTnplav 

7 oe a a lal , i / ” 
Pea @vuTots* of 6€ ob tauvnKav. 6 TH Te * érriovan nuépa ¥ OPO 


Micah y. 15. 
q Rom. xii. 19 


ral > > he 
avtois * wayomévols, Kal “ouvyjdacev avTovs Els elpynVnV 
eir@v "Avodpes aderpol éote [vps]: 


an fe + ee 
adAjrous ; 27 oO SE abtKaV TOV ° TANnGloy 4 aT@TATO AUTOV 


b % / 1D a 
ome Wa Tl GOLKELTE 
2 Mace. viii. 
2 AB(not Ed- 


vat F) only. | F f = 4 ats 
s5 Matt efr@y Tis oé °xatéotnoey adpyovta Kal ' ducaotnv éb 


Zech. xiii. 7. 
Exop. ii. 12. 


28 ut & avedeiv poe ad Oédets © Ov TpoTrov & avEetnes 
tw. OTL, Matt. 


nas ; 


: Lc We) \ \ 7, 9 ” \ a > a 
xvi 12. xvi. TevOés tov Aliyimruoyv; 9 épuyev d€ Mavorjs * ev TO 
13. Isa. xliii. ; ‘ aes ' F eS ‘ 2 

). abs., 5 
lo. abs Matt: 1 N@ya TOUT@, Kal eyéveTo ™madpotKxos ev yh Madiap, ob 
(from Isa. vi. } " ¢ 
9, 10). u ch. xi. 30 reff. Vv pres., ch. xvi. 38 reff. w = Lukei.7l. 1 Kings 
xiv. 45. Jos. Antt. ii. 9. 7. x ch. xxiii. 11. xvi. ll reff. 1 Chron. xx. 1, see Matt. vi. 11 and note. 
y ch. ii. 3 reff. z John vi. 52. 2 Tim. ii, 24. Jamesiy. lonly. Exod. xxi. a here only +. 2 Macc. 
iy. 26, 42. vy. 5 only. ouveAacas Ta Onpta, Xen. Cyr.i. 4. 14. cvveAavvonevos AkKwWV eis LAXNY, Plut. Cees. 
p- 728 (Wetst.). b 1 Cor. x. 29 reff. ec Rom. xiii. 9, 10 reff. Exon. ii. 13. d Rom. 
xi. 1, 2 reff. e ver. 10 reff. Exon. il. 14. f ver. 35. Luke xii. l4only. Exod. l.c. g =ch. 
vy. 33 reff. h ch. i. 11 reff. i John iv. 52. Heb. xiii. 8 only. 4 Kings ix. 26. k = Matt. 
vi.7. John xyi. 30, 1 Pet. ii. 12. 1 = Luke i. 29. ch. y. 5 al. m ver. 6 reff. Exon. il. 22. 


ins Tov bef emir. E 180. om 2nd tous B. 

24. aft adc. ins ex Tov yevous avtav DE Syr syr-w-ast eth—om avr. D-gr. 
aft avy. add (from Exod ii, 12, LXX) Kat expubev avtov ev Tn auuw D eth. 

25. evougov D-gr 13. om Ist avtov BCR vulg(am demid, not tol): ins ADEHP 
rel. rec avt. bef cwt., with EHP rel syr sah Chr: txt ABCDX m p yulg copt 
Fulg. for o1, ov N'(but corrd). om ov D!-gr(ins D-corr!). 

26. elz (for re) de, with EP vulg coptt: txt ABCD?HN rel 36 syr eth Chr Thl Ge. 
—for Ty Te, ToTe D!. aft wax. “(vos Dl-gr: txt D?) ins kar erSev avtous adteouytas 
D!. suyvnddAacoev BCD 0 sah eth Promiss, reconciliabit vulg, reconciliavit D-lat: 
cuvnddacey H p: txt AEP rel vss Chr. (Lhe varr appear to be occasioned by expla- 
nations of the origl cvvndacev.) avtots C1H. om vets (as unnecessary) 
ABCER® p vulg (Syr ?) sah arm Chr Promiss: ins HP rel 36 (syr copt) Thl @e.—: 
motte avdpes adeAot wa, Tt adiertat ers(om ers D?) aAAnAous D. 

27. eas D. for kat, 7 E vss. nuov (from LXX, Exod ii. 14) ABCHPN 
m2 p13 Thi-sif: txt DE rel Chr. 

28. [ex@es, so BICDN. | 


29. ovtws kat epuyadevoey Mavons D}(txt DS): epuyadcuocey 5e Mevony Li. 


KovTOETH|S xp-| Mevyas yevouevos M., Exod. 
1.11, LXX. The exact age was traditional, 
see Lightf. avéBy | No nominative 
(as Biadoyiouss, Kuin.) must be supplied : 
it is impersonal; see reff. 24.| Tov 
Alyvmruov, from the history being so uni- 
versally known, that the agent in the &8:xla 
would be readily supplied : see Winer, edn. 
6, § 67.1, d. 25.| The present, St80- 
owy, sets forth the work of liberation as 
already begun by the act just related, 
see reff. Here we have again the 
resistance to the Holy Spirit hinted: see 
ver. 51, and note on ver. 2. 26. | 
avtots, to them, fwo of them, taken as 


act, on Moses’ part, was complete ;—not 
‘he would have set them at one’ (B. V.), 
but, he set them at one. If the explana- 
tory reading cuv}AAagoey be taken, we then 
have the i apes fect foree— he was recon- 
ciling,” or “ attempted to reconcile,” them. 

GvSpes adeApot should be taken 
together, as in Gen. xiii. 8, we 
adeApol eouev jucts. See also ch. ii. 14 
(De W.). 27. | The.furtheriphagies 


Israel. 29. Madidp | So LXX, Exod. 
ii. 15, for }y12. Winer (Realw. ‘ Midian’) 
supposes this Midian to have been a nomad 
detachment of the more settled Midianites, 


of resistance to the Spirit on the part of 


representing his brethren the children of 
Israel. ouvyjAagev, not imperf., ‘he 
endeavoured to unite ;? the aorist will not 
bear this sense: nor is it needed :—the 


—which at that time was encamped in the 
neighbourhood of Sinai and Horeb. For 
Jethro, Moses’ father-in-law, is not found 
there, in Exod. xviii. 1 ff, but comes to 


24—34, 


eed Lom 7 
éyévynoev viovs vo. 


” > A «3 a Sire a al < iii 
Kovta ° apn avT@ ev TH epyuw Tod dpous Yova aryyeNos p keri. ii 


Zz) 
ev P91 droit P rupos * Batov. 


TIPAREIS AIIOSTOAON. 7 


or 


\ a 
39 Kat “rAnpwlevtwv erav TEecoEpa- »=**-*: 


o ver. 26. 
9 
2. 
& ib 
18. xix. 12. 


319 6€ Mavons dmv * éBav- Ps. xxiii. 
\ = = 7 
patev TO 'Opawa: mposepyouévou S€ avTov “ KaTavofnaat 


= Py 
2 Thess. i. 8. 
Heb. i. 7. Sir. 
viii. 10. 


Dias \ / ¢ > \ e \ lal 
Yéyevero dwvyn xupiov * “Eya 0 Oeds TOV TaTépaY gis above (p). 


e >] 
gov, 0 Geos ’ABpaap Kat ‘loaak Kai lao. 
\ Lal lal 
dé yevosevos Mavans ovK éToOAMa ™ KaTavoncat. 
6e > lal € 7 Xx AD \ xy e 7) lal 6a < 
€ avT® 0 KUpios * Ataoy TO UTrddnwa THY Tod@V cov 
€ \ lé ’ a lol 
0 yap ToTos éf @& EaTHKaS YH ayia éoTiV. 


s constr., Luke vii. 9. Jude 16. Job xxxii. 22. 
exc. Matt. xvii. 9. Gen. xlvi. 2. 

v = John x. 35. ch. x. 13. xiii. 32. Gen. xy. 1,4. 
x. 11 Theod. 
iii. 11. Luke xy. 22. 
Gen. xxii. 17. 


dum D!(txt D*). 
30. aft ca: ins peta tavta D. 


Gen. xiy. 23. 


x = Luke iii. 16 || Mk. J. ch. xiii. 25. 


Luke xvi. 24 


w 2X only. Judg. 
EVTPOMOS Fi bo 8 
3) r Luke vi. 44 

33 eiqrey * Mk ax. 37. 


ver. 39 only. 
Exop. iii. 2 

&e. Deut. 

Xxxiii. 16. 


34 2 (Sap 


Job xxxi, 40 
only. 
Xen. Cyr. iii. 1. 38. t ch. ix. 10 al8. Acts only, 
u Luke xii. 24, 27. ch. xi. 6. Heb. iii. 1. Gen. xlii. 9. 
w ch. xvi. 29. Heb. xii. 2l only. Ps. xvii. 7. Dan. 


Exon. iii. 5. y as above (x). Matt. 


zhere only. Exon. iii. 7 al. fr. constr., Heb. vi. 14, from 


TmAnGOevTwY avtTw ery D}(txt D?[and lat). 


rec aft ayyedos ins kupiov (natural addn, and here occasioned by Exod iii. 2, 


LXX), with DEHP rel Syr: om ABCN p vulg coptt. 


mupt paoyos (see note) ACK 


36 vulg Syr: txt BDHPX p rel syr coptt Chr Thl. 
31. rec eBavuage (corrn to historical tense), with ABC rel vulg Chr Thl-fin: txt 


DEHPR bf ¢g1m p 36 Thl-sif Aug. 
kat. D!, 


om To opaua A. 
0 Kuplos evmevy avTw Aeywv D Syr eth. 


Kat ™posep. aut. | « lat 
for kup., ex Tev ovpavov Aeyouca 


EK. ree aft kup. ins mpos avtov, with CEHP rel vulg-mss sah Chr: om ABX pam 


demid syr copt arm. 


82. om o [bef Ist @eos| CH!: eyw equ: 6. EK vulg(not am fuld) D-lat. 
rec ins o Geos bef io. and bef tax., with (D)EHP rel wth Chr Thl: (om o, 


@.] Cl. 


om o [bef 2nd 


twice, D:) om ABCN p syrr coptt arm. (The insertion has prob been to suit LXXx, 


which D does still more closely by omg the artt.) 


eToApnoev XN. 

33. om o [bef «up. ] A. 
mpos autoy D. Avoar D4(?) 142. 
—oov bef r. x. B. 


for kup., Geos HE. 
aft vod. ins cov ex C!: ex C2E k syrr eth. 
rec for ep, ev (corrn to suit LXX), with EHP rel 36 Chr: txt 


pewvons bef yevouevos &. 


for 1st clause, rat eyeveTo dwvn 


ABCD28 p.—for ef w, ov D!: add av C(auy C1) lect-13 sah arm. 


visit Moses from a distance. See also 
Numb. x. 29 ff. viovs Svo] Exod. ii. 
22; iv. 20; xviii. 3. 30. et. Tec. | 
This follows from the tradition of ver. 23, 
combined with Exod. vii. 7, ‘Moses in 
palatio Pharaonis degit XL annos, in Mi- 
diane XL annos, et ministravit Israel xn 
annos.’ Bereshith Rabba, f. 115. 3. (Mey.) 

Swa]| Horeb, Exod. iii. 1. But 
both were points of the same mountain 
range, andthe names were convertibly used. 
In Exod., Levit., and Numb., the law is said 
to have been given from Sinai; in Deut. 
from Horeb. ‘The desert of Mount Sina’ 
is the desert in which Mt. 8. is situated. 
So ‘the Peak of Derbyshire,’ originally no 
doubt some single hill, has come to mean 
the whole district in which that hill is 
situated. dyyedos| Here, as con- 
tinually in the O.T., the angel bears the 
authority and presence of God Himself: 
which angel, since God giveth not His 
glory to another, must have been the great 
Angel of the covenant, the 2b 7X70 of Isa. 
Ixiii. 9, ‘the Angel of His Presence, —the 


Son oF Gop. See below on eis Siatayas 
ayyeAwyr, ver. 53. Stier remarks, that 
this second appearance of God, to Moses (see 
ver. 2),introduces the /egal dispensation, as 
the first, to Abraham, the patriarchal. 

The readings of the LXX, as well as of our 
text, vary between up) @doyds (B) and 
paroy! mupés (A). The Heb. is wsrna%a. 
The construction is, in the fiery flame (or, 
the flaming fire) of a bush. 32. | 
The order of Exod. iii. 6, is here somewhat 
varied. The command to put off the shoe 
was given on the approach of Moses, and 
before these words were spoken. ovK 
éroAp. Katav. = evAaBeiTro KkaTeuBrAebat, 
LXX. 33.] See Josh. v.15. Putting 
off the sandals was a mark of reverence. 
The priests performed all their ministra- 
tions barefooted. The Arabs to this day 
continue the practice: they always enter 
their mosques barefooted. Among the 
Pythagoreans it was a maxim, dvu1édyT0s 
Ove x. mposkdver, Iamblich. vita Pythag. 
105 (Mey.). So Juvenal, Sat. vi. 158, 
‘Observant ubi festa mero pede sabbata 


76 TIPABEIS AILOZTOAQN. VE; 


la) lal fo) F_- ff \ 
ahereonly. 2 [Soy THY *KaKwoW TOD aod pov TOU ev AlyuTTT®, Kal 
Thueyd. vii. fal nr A \ s > , 
a2 init, |, TOD» oTEvaryLou avtav iKovoa, kal © catéBnv * éEenéo Oat 
b Rom. viii. 2 ~ A > v 
only. Exo. QYTOUS* Kal VoV © Sedpo aroaTeiAw ae els AlyurTov. 
€ Gen. xi. 5. 


Exon. iii. 8. 
d = ver. 10 reff. 


or a a ¢ , U 
35 roptov Tov Mavanvy ov ‘ipvicavto etrovres Tis oé 


\ a © \ \ 

e~ Key, § KaTéTTHTEV ApXoVTa Kal hSixacrHv ; TodTOV O Beds Kal. 
‘on Sxeci ; ees 2 , 

"°° apyovta Kal ‘AvTpwTHY améctadKev “avy xElpl ayyedouv 


f = Matt. x. 33. 
ch. iii. 13, 14. 
2 Pet. ii. 1 
al. 

gZ a4 10 reff. 

h ver. 27 reff. 

i here only. 
Ley. xxv. 31, 


fal lal lal / > Ld 8 , 
tov }dd0évtos aita ev TH ™ Bato. °° obTos " €Enyayev 
s lal lol > / \ 
avTovs ° Toinoas P Tépata Kai onpueia ev yh AvyurT@ Kat 
r fol / Yj ed 
év 1épv0pa Oardcon Kai €v TH Epnuw ETN TETTEpaKoVTa. 


29 es aa wd fe / c fol € ” a cn ’ ‘ 
82. Ps.xvit. 37 gitog éotw 0 Mavons o elmas Tots vulols Iopanr 

only. / Pawan) / c \ > a 5] a c oA 
eatin =1 Cor. IIpopntnv ULL 3 AVaTTNTEL 0 beds eK THY aderpav UL@V 
1 nis reff. m ver. 30 reff. n absol., Mark xv. 20, ch. v. 19. o = ch. ii, 22. John 
xii. 37 al. pinN. T. alw. w. onM., ch. ii. 19, 22,43 al5. Matt. xxiv. 24 || Mk. Johniv. 18. Rom. 
xv.19. 2Cor. xii. 12. 2 Thess. ii.9. Heb. ii.4 only. Exon. xi. 10. q Heb. xi. 29 only, Exod. x. 19. 


r = Matt. xxii. 24. ch. iii. 22, from Devr. xviii. 15, 18. 


34. Kat iw yap D?. om pov D}(ins D*). for avtwy, avtov BD. 
axknkoa D 9. yore C?. rec arooreAw, with HP rel Syr Thi (here, though 
amoorethw is accordg to LXX, the corrn to -ehw was so very obvious, that I have re- 
tained the more unusual form, esp as the authorities in its favour are so strong): 
amrocTeAA@ a: txt ABCDEN c p Chr. 

35. aft dicaor. ins ep nuwy CDN p 36; ep nuas E k 0; so, tol Syr syr-w-ast coptt 
eth arm Chr Thl-fin (corra to suit Lxx and ver 27): om ABHP rel vulg Thl-sif. 
ree om 2nd «at, with ACHP rel vulg Chr: ins BDE p syr: it is supplied by XN! or 
X-corr!. apxnyov A a h Chr,. for Avtpwrnp, Sicaorny N!: Avtpwryny dikactHv 
3, rec ameoretdcy, with CHP rel Chr: txt ABDER ¢ p. rec (for guy) ev, 
with HPX rel 36 D-lat Chr, Thl: per manum vss: txt ABCDE ¢ p 18 vulg syr sah 
Chr, (ev has appy arisen from a confusion with the last syll of amecradkev. I cannot 
see the force of Meyer’s reasoning, that avy is a corrn setting forth more strikingly 


the superhuman powers of Moses). 
36. ins o bef zoiqoas D!. 

Chr e Thl-sif. 

36 sah Chr Gc Thl-sif. 
37. om Isto DH ab? cefho. 

EHP rel 36 Chr: txt ABCDN p. 


reges.’ On the sanctity of the place, 
Chrys. remarks, —ovdauov vaés, Kk. 6 Témos 
dy.s TH emipavela Kk. evepyelg TOU Xpiorov. 
34.] iSav elSov, LXX. Emphatic, 
to express the ‘1x] 78) of the Heb., as 
often elsewhere. The instances commonly 
cited from the classics, of the phrase pev- 
ywv expetyew, Herod. v. 95; Aristoph. 
Acharn. 177; Nub. 168; Eur. Pheen. 1231, 
&e., do not apply: for, as Porson observes, 
‘in his locis simplici verbo conatus, compo- 
sito effectus indicatur.’ arroarethe | 
aoris tsubjunctive, as LXX, Exod. iii. 10. 
See Winer, edn. 6, § 41. 4. 35.| The 
second rovroy is repeated emphatically. 
So obros again, vv. 36, 37, 38. 
Apvycavro, ver.27. The rejecter of Moses 
there is regarded as the representative of 
the nation: see note on adtots, ver. 26. 
In this express mention of the rejection 


for yn, Tn BC m D-lat sah: om b!: txt A D-gr EHP 
ree avyuttov, with D rel Thl-fin: txt ABCEHPX hkl mop 


rec emwv (corrn to more usual form), with 
rec ins kupios bef o Geos, with CEHP rel: aft, 
Syr: om ABDN p vulg sah eth: for @cos, kuptos syr. 
bm 13: nuwy EH rel Thl: om ABDN p vulg syrr coptt xth. 


rec aft Oeos ins vuwy, with 
om vuwy RX}. 


of Moses by the Jews and his election 
and mission by God, the parallel of Jesus 
Christ is no doubt in Stephen’s mind, and 
the inference intended to be drawn, that 
it does not follow that Gop REJECTS 
those whom THEY REJECTED. The 
difficulty of amwéotadkev has caused it to 
be altered into the historie tense, a7- 
éore:Aev. But the perf. sets forth not only 
the fact of God’s sending Moses then, but 
the endurance of his mission till now— 
him hath God sent: with a still closer 
reference than before, to Him whom God 
had now exalted as the true &pxovta x. 
Autpwrhv. See ch. v. 31. 37.] See 
ch. iii. 22, notes. Our text has probably 
been altered to agree verbally with the 
former citation. 38.] ylvouat wera is 
not a Hebraism, as Kuin.: see reff. 

That Moses conversed with both the Angel 


35—A41. 


TIPAE EIS, AIITOSTOAQON. 


iY: 


¢ , eee 8 a oes 
Se@s eue. %8 otros eoTw 6 'yevopuevos ev TH % exkdAyola * 52h: iii, % 


3 lel > / t \ Lal > / lal fal > n > 
€V TH EPNUM “META TOU ayyeAou TOU AAXNOUVYTOS aUT@ EV 


Matt. vii. 29. 
t ch, ix. 19. 

xx. 18. Mark 

xvi. 10, 


TO Oper Lwa Kal Tov Y Tatépwv Y Hudv, ds ¥ edéEaTo * NO- ¥— ch. xix. 32, 


y fal Zz lal € a 39 & > ? UA a ¢ / 
ya Y Gavta *dodvar niv, @ ovK n0é\noav * brHKOOL 


39, 41. see 
notes. Deut, 
xxxii. 1 
(xxxi. 30). 


Lo 8. ey L Foc ro 4 , ers ees 5 
YEVvEedVal OL TTATEPES NUWV, a Qa ~aT@OaVTO KAL EOTPa v ch, v. 30 reff. 


w = 2 Cor. vi. 


a an > > / lal 
dnoav év tais Kapdiats avTav ets AiyuTrrov, 19 ettrovTEs TO x iom, ii. 9. 


7A \ d / Chia ra} \ Ne / ¢ a G Heb. y. 12. 
Ap@v Ilotjoov 1) LY €OUS Ol TT POTTOPEVO OVTAL MOV Oo, 1 ae iy: iL 
\ f a L a Ie/ Cs b a tae 4 g3 x 4. 6 ai 
yap *Mavoris otros, Os 8 €Enyayev Tuas ex yas Atydr- , yt 13 
> 18 TS ae et f FT a) 41 M3 fe Heb. iy. 12. 
TOV, OUK OLOAMEV TL ~ EYEVETO aUT@. Kat ELOO VOTIOL x. 20. 1 Pet. 


i, 23. see Ps, 


bp] a e zi b] / Me ee , / n se 
J 2XVili. 50. 
NOaV EV TALS NMEPals EKELVALS KAL avynyayov k Ouciav T @ : Cee ot 


led@Aw, Kal ™edppalvovTo év Tois *Epyois THY ™ yELpaV 


a2Cor. ii. 9. Phil. ii. 8 only. Prov. iv. 3. 


= ver. 8. ch. 
xiii. 21 al. 
Ezek. xx. 11 
and pass. 

c Matt. xviii. 


b ver. 27. Jer. ii. 37. 


3. 1 Kings x.6. Lam. i, 20. see ver. 42. d Exon, xxxii. 1, e Luke i. 76 only. Exod, 
xiv. 19. Josh. x. 13. f constr., Rey. ii. 26. iii. 12. g see ver. 36. h Matt. 
viii. 13. 1 Macc. iv. 27. ihere only+. Exop. xxxii. 8. j = here only. 3 Kings 
iii. 15 al. k abs., Matt. ix. 13. Heb. viii. 3 al. Gen. xlvi.1. 11 Cor. x. 19 reff. m ch. 


ii. 36. Luke xii. 19. Rom. xy. 10. 
n Rey. ix. 20 (Heb. i. 10, from Ps. ci. 25) only. 


wset D}, 


2 Cor: ii. 2. 
Ps. cxxxiy. 15. 


. ~~ > aes ny 
Gal. iv. 27. w. ev, Rey. xviii. 20. 


1 Kings ii. 1 
Isa. xxxvii. 19. 


rec aft ewe ins avrov axovoea@e (from LXX), with CDE (akoveode D![? ], 


quem audistis K-lat!) rel 36 vulg syrr copt: om ABHPX af ghlm p sah Chr, Thl-sif. 


38. om 2nd tov D}(ins D®). 
vu &. 

39. for w, or: D-gr. 
aft eorp. ins kat N}(but corrd). 
Iren-int : ins ABCN 36. 40 Did-e. 


40. e:maytes D. 


vuwv N: ome. 


[aAAa, so ABCDEHR® k o.] 
rec om ev, with DEHP rel vulg Chr, ec Thl 
Ty Kapdia HP rel syr copt «xth-pl Chr, He 
Thl Iren-int : txt ABCDE p 36. 40 vulg Syr xth-rom. 
aft outros ins 0 avOpwmos &. 


for edet., efeActato B. 
ameotp. D m. 


om avtwy D. 


o ekayaywy EK. rec 


yeyovey (corrn to LXX, Exod xxxii. 1), with DEHP p rel Chr Gc Thi: txt ABCN 
36 


41. for avnyayov, arnyovto D\(avnyovro D-corr?: txt D-corr). 


of the covenant and our fathers, implies 
that he was the mediator between them, 
as indeed Os éeddtar. Ady. ¢. more plainly 
declares. éx«Anota probably, the as- 
sembly held (Exod. xix.) for the promul- 
gation of the law at Mt. Sinai, not ‘che 
church’ generally: but the article does not 
determine this: it would be expressed, 
whichever meaning we take. Wordsw. ob- 
serves on the meaning which the words 
H exxdAnola ev tH ephuw carry for the 
student of Christian prophecy, Rey. xii. 
1—6. Adyra. LOvra | living, see reff., 
not = (worowivtTa (Grot., Kuin.), ‘life- 
giving : still less to be understood ‘ given 
vivd voce’ (Pisce. Alberti). So Soph. Gd. 
Tyr. 482, 7a werdudadra yas arovorpl (wr | 
payretas Ta 8 aiel | (@vtTa mepimorarat. 

39.|] Another instance, brought 
home again by the words ot warépes 
jpev, of rejection of God’s appointed 
messenger and servant. eoTtpadycay | 
they turned back in their heart to Egypt: 
not, ‘they wished to return to Egypt, of 
which in Exod. xxxii. there is no trace (but 
later, in Num. xiv. 4), and which would 
hardly suit mpotopevcovTat; but ‘they 
apostatized in heart to the Egyptian idola- 


tries.” The very title by which Aaron 
proclaims his idol, is, ‘These be thy gods, 
O Israel, which brought thee up out of 
the land of Egypt,’ Exod. xxxii. 4. See 
also Neh. ix. 18. 40. mpotop.| As 
God had done in the pillar of the cloud 
and fire. The plural is not (as Kuin.) put 
for Oedv, but is used categorically : not per- 
haps without implying also, that the only 
two religions were, the worship of Jeho- 
vah, and that of zdols, a multitude. The 
plural is used by Aaron, see above. 

In the oitos may be implied, as Meyer 
suggests, ‘who was the strong opponent 
of idolatry.’ 41. énocxotoingay | 
apparently in imitation of Apis, a bull 
worshipped at Memphis as the living sym- 
bol of Osiris. Herod. iii. 28. Diod. Sie. 
i, 21. Strabo, xvii. 805 (Winer, Realw. 
‘Kalb’). | The o2 was a common symbolic 
form of idols in the East; it was one of the 
cherubie forms, Ezek. i.10; and the most 
recent discoveries at Nineveh have brought 
to light colossal bulls. Sir Gardiner Wil- 
kinson (second series, ii. 97, Winer) thinks 
the golden calves of Israel to have been 
imitations of Mnuevis, a bull kept at Helio- 
polis (Diod. Sic. i. 21, Strabo, xvii. 803) 


78 


o intrans. 
(appy), here 
only}. trans. 
Matt. v. 39, 
Rey. xi. 6 
only. see ver. 
39. 

p = Rom. i. 
24, 26, 28. 
Job xvi. 12. 


avTOV. 


IIPAREIS ATIOSTOAON. 


Vit. 


42 °€artpewev bé 6 Oeos Kai ? rapédwxev avTods 
‘4 atpevery TH otpatiad Tod * ovpavod, Kaas yéypaTrrat 
év BiB\w tav Tpopntav M1) ' odayia Kat Ovaias * pos- 
NveyKaTe po. ETN TETTEpaKorTa ev TH Epnwe, Y oiKos lopanr, 


fal ” 
constr. here 43 ay Y apenaBete THY oKnVI}V ToD Mondoy, Kal TO * daTpov 


only. see ch. 
xvi. 4. 
q ver. 7. 
r Luke ii. 13 ’ * 
only. = 
s 3 Kings xxii. GUTOLS: 
19. Jer. vii. 18. 
v ch. ii. 36 reff. 
xxi. 25. ch. xxvii. 20. 
4al.)l.c. only. Jos. Antt. i. 19.8, 10 
27. Hag. ii. 19. 


\ 
Kal 


there only. Amos y. 25, 


42. aft corp. de ins avtous C sah. 


u = ch, xxi. 26. 
w = here only. (ch. xx. 13, 14. xxiii. 31. 
Luke only, exc. Heb. xi. 12 (from Exod. xxxii. 13). 
z ver. 4 reff. 


om twy D. 


r ae / \ / A b] , tal 
Tov Geod ‘Pepa, tods ¥ TUTous ods érroLncaTE TposKuVEtV 
% WETOLKLOD 


4 éréxewa BaSvrdvos. 
Heb. xi. 4. 


Umas 


John xvi. 2. N 


Eph. vi. 13, 16. 2 Tim. iv. 11.) 
y = here only. (ver. 
a here only. = Isa, xviii. 1. of time, Ley. xxii. 


ev Tn €p. ox. wo. bef ern 


Teo. (see LXX-A) A: ev Tn epnuw is in the margin of B: ev ep. bef ern tec. a h. 


at end ins Aevyer kupios C. 


48. rec aft Oeou ins vuwr (corrn to suit LXX), with ACEPX rel vulg syr copt; nuwy 


a! 1: om BE Syr sah arm Orig Iren-int Philas. 


rec pepparv, with rel Chr Thl-fin: 


peudan D: poupa B: poupay N': peupa p vulg-mss(Lachm): pepa H: pepoa o: 
peppay Ph k 1 Ge: papay 180 Just: txt (A)CE(N%) g 18. 36 Syr syr-mg-gr coptt 


Orig-ms Cyr Thdrt Thl-sif Jer,—paipay ANS. 


in illas partes D-lat, in partem E-lat. 


as a living symbol of the sun. Jeroboam 
afterwards set up golden calves at Bethel 
and Dan, and with the same proclamation: 
see 1 Kings xii. 28. 42. gorpeev | 
neuter, changed,—turned, as avactpepe, 
ch. xv. 16. No word, as é€avtév, or Thy 
youn, or Td mpdswrov aitov, need be 
supplied: nor must €orp. «. map. be ren- 
dered ‘again delivered them’ (Vitring., De 
Dieu, al.), a Hebraism which has no place 
in the N. T. (Mey.): nor must we under- 
stand avrovs (as C in var. readd.),— 
God turned them; for, though philolo- 
gically there is no objection to this, the 
sense requires that éorpeWey should form 
an introduction to wapédwxkev—God, who 
had hitherto watched over them for good, 
now provoked by their rebellion, turned, 
and delivered them up to their own ways. 

mapedwkev—not ‘suffered them to 
fall into: all these explainings away of 
the strong expressions of Scripture belong 
to the rationalistic school of interpreters 
(which is not modern merely: even 
Chrysostom has here eave): it was a 
judicial delivering up, not a mere letting 
alone, see reff. TH OTp. T. ovp. | 
This fact is not mentioned in the Pen- 
tateuch, but may refer to the worship 
of Baal. In aftertimes we have frequent 
traces of star-worship: see 2 Kings xvii. 
16; xxi. 3, 5; xxii. 4, 5; Jer. xix. 13; 
Zeph. i. 5. See also Deut. iv. 19; xvii. 
3; Job xxxi. 26. BiBrX. +. mpod. | 
The book of the prophets, regarded as a 
whole. ‘The citation (ref.) is from the 
LXX. py opay. x. 8.) A question 


usually preceding a negative answer, see . 


Matt. vu. 9; Rom. xi. 1; 1 Cor. ix, 


for emer., emt [Ta we |pn D1(txt D4) ; 


8 al.: but not always: see Matt. xii. 23 
(xxvi. 22); John iv. 29; viii. 22. Winer, 
edn. 6, § 57. 3, b. There is no stress on 
pol (‘Is it to Me that ye offered, Se. [i.e. 
to me only ?’] as Rosenm., Heinr., Olsh., 
Kuin., Stier: the position of sof in the 
sentence will not allow of this). I should 
take the question here according to the 
usual construction, and understand it as 
a reproach, implying that God does not 
receive as offered to Him, sacrifices in 
which He has been made to share with 
idols :—it is not true that ye offered to 
Me (but no stress on Me) sacrifices, &c. ; 
‘I regard it as never having happened.’ 

43.] The answer, by God Himself : 
Yea, avekaBere, ye carried about with 
you, (not My tabernacle as your sole or 
chief holy place, but) the tabernacle (np, 
the portable tent for the image: Diod. Sic. 
xx. 65, mentions the fepa oxnv® in the 
Carthaginian camp) of M., &e. Stephen 
was not the sole dishonourer, if a dis- 
honourer, of the holy place—their fathers 
had done it before. Modox]} So the 
LXX: the Heb. has 023%, ‘of your king; 
—the LXX probably followed another read- 
ing (D25p is actually found in 577 Kennicot 
and 440! De Rossi), or perhaps explained 
the expression by the cognate name of this 
god. Moloch (Winer, Realw.) was the 
Pheenician Saturn: his image was of brass 
with the head of an ox, and outstretched 
arms of a man, hollow; and human sacri- 
fices (of children) were offered, by laying 
them in these arms and heating the image 
by a fire kindled within. The rigid prohi- 
bitions of the worship of Moloch (Lev. xviii. 
21 xx. 2—5) were openly transgressed by 


ABC] 
HPN: 
efg!) 
lm¢s 
13 


4.2—4.5. 


2 \ a a lal 

44 Paoxnvn tod” waptupiov tv Tots ° TaTpdow °Hwav Ep » Rev. xv. 5 
n > / 0a a§ / c lal n lal n 

TH €pnuw, Kalws “ duetaEato 0 Nakov TH Maven troujoa iF: 
> i \ é 

auTnY KaTa Tov °TUToY Ov éwpaKel, * tv Kat ! eisnrya- 
ov g diadeEa c c rd c ¢ lal \ “Tf fal ’ fal 

ry pevot of °qratépes “Huav peta “Incod év TH 


IIPASEIS AIOZTOAON. 


79 


only. Exod. 


xxvii. 21 al, 


¢ ch. y. 30 reff. 
d mid., ch. 


xxiv. 23. 
1 Cor, vii. 17. 
xi. 34. Tit. 


i. 5 only +. 


/ lal lal 7; na \ \ 
h«atacyéoes TOV eOvadv idv * éEGoev 6 eds ard | mpos- ¢ = Med.vii.s, 


from Exop. 


xxy. 40. Phil. iii. 17 al. f = here only. Xen. Rep. Ath. ii. 3. g here only. 2 Chron. xxxi. 12. 
h ver. 5 only. Num. xxxii. 5. iattr., ch. i. 1 reff. k = here (ch. xxvii. 39) only. Jer. 
xxiv. 9, lech. y.41. Rev. xx. 11. Num. xx.6. Devv, xi. 23. 


44. rec ins ev bef rots, with D! E-gr k? 36 syr Thl-fin: om ABCD?2PNX p rel am fuld 


lux E-lat copt Chr Thl-sif. 

6D. avn (sic). 

kev DH, ewparey EK 36. 
45. u. incovy D!, cum jesum D-lat. 


Ahaz, 2 Kings xvi. 3; by Manasseh, ib. 
xxl. 6; see also xxiii. 10; Jer. vii. 31; 
xxxil. 35. In the kingdom of Israel this 
abomination had been long practised, see 
2 Kits xvii. 17; Ezek. xxiii.37. We find 
traces of it at Carthage (Diod. Sic. xx. 14), 
among the Pheenicians (Q. Curt. iv. 3. 23. 
Euseb. laud. Const. xiii. 4. Porphyr. de 
Abstin. ii. 56),—among the Cretans and 
Rhodians (Porphyr. ibid.), and the Assy- 
rian colonists at Sepharvaim, 2 Kings xvii. 
eile 7) Gotpov Tov 0. “Pear | 
Heb. "2 Chitin; but what the meaning of 
either this or ‘Parpay (LXX) is, we have 
nothing but conjecture to inform us. The 
principal opinions have been (1) that of 
Kircher, who maintains ‘Pepay (‘Pnodv) 
to be a Coptic word, signifying the planet 
Saturn, and answering to the Arabic 
‘Kewan :’ (2) that of Hengstenberg, Au- 
thentie des Pentat. 110 ff., who entirely 
repudiates Kircher’s interpretation, and 
supposes ‘Pypdv to have arisen from a mis- 
reading of 37 for jy2,_ But Winer (Realw.) 
prefers the former opinion, and supports it 
by the authority of eminent modern Coptic 
and Arabic scholars. De Wette and 
Hengstenberg believe }32 to be an appella- 
tive noun, and would render it, Geftell, the 
carriage or frame, on which the star or 
image was carried: ‘imaginem idoloruim 
vestrorum, Vulg. Amos. l.c. Wordsw. 
after Cyr. alex. in Catena, supposes pepdy to 
signify oxdriopa, or blindness, and suggests 
that the name may have been one given by 
the Jews in contempt, like Beelzebub, to 
the god of the Ekronites. See Smith, 
Bibl. Dict., art. Remphan. BaBvAG@vos | 
Aauackod, LXX and Heb. The fulfilment 
of the prophecy would make it very natural 
to substitute that name which had become 
inseparably associated with the captivity. 

44. 4 ox. tT. papt.| In opposition 
to the ox. just mentioned: but also in pur- 
suance of one of the great aims of the 
speech, to shew that holiness is not con- 


vuov Ago: om k m 13. 
.]umov (? maparurov) D!(txt D4). 


Kata To Tal. . 


om 
€opa- 


etatato &}, 


etewoev EK X(but corrd) 5. 13. 180. 


jined to locality or building. This part of 
his subject Stephen now enters on more 
particularly. The words 7) ok. 7. wapr. 
are the LXX rendering of tyi9 5a (Num. 
xvi. 18, 19 al.) ‘the tabernacle of the as- 
sembly’ (or ‘congregation,’ E. V.). They 
apparently derived the latter word from 
‘ay, ‘testatus est,’ instead of 1y, ‘con- 
stituit.’ tUmov | (ref.): another con- 
trast, cf. tUmous ods érorhoate, ver. 43. 

45. eisyy.| absolute: introduced, 
Viz. eis Thy yhv:—not connected with év 
TH Katarx.,—see below. Siadcé. | 
Having inherited it, i.e. succeeded to its 
custody and privileges. The sense of ‘suc- 
cessores,’ ‘qui majores exceperunt,’ is un- 
grammatical; as also is that of ‘ postea,’ 
‘ deinceps.’ év TH Katacyéoer| at 
(or ‘in’) their taking possession. The 
Vulg. rendering, ‘in possessionem gen- 
tium,’ is philologically inadmissible; ‘in 
terram a gentibus occupatam’ (Calvin, De 
Dieu, Grot., Kuin.) is still worse. The 
passage of the LXX, Num. xxxii. 5, 50047w 
N Yi arn Tots oikKeTAULS Gov ev kaTaTXETEL, 
brought forward to justify these render- 
ings, is directly against them. The word 
is one of those examples of verbal nouns in 
-o.s where the meaning hovers uncertainly 
between the act of doing and the thing 
done. Such is often the case with kavyn- 
ots in St. Paul. Cf. for a very near ap- 
proach to the concrete meaning of this 
word, Num. xxvii. 4, 7. But, abstract or 
concrete, it always, as might be expected 
from the very composition of the word, is 
used of that final and settled possession 
which Israel took of the land, not of that 
transitory possession from which the gentes 
were driven out. So that Wordsw.’s 
rendering, ‘‘the portion, or possession of 
the Gentiles,’ is out of the question. 

The martyr combines rapidly a con- 
siderable period, during which this «ard- 
oxeots and this expulsion was taking place 
(for it was not complete till the time of 


80 


m = 2 Tim. i. 
18. 

n Luke i. 30. 
Heb. iv. 16 
only. Gen. 
Xxxili. 10, 

o constr. (but 
not ellips.), 
ch. iii. 14 reff, 
see Eccl. ii. 
10, 

p Psa. cxxxi. 
5. = Heb. 
xii. 17. see 
Hos, xii. 8. 

q 2 Pet. i. 13, 
lionly. Ps. 
xxv. 8. 

r 1 CHRON, 
xxvill. 6, 
Matt. vii. 24, 
26. Luke vi. 
48, 49 (but 
oixtav). 

s abs., Luke i. 


> tal r sS 
O€V QUT@ ~ OLKOV, 


TIPABEIS, ATIIOSTOAON. 


VII. 


, lal rn o r / \ 
eTrou TOV © Tatépwv °Hpav, 1 Eas TOV Hyuepov Aaveid, ds 
mn .# n / dhe 2 fal 6 fal . 024 p € = 

evpev "Yapw éevaTrov Tod Oeod Kal °yTHTAaTO ” EvpeEty 

a rn a \ ? , 
Toxjvona TO *Oed “laxwoB: 47 Loropav S€ * @Kkodop- 
418 GAN ody O Sinpictos ev *yetpoTrol- 

, a e ae. | f 

nto “ KaToiKel, Kab@s 0 TpodyTns Aéyet, * Y°O GYPavos 
, a a a oD 
uot Opovos, 7 S€ yh” bToTOdiOY THY Tod@Y pou" ~* TrosOV 
° ’ / , 

‘olxov * olxodopnjoeTe poor, &YEL KUpLOS, 7) Tis Y TOTOS 
Qn Yh cal 
THs *KataTravcews pov ; © ovyl )*yelp jou EToingev TAaUTA 
/ a 51 b Xx / Drv \ cde ? / n d ry , 
TwavTa; oKdnpotpaynror Kat “°arrepituntot TH Kapola 

\ lal > / al an an 
Kal T0is “Mow, Upwey Adel TO TrevpaTe TO ayiwo ' avTuTi- 


32, 35, 76. vi. 35 only. Deut. xxxii.Sal. t ch. xvii. 24. Mark xiv. 58. Eph. ii. 11. Heb. ix. 11, 24 
only. Isa. ii. 18. u of God, ch, xvii. 24. Matt. xxiii. 21, Eph. iii. 17 only. (see Eph. ii. 22.) Ps. ii. 8. Isa. 
lvii. 15. v Isa. lxvi. 1. w ch. ii. 35 reff. x ch. iv. 7 reff, y = ch. iv. 31. 


z Heb. iii. 11, 18. iv. 1,3, &c., only. Deut. xii. 9. = 
only. Exod. xxxili. 3, 5 al. ce here only. 
f here only. Num, xxvii. 14. Herodian vi. 3. 
46. om 7nT70aTo N!. 
rel 36 vulg Syr Chr @e Thl. 
47. cartouwy AC: cadrouwy &. 
Thi-sif. 


48. o de vy. ov(om ov D-lat) karo. ev xeup. D. 
planatory gloss: or from ch xvii. 4), with HP rel 56 Chr Thl Aug: 
for kafws,ws D: Kka6ws rat E-gr(and lat?) 76. 
49. for wot, wou D'(txt D8): add eotw D. 
for Tts, motos (as LXX) D. 


vulg syrr coptt eth Pamph-int Fulg. 


syr). oixodounoate B 42. 
D 13 Thart. 


Ps. exxxi. 14. 


oxnveua bef evp. D. 


ovxod. B}(sic: see table) D. 


b here 
e Jer. vi. 10. 


a see ch, xi. 21 reff. 
Jer. ix. 26. 


d Ezek. xliv. 7. 
* olk@ BDHN!: Gew ACEPNS 
eautw CH 


rec aft xepor. ins vaous (ex- 
om ABCDEN p 


kat n yn (as LXX-B) B vss(not vulg 
at end add ecru 


50. mavra bef tavta (ef Lxx) ACDEP 1m: txt BHN p rel. 
dl. for rn Kapdia, kapdiars (corrd to plur to suit the plur subject) ACD; tats Kapdias 


Nc vss Chr Jer: kapdias B(sic: see table): 


David) in order to arrive at the next 
great event of his history, the substitution 
of the temple of Solomon for the taber- 
nacle. 46. yrycaTo| asked permis- 
sion, see 2 Sam. vii. 2 ff., in which this 
request is made through Nathan the pro- 
phet, and at first conceded by Nathan, 
though afterwards, on a revelation made 
from God, denied :—not ‘wished’ (Grot., 
Kuin.: ‘desired,’ E. V.). The vow (a 
species of prayer) here referred to, is de- 
fined by the words evdpeiv oxyvepa, to be 
that mentioned Ps. exxxi. 1—5 (LXX). 
48.| But, though Solomon built 
Him an house, we are not to suppose, for 
all that, that He is confined to earthly 
spots. KaQms 6 mp. A.| We have in 
substance the same declaration by Solomon 
himself at the dedication of his temple, 
1 Kings viii. 27; see also the beautiful 
prayer of David, 1 Chron, xxix. LO—19, 
The citation is freely from the LXX. 
The student will not fail to be interested in 
observing the apparent reference to this de- 
claration in Stephen’s apology, by St. Paul, 
ch. xvii. 24. 51.] I do not think there 
is any occasion to suppose an interruption 
Srom the audience to have occasioned this 
outbreak of holy indignation. At each se- 


txt EHP p rel spec Syr coptt Ath Cyr-jer 


parate recital (vv. 9, 25, 35, 39 ff.) he has 
dwelt, with continually increasing fervour, 
on the rebellions against and rejections of 
God by His people. He has now brought 
down the history to the establishment of 
the temple worship. From Solomon’s time 
to his own, he saw but a succession of 
apostasies, idolatries, rejection of God’s 
prophets:—a dark and loathsome cata- 
logue, terminated by the betrayal and 
murder of the Just One Himself. It is 
not at all beyond probability, to believe 
that the zeal of his fervent spirit was by 
the view of this, the filling up of the mea- 
sure of their iniquities, kindled into a flame 
of inspired invective. I find that this is 
also Neander’s view, in opposition to the 
generality of Commentators (P.u. L.,p. 92), 
as also that of Prof. Hackett, in his com- 
mentary on the Acts: and I cannot but 
think it far the most probable. evrai0a 
Aoimdy Katapopikas TE Adyw KEeXpNTat. 
TOAAH hv wappnola wéAdAovTos ad’Tov amo- 
Oviotkew: Kal yap Kal rovTo olua adrov 
eidévai, Chrysost. ox«dnp. kK. arrep. | 
Words and figures familiar to the prophets 
in speaking of the rebellious Israel: see, 
besides reff., Deut. ix. 6,13; Neh. ix. 16:— 
Deut. x. 16; xxx. 6 Heb. See also Rom. 


46—54, IIPAREI> AITOSTOAQN. 81 


2 iva TOV Tpo- g Matt. vi. 1. 


ee: viii. 


id e / lal lal 
mete, ®@s ot “cratépes "buav Kal duels. ° 


c 
oe wie ovK iédiwEav ot * maTepes h Dwov 3 Kal ATEKTELVAY y, ci. iii.25 rele 
i Matt. v.10, 


pe TOUS ‘TpoxararyyetNavtas mept THs ‘éNevoews TOD ™OiKaiov, 11. ch. 7 ‘t 
5. xxii. 
klm OU vOV vets " qpodotar Kat ° hoveis éeyéverOe, °° Poltwes 15;" Ps. 
pls q Xr \ , mieat s \ > / \ > k ch. iii. 18 
eXaBere Tov vomov "eis *dvatayas ayyéh@v Kal ovK ~ oniyt. 


1 here only +. 


b] / iW, by / \ oe / a = 
‘épurdEate. 54 "Axovovtes dé tadta “dverrplovto tats ™3%%;— ch 
14. 1 Pet. iii, 18. see James v. 6, n Luke vi. 16. 2 Tim. iii.4 only +. 2 Macc. v.15. x. 13, 22 only 
o Matt. xxii. 7. ch. iii. 14. xxviii. 4. 1 Pet. iv.15. Rev. xxi. 8. xxii. 15 only. 4 Kings ix. 3l compl. Wisd. 
xii. 5 only. p = ch. x. 41 reff. q = John vii. 39. Rom. iv. llal. Hos. xiii. 1. 
r= ch. ii. 39. viii. 20. s Rom. xiii. 2 only. Ezraiv. 11 only. see Gal. iii. 19. t= ch. 
xvi. 4 reff. uch, y. 33 only}. 1 Chron, xx. 3 only. 





Chr, Thdrt Thi. 

om Kat vuers D. 
52. for o: mar. vu., exervor D'(txt D®). 
m. (ins tTys D3) ed. D?. 

note), with HP rel Chr Thl: 
53. epudaterde A. 


add vuwy & o. 


ii. 29. eotv | [should hardly think of 
any allusion to Ps, xl. (xxxix.) 6,—because 
the LXX have rendered ‘mine ears hast 
thou opened’ by c@ua katnpriocw mot. 

7 Tv. T. ay. avtT.| Apparently a reference 
to Isa. Ixiii. 10. The instances as yet had 
been confined to of mat. bu.: now he has 
arrived at their own times. The ¢wo are 
taken up again in the next verse. 

52. tiva T. mpod.| See Matt. xxiii. 31 ff. : 
2 Chron. xxxvi.16: where the same general 
expressions are used of their persecuting 
the prophets. Such sayings are not to be 
pressed to the letter, but represent the 
uniform attitude of disobedience and hos- 
tility which they assumed to the messengers 
of God. See also the parable, Matt. xxi. 
35. tTovs mpok.| The office of all the 
prophets, see ch. iii. 18. The assertion is 
repeated, to connect them, by this title, 
with Him, whom they announced. 

Tov Sucatov] Schéttg. vol. ii. p. 18, has 
shewn from the Rabbinical writings that 
this name was used by the Jews to de- 
signate the Messiah. See reff. and note on 
James vy. 6. mpoddtat| By Judas’s 
treachery, of which the Sanhedrists had 
been the accomplices ; Matt. xxvi. 14—16: 
—doveis, by the hands of the Romans ; 
ch. ii. 28, note. éyeveoOe is preferable 
not only on account of its Ms. authority, 
but as being the historical tense, like the 
rest. It was probably altered to the per- 
fect, as suiting the time then present, 
better than the aorist. 53.] The use 
of otrw es, instead of of, so very frequent 
in the Acts and Epistles, occurs when the 
clause introduced by it contains a further 
explanation of the position or classification 
of the person or persons alluded to, and 
not when the relative serves for simple 
identification. See Rom. i. 25, 32. 

eis Statayas ayyéAwv | Many explanations 

Von. II 


for ws, ka0ws D. 


ins ka bef vuwy D!. 


QM©EKT. AUTOUS TOUS TpOKaTayyEeAAOYTAS 


rec yeyeryade (corrn to appy more suitable tense, see 
txt ABCDER® k p Orig. 


have been given. Chrys. Siatax0évra 
vouov A€yel, TY eyXeELpLobEYTA adTa BV 
ayyedov Toy op0evTa atTG ev TE Bato: 
and ic. véuov AaBdvtas Biaraters éxov- 
Ta, aitives iodyyeAov emolovy moAitelav 
éxew Tovs tedouvtas avtdy. Heinsius 
and Lightfoot understand by ayyéa. the 
prophets : Grot., Calov., and Krebs, ‘ pre- 
sentibus s angelorum ordinibus,’ taking d:a- 
Taras = Od.atdéers in the sense of divi- 
sions of anarmy (Judith viii. 36), in which 
it never occurs,—not to say that eis will 
not bear this: Beza, Calv., Pise., Elsn., 
Hamm., Kuin., &e., ‘ab angelis promul- 
gatum, which eis will not bear (ev): 
Winer, Gr., edn. 6, § 32. 4, b, as com- 
mands of angels’ (but see below), which, 
however, was not the fact (Mey., who 
refers to Jos. Antt. xv. 5. 3, nua@v Ta KadA- 
AtoTa TOV Soyudtwy Kal Ta dolmTaTAa TAY 
év Tots vouos Bu ayyeAwy Tapa TOV Beod 
pabdvtwy) :—the Syriac version, ‘ per man- 
datum angelorum’—Vulg. and Calv., 
‘in dispositione (or -onibus) angelorum ? 
Schittg., ‘per ministerium angelorum. 
These three last are precluded by the fore- 
going remarks. The key to the right ren- 
dering seems to be the similar expr ession 
in ref. Gal., 6 véuos Statayels Sv ay- 
yéov. The law was given by God, but 
announced by angels. The people received 
God’s law then, eis Statayas ayyédwv, 
at the injunction (a sense of d:ar. amply 
justified, see Palm and Rost’s lex. d:draéis, 
and Polyb. iv. 19.10; 87.5: and preferred 
by Winer in his last edn. ., ut supra) of 
angels. So Matt. xii. 41, werevdnoay eis 
TO Kypvypa ‘Iava, ‘they repented at the 
preaching of Jonas.’ The guly other le- 
gitimate rendering, ‘as the injunctions of 
angels,’ comes under the objections made to 
Winer’s former view, above. 54—60. | 
EFFECT OF THE SPEECH: STONING OF 
G 


82 


v here only. 
Ps. xxxivy. 16 
al. see Matt. 
viii. 12 al. 

w Matt. xv. 





Rey. i. 7. 
x ch. ii. 30 reff. 
y Luke iy. 1. 
ch. vi. 5. xi. 
24 only. 
z ch. i. 10 reff. 
a ch. ii. 25 reff. 
b = Mark vy. 15. 
John ix. § al. 
ec Luke ii. 23 
(from Exod. 
xiii. 12). 
xxiv. 31 &c. 
ch. xvi. 14. xvii. 3. L. only, exc. Mark xii. 34. 
e = here only. Isa. lii. 15. 


éoTt@ta Tov OYeov. 


TIPABEIZ ATOZTTOAON. 


VII. 55—60. 


d Matt. xxvii. 50. ver.60. Rev. vi. 10 al. 2 Kings xix. 4. 


f Matt. viii. 32 ||. ch. xix. 29 only. 1 Kings xv. 19. 2 Macc. x. 16. (-m7, ch. 


h = Matt. xxi. 39 ||. Luke iv. 29. Lev. xiv. 40. 


xiv. 5. -pnua, Rey. xviii. 21.) g ch. i. 14 reff. 3 uh 
i here bis. Matt. xxi. 35. xxiii. 37 ||. (John viii. 5, v. r.) ch. xiv.5, Heb. xii. 20 only. Exod. viii. 26 al. 

54. akovaaytes Se avrov D. om tavta XN}. Kat eBp. Te DI. aft 05. 
ins aurwy E k Syr sah eth. 

55. aft mAnpns ins moTews kat N 0. ino. Tov Kupioy ek de. Tou 8. eat. D. for 


7. Oeov, avtov C 1 Thi-fin. 


56. ree avewymevous (corrn to more usual word), with D-corr! HP rel 36 Epiph Chr 


Constt Thdrt Thl: nvewyu. D!: txt ABCR p Ath Cyr-jer. 


m vss Nys Epiph, Cyr-jer Chr, Aug. 


58. aft exB. ins avrov A k 13 sah Thl-fin. 


STEPHEN. 54.] S.emp., see note on ref. 

55.] Certainly, in so far as the vision 
of Stephen was supernatural, it was not 
necessary that the material heavens should 
have been visible to him; but from the 
words arevicas ets Tov ovpavév it would 
seem that they were. We are not told 
where the Sanhedrim were assembled. It 
does not seem as if they were convened in 
the ordinary session room: it may have 
been in one of the courts of the temple, 
which would give room for more than the 
members of the Sanhedrim to be present, as 
seems to have been the case. éoTOTa. | 
A reason why the glorified Saviour was 
seen standing, and not sitting, has been 
pleasingly given by Chrysostom (in Cra- 
mer’s Catena): tf ody tor@ra Kal ovx) 
Kabrjpevoyv; wa delty Thy avTiAnyw Thy 
eis Thy udptupa: Kal yap wep) Tov maTpds 
Aéyera “avdora 6 Oeds.” Similarly Gre- 
gory the Great, Hom. ii. 29, vol. i. p. 1572, 
‘Stephanus stantem vidit, quem adjutorem 
habuit.’ So also Arator, i, 611 ff. p. 124, 
ed. Migne, ‘pro martyre surgit, Quem 
tune stare videt; confessio nostra seden- 
tem Cum soleat celebrare magis.’ [See 
also the collect for St. Stephen’s day. } 
But not perhaps correctly: for ‘help’ does 
not seem here to be the applicable idea, but 
the confirmation of his faith by the ecstatic 
vision of the Saviour’s glory at God’s right 
hand. I should be rather disposed to 
think that there was reference in the vision 
to that in Zech. iii. 1, where Zech. sees 
"Incovy Tov iepéa Toy méyay, EoTaTa mpd 
mposwrov ayyeAou kuplov. Stephen, under 
accusation of blaspheming the earthly 
temple, is granted a sight of the heavenly 


-are not instances). 


ear. bef ex de& ACER! 


aft €A.@. ins avroy D Syr syr-w-ast 


temple; being cited before the Sadducee 
High Priest who believed neither angel 
nor spirit, he is vouchsafed a vision of the 
heavenly Hien Priest, standing and 
ministering at the throne amidst the 
angels and just men made perfect. 

56.] This is the only time that our Lord 
is by human lips called the Son or MAN 
after His ascension (Rey. i. 13; xiv. 14, 
And why here? I 
believe, for this reason. Stephen, full of 
the Holy Ghost, speaking now not of 
himself at all (ver. 55), but entirely by the 
utterance of the Spirit, repeats the very 
words, Matt. xxvi. 64, in which Jesus Him- 
self, before this council, had foretold His 
glorification ;—and assures them that that 
exaltation of the Son of Man, which they 
should hereafter witness to their dismay, 
was already begun and actual. 58. 
é&w tr. wéA.] See Levit. xxiv. 14. ‘Locus 
Japidationis erat extra urbem : omnes enim 
civitates muris cincte paritatem habent ad 
castra Israelis.’ Babyl. Sanhedr. ad loc. 
(Meyer.) Cf. also Heb. xiii. 12, 13. 
€ALGoBdArovv | they stoned him: an an- 
ticipation of the fact, the details of which 
follow: not, ‘ they prepared to stone him? 
nor ‘jam in itinere ad supplicii locum petu- 
lanter eum lapidibus lacessebant ’ (Heinr.) : 
nor need we conjecture €AdoAdyoury with 
Markland. Stoning was the punishment 
of blaspheming, Levit. xxiv. 16. The ques- 
tion whether this was a legal proceeding on 
sentence, or a tumultuary one, is not easy 
to answer. It would appear from John 
xviii. 31, that the Jews had not legally the 
power of putting any man to death (see 
note there). Certainly, from the narrative 


/ > aA \ Vv ” \ A00 w.2 , > f. 
kapdlais av’tav Kal Y €Bpuvxov Tovs ddovtas “ ém’ avTov. anc 
Ee ' HP 
55 X iqrdpyov O€ YaAnpns Y TvEvpatos Y aylov, *aTEvioas fg 

> X\ > ~ HS) 60 0 lal \ a nr € lal a > 
eis Tov ovpavoy eldev d0Eav Beod Kai Inoody éaTaTa * éx 
la) fal fa) > \ lal 
SeEvav Tod Oeod, °° Kai eimev 1d0d » Pewpd Tods ovpavords 
© Sunvouypévous, Kal Tov viov Tod avOpwrov *éx« SeEvav 
\ nr 
57 4 xpaéavtes O€ 4 hava 4 weyady © cvv- 
/ belly S > Lal \ f bd g e (al Oc > 9 > f 
éxyov Ta ata avTav Kat ‘ Hpynoay § ouolvpadcoy em avTor, 
58 kal » éxBarovtes é€w THs Toews ‘ EALOOBorOUY. Kal oF 


mo 


ru= 
ou- 
IV ewe 
CDE 
Nab 
xhk 
.op 
3 


were Tl’. 


IIPABETS ATOSTOAON. 


83 


ra 4 lal +s 
K waptupes |arrébevto Ta iwatia avT@y ™ Tapa TOs TOdag * = Devt. xvi. 


; ; 
"yeaviov KaXoupévov Lavrov, Kai iérvGoBorovy Tov 


\ fal / 
TO P qTvEevpa Mov. 


\_. 1 Matt. xii. 14. 


Rom. xiii. 12. 
Eph. iv. 22 
, 02 , \ , y > ao bee Gait 
Lrépavov ° érixarovpevov Kai Néyovta Kupie Inood déEar ®- {Csi ii. 
\ \ \ , - a ames i, 
60 4 Geis 5é TA Y yovata * Expakev § povan 2. "Tpit. 
s , , \ ¢ , ea s \ e / ii. 1 only. 
peyaryn Kupre, wnt otnons avtois TavTnv THY apmapTtiay, =? Mace. 
v » OO. 


\ a > \ u2 0. 
Kat TOUTO eElTT@V “ ExoLuUnln. 


Vv fal Aw? / > nq 
OUVEVOOK@V T™) QVALPECEL AUTOV. 


46\| Mt. J. Eccl. xii. 7. 


3 Kings viii. 54. ras above (q). 


v 1 Cor. vii. 12, 13 reff. w here only. 


coptt arm. 
(ic Thl-fin.—eaurt. B. 


60. om de D!(ins D-corr!): Te e. 
om NR}. add Aeywy D am spec copt. 


VIII. 1 Sadros dé Hw 


q ch. ix. 40. xx. 36. xxi. 5. 
Rom. xi. 4 reff. Luke y. 8. 
t met., here only. propr., Matt. xxvi. 15? 2 Kings xiv. 26. 
Num. xi. 15. 


m ch. iv. 35 reff. 
n ch. xx. 9 reff. 
Acts only. 

o ch, ii. 21 reff. 
p = Luke xxiii. 
Luke xxii. 41 only +. see 
Heb. xii. 12. s ver. 57. 

u = 1 Cor. vii. 39 reff. 


> / \ z >’ f? fol 
éryéveto O€ év exeivn TH 
Mark xv. 19. 


Zech. xi. 12. 


om avtay HP ab! fg hl m Thi-sif: ins A(B)CDEN p rel 36 vss Chr 
aft veay. ins Tivos D Syr arm: tov f h 13 Chr, Thl-sif. 
59. aft imo. ins xpiote C d 40 Chr Thart. 


gpavnv peyadnv Dl: dwynv weyadn C1 p: 
atnoes D)(txt D8) d 180. ree Tv 


ap. bef ravr., with EHPN rel syr copt Chr; Thdrt Chron: txt ABCD vulg spec Syr 


sah eth Petr Iren-int Cypr. 


before us, and from the fact of a bloody 
persecution having taken place soon after 
it, it seems that the Jews did, by connivance 
of, or in the absence of the Procurator, 
administer summary punishments of this 
kind. But here no sentence is recorded : 
and perhaps the very violence and zelotic 
character of the execution might constitute 
it, not an encroachment on the power of 
the Procurator, as it would have been if 
strictly in form of law, but a mere out- 
break, and as such it might be allowed to 
pass unnoticed. That they observed the 
forms of their own law, in the place and 
manner of the stoning, is no objection to 
this view. ot paptupes] See ref. 
They disencumbered themselves of their 
loose outer garments, &ste elvat Kovpor 
kal arapamddiorot eis TO AoBoActv. Theo- 
phyl. améQevro | to keep them. 

Such notices are deeply interesting, when 
we recollect by whom they were in all 
probability carefully inserted. See ch. xxii. 
19, 20, and note on ch. xxvi. 10:—from 
which it appears that Saul can certainly 
not have been less than thirty at this time. 
He was a member of the Sanhedrim, and 
soon after was despatched on an important 
mission with their authority. 59. |] The 
attempt to escape from this direct prayer 
to the Saviour by making *Inaov the geni- 
tive, and supposing it addressed to the 
Father,—in the face of the ever-recurring 
words kUpios “Inoots (see Rev. xxii. 20 
especially), and the utter absence of any 
instance or analogy to justify it,—is only 
characteristic of the school to which it 
belongs. Yet in this case it has been fa- 
voured even by Bentleyand Valcknaer, who 
supposed Oedy to have been omitted in the 
text, being absorbed by the preceding -ov. 


But if any such accus. had been used, it 
would certainly have been rdv Oedv. 
SéEat Td wv. p.| The same prayer in sub- 
stance had been made by our Lord on the 
cross (ref. Luke) to His Father. To Him 
was now committed the key of David. 
Similarly, the young man Saul, in after 
years: mwémerouar OT. Suvatés eorw Thy 
mapabnkny pov duvddta: eis exelyny thy 
jeepavy, 2 Tim. i. 12. 60.| The 
more accurate philological Commentators, 
De Wette and Meyer, deny that orhons 
here can, as ordinarily explained, refer to 
weighing (reff. Matt.; Jer. xxxix. [xxxii. ] 
10), smee not the sin, but the punish- 
ment, would be the thing weighed out,— 
and it would be harsh to take the one 
for the other, in a sentence of this kind. 
Meyer would understand fordya: as op- 
posed to apiévar, Thy awaptiay, ‘Fix not 
this sin upon them: but De Wette, as 
seems to me more probably, renders it 
Reckon not this sin to them (‘lay not this 
sin to their charge,’ E. V.), supporting this 
by Rom. x. 3. This again was some- 
what similar (though not exactly, see note 
there) to our Lord’s prayer, Luke xxiii. 34. 
éxouzyOn | Not a Christian expres- 
sion only: Wetstein, on Matt. xxvii. 52, 
cites Jewish examples: and we have in 
the Anthology, iii. 1. 10, Tr75e Zdwy 6 
Alwvos *Axdv@.os tepby tmvoy | Komarat: 
OvicKew wy A€ye TOs ayafovs. But it be- 
came the usual Christian term for death. 
Its use here, when the circumstances, 
and the actors in them, are remembered, 
is singularly touching, from the contrast. 
Cuap. VIII. 1—3.] PERSECUTION OF 
THE CHURCH BY SAUL, CONSEQUENT ON 
THE DEATH OF STEPHEN. 1. ovvev8d. | 
See reff.: and compare his own confession, 


G 2 


84 


x 2 Cor. xii. 10 
reff. 

y ch, xiii. 50. 

z ver. 4. ch. xi. 
19 only. 
Ezek. xxii. 
15. 

a plur., Luke 
Xxi. 2 
John iv. 35. 
James v. 4 1 


only. Ezek. 

ii. 15. > , \ \ 
Dinveonlyt. EKKAnoiay fKaTa ToUS 
Job 26 

ies Soph. 


only. 


d here only. Gen. 1. 10. 
f = Luke xiii. 22. 

Rey. xii. 4 only. 
Isa. xxxiv. 2 al. fr. 





xxi. § 8. oh xiv. 19. xvii. 6. 
xxii. 4. 2 Cor. iv. ll al. 


Cap. VIII. 1. 8 0 join cavaos. . . avrov to ch vii. 
rec maytes Te, with A k o Syr wth: 


BCDEHP p rel vulg syr coptt Ps-Eus Isid Chr, Thl. 


D sah. 


IIPABETS AIIOSTOAON. 


\ rl 
‘ xomreTOv péyav éT avTO. 
« 


Micah i. 8. 
ix. 6. viii. 1. 
2 Kings xvii. 13. 


Via", 


nuépa * Siwypos péyas Y él tiv éxxrnolav tiv év ‘lepo- 
corvpouss TavtTes b€” SuecTTapnoay KaTa Tas * ywpas TIS 
‘lovéaias Kai Lapapelas TARY TOV aTrodTONV. 
exopicav b€ TOV LTépavov avdpes © evAaBeEls Kal ETrolnTav 


2 > gup- 


3 Sadros Sé © EXvpalveTo THY 
oikous § eis7ropevopevos * cvpwv 


Te avopas Kal yuvaiKkas ‘ rapedibou eis * duNaKip. 


e here only. = 2 Chron. xvi. 10. and constr., 
g ch. iii. Marki 21 al. h John 

i ‘iconstr., Luke xxi. 12. xxiv. 7. ch. 
k ch. vy. 19 reff. 2 Kings xx. 3. 


aft weyas ins Kat OAenpers 
om Se 8! 13. 47: Kar mavres N8: txt 
om tns Di(ins D?), 


aft aoc. add o: eweway ev tepovceAnu D} sah Aug. 


2. cvveomioaytes D-gr(txt D>): cuvekouicarto b o. 
rec eroioayto, with EHP rel Chr, @e Thi: 
eAvynvaro E-gr weth-rom. 


ath. 
3. 0 eo. D. 
tous bef avdpas &1(X% disapproving). 


ch. xxvi.9—11. From this time, the nar- 
rative takes up Saul, and, at first with con- 
siderable interruptions (ch. viii. x. xi. xii.), 
but after ch. xiii. 1 entirely, follows his 
history. év éx. TH Hp. can hardly mean, 
as some (Dr. Burton, De Wette, Meyer, 
Stier) would render it, on that very day, 
viz. when Stephen was stoned. For what 
follows, mavres 5€ Sieomdpnoay . . cannot 
have happened on the same day, but would 
take some little time: and it is hardly al- 
lowable to render éeyévero ‘ broke out” We 
have ev ex. TH nuépa used indefinitely, Luke 
vi. 23; John xiv. 20; xvi. 23, 26. In Luke 
xvii. 31 it has direct reference to a juépa 
just mentioned. aavtes| Not per- 
haps Literally,—or some of them soon 
returned: see ch. ix. 26—30. It may 
describe the general dispersion, without 
meaning that every individual fled. 

Sapapetas | Connected with ver. 4: this 
word is not without importance, as intro- 
ducing the next step in the dissemination 
of the Gospel, according to our Lord’s 
command in ch. i. 8. mV TOV 
amootédwy | Perhaps, from their exalted 
position of veneration by the people, the 
persecution did not extend to them: per- 
haps they remained, as possessed of supe- 
rior firmness and devotion. But this latter 
reason is hardly applicable, after the com- 
mand of our Lord, ‘ When they persecute 


you in one city, flee to another. Matt. 
x. 23. Stier (Reden d. Apostel, i. 253) 


refers their remaining to an intimation of 
the Spirit, to stay and strengthen those 
who were left (€répous yevéo@ar Opdcous 
atriot, Chrys.). Mr. Humphry (Comm. 
on Acts) cites an ancient tradition, men- 
we ps Clem. Alex., Strom. vi. 5, end, p. 
762 P, from the Predicatio Petri (and by 


for de, re D5(and lat) E-gr 
txt ABCDX k p Chr, Thar. 
maped.dous(sic) D!. ins 


Euseb. H. E. v. 18), that the Apostles were 
ordered by our Lord to remain at Jerusa- 
lem twelve years : onoly 6 Tlérpos cipnke- 
vat Toy Kbpiov Tois amooTdAols "Eay sev ouv 
Tis OeAHon Tov "Iopanr eravojoa Sia 
tod dvduards pou motevew em Toy Gedy, 
apebhoovrat avTe af auapriar pera dd- 
dexa ern e&éAOeTE els THY KdTMOY, MH TIS 
elrn Ovk axnkdauev. But this could not 
be the case, as we have Peter and John 
going down to Samaria, ver. 14. 

2. avdp. evAaBeis| Whether Jews or 
Christians is not certain. Ananias is so 
called, ch. xxii. 12 (not in rec.), and he 
was a Christian. At all events, there is 
no contrast implied in the 6€ (as Mey.), 
‘Yet, notwithstanding the persecution and 
dispersion, pious men were found who, 
&e.:’ the 5¢ is merely the transitional par- 
ticle,—and, so far from its being any un- 
usual thing to bury an executed person, it 
was commanded among the Jews. Olshau- 
sen thinks that, if they had been Chris- 
tians, the term &eAgo! would have been 
used: but this does not seem by any means 
certain : we can hardly reason so minutely 
from the diction of one section in the nar- 
rative to that of another, especially in the 
case of a section so distinct and peculiar as 
this one. [ Besides, ad<Apoi in this sense 
does not occur till ch. ix. 30: see reff. 
there.| Probably they were pious Jews, 

not yet converts, but hearers and admirers 
of Stephen. 3. éAupatveto | Properly 
used of wild beasts, or of hostile armies, 
devastating and ravaging. (See examples 
in Kuin.) KaTG TOUS olKous, enter- 
ing (the houses) from house to house, — 

a pregnant construction. ovpwv| So 
Philo, in Flace. 9, vol. ii. p. 526, updpevor 
kK. Tatovmevor. dia Tis méAews amdons 


2—8. IIPABEITS AIOSTOAON. 85 


4 Ot pév odv | Siacrapévres ™ SupAOov ” edaryyentGopevoe ver) 
Tov ™oyov. ° Didemmos Sé °KatehOov eis wOAW TiS Sis” 
Lapapelas ? éxnpuccev Vavtois Tov yptotov. § * mposetyov x25. Luke 
5é of dydow Tots NEyouévors bd TOD Dirlamrov § buoOupa-_ }K8 
Sov, tév TH axovew avto’s Kal Brérew TA onmeia a 
erroieu’ 7 moNNol yap TOV “éyovT@V “Y TvEevpaTa YY aKd- 

Gapta “ Bodvta pwr} peyadyn *€Enpyovto, ToNAol Oe 
Y mapanredupévot Kal * ywrol * COepaTrevOnoav: § éyéveto O€ 


n ch. xv, 35 
only. 

o = Luke iv. 
31. ix. 37. 
ch, ix. 32 al. 
(Luke only, 
exc. James 
iii. 15.) 

2 Mace. xi. 29 
(Wisd, xi. 


22) only. p = with ace. of person, 1 Cor. i. 23, Phil. i. 15. «, 7. xp., L.P. K.T. ino 
ch. ix. 20 reff. kK. Xp. ino., 2 Cor. iv. 5. see 2 Cor. i. 19. q so ch. xx. 2. Matt. iv. 23. Luke 
iv. 15, _2)Cor. ii, 13. r = and constr., vy. 10,11. ch. xvi. 14. 1 Tim. i, 4. iii. 8. iv. 1,13. Tit. 





i.14. Heb. ii. 1. vii.13. 2 Pet.i.19 only. Ps. v. 2. s ch, i. 14 reff. t ch. ix. 3 reff. 
u Mark iii. 30 only. v ch. v. 16 reff. w Luke xviii. 7, 38. ch. xvii.6 al. Gen. xxxix. 14. 
x = Matt. xii. 43. xvii. 18. ch. xvi. 8 al. y Luke v. 18, 24. ch. ix. 33. Luke only, exec. Heb. xii. 
12. 1 Mace. ix. 55. z Matt. xi. 5. ch, iii. 2. Lev. xxi. 18, a Matt. iv. 
23. xvii. S$. (Sir. xviii: 19.) : 
4. ndOov XN}. ‘ 
5. Kade Mwy D!-gr(txt DS). ins Tyv bef mod. (exegetical addition. The 


art is not needed, see note) ABN m.' Katoapias NI. 

6. rec for de, re, with E-gr HP rel eth-pl: txt ABCD?N ah p 36 vulg E-lat syr 
coptt Eus.—ws Se nrovoy may ot oxAot mposerx. Tos Aey. D'(corrd to txt by D% and- 
corr). om tov D!(ins D8) f. HOLOLOOss \lerstel t= ] ovro or -re D1 (txt D3). 

avtov X!(perhaps: s added or renewed by &3). 

7. rec woAdwv (alteration to avoid the difficulty: see note. Meyer's account, that 
efnpxeto was first altered to -ovro to suit mvevpata [the converse is much more pro- 
bable|, and then mordAwy to -o1 to furnish a plur nog to cénpxovto, seems to me very 
unlikely), with HP rel copt Chr Gc Thi: [. . -|(r[ap]a)? (aro D8) roAdog D!: 
txt ABCEN p 36 vulg syrr sah. rec’ wey. bef gwvn, with coptt: txt 
ABCDEHPNX rel vulg syrr Chr Thl. rec efnpxeto (see above), with HP rel Chr 


Thl-sif: txt ABCDEN k p Thl-fin. 
om kat D! (ins D2)m. 


aft moAA. de ins kat EK 13 syr Chr. 
eNeparevovto D 13. 


8. rec ka ey., with EHP rel syrr Thl-sif: xapa 7. wey. ey. D-gr: txt ABCN p copt 


etavardbnoar. mapedidou | viz. to the 
gaolers—so mapadiSovs eis puAakds, ch. 
Xxii. 4. 

4—13.] PREACHING OF THE GOSPEL 
IN SAMARIA BY PHILIP. 4.] peév ovv 
resumes the subject dropped at the end of 
ver, 1, and determines this verse to be the 
opening of a new section, not the close of 
the former. SAO. | See reff. evayy. 
tT. Néy.] Here first we become acquainted 
with the missionary language so frequent 
in the rest of the book: and we have tév 
Aéyov, an expression very familiar among 
Christians when the book was written, for 
T. A. TOD Beod. 5. Pidummos| The 
deacon ; not, as apparently implied in the 
citation from Polycrates in Eus. H. E,. iii. 
31, v. 24, one of the twelve: this is pre- 
cluded by vv. 1 and 14, And it is pro- 
bable, that the persecution should have 
been directed especially against the col- 
leagues of Stephen. Philip is mentioned 
again as 6 evayyeAtorhs,—probably from 
his having been the first recorded who 
evnyyeAloato Toy Adyov,—in ch. xxi. 8,— 
as married and haviug four daughters, 
virgins, who prophesied. aod 7. 
Sap.|- Verbatim as John iv. 5, in which 
case it is specified as being Sychar (Sichem). 


As the words stand here (réAw = thy 
méAw, after eis, compare also 2 Pet. ii. 6), 
seeing that Saudpe (vv. 9, 14; ch. ix. 
31; xv. 3) signifies the district, I should 
be inclined to believe that Sychem is here 
also intended. It was a place of rising 
importance, and in after-times eclipsed the 
fame of its neighbour Samaria, which latter 
had been, on its presentation by Augustus 
to Herod the Great, re-fortified and called 
Sebaste, Jos. Antt. xv. 7. 3, and 8.5. It 
still, however, bore the name of Samaria, 
Jos. xx. 6. 2,—where, from the context, 
the district can hardly be intended. 
avtots | The inhabitants, implied in wéArs. 
6. mposetxov . . .] If this place 
was Sychem, the narrative in John iv. will 


» fully account for the readiness with which 


these people received the knpuvywa tov 
xpiatov—‘ the proclamation of the Christ.’ 

7.| According to the reading in the 
text, which is too strongly upheld by Ms. 
authority to be rejected for the easier ordi- 
nary one, woAAol is a ‘nominativus pen- 
dens’ (compare ch. vii. 40; Rev. iii. 12. 
Winer, edn. 6, § 29. 1), For in the case 
of many who had unclean spirits, they 
erying out with a loud voice, came out: 
2&jpxovro being plur., as often when the 


86 


b Luke xxiii. 
12 only. 
Job xhi, 17 
(only ?). 

c here only f. 
(-yos, ch. 
xiii. 6. 

~yeva, ver. 11.) 
vov & olvos éf€aTnce pe. 
x. 27. PoBepoy Tt Oéaua, Lucian, Philopat. 8. 


Thl-fin. 
fuld zth. 
9. mpovrapxwy D-gr. 


IIPAHREIS AILOZTOAQON. 


a U U 
TOAN) Yapa ev TH ToAEL KEL. 
, ” rn fol \ U 
Lyov » rpovtipxyev év TH Tore © payevov Kat 4 é€toTa- 
fol , x 
vov To © €Ovos THS Yapapelas, Néywv eival ‘twa EéavTov 


d -aywy here only. trans., Luke xxiv. 22 only. see Job xii. 17. Eur. Frag. Avyy 1, 
e = Matt. xxi. 43. ch. vii. 7. x. 22. 


om kat D!(ins D?). 


ViTT. 


9 Lae O€ 2 nk 
avnp O€ TLS ovOpmaTt 


f with adj., Heb. 


rec x. weyadn, with DEHP rel vss Chr Thl: txt ABCR p am demid 


rec ediotwv, with D2EH rel 


Chr Thl: seducens vulg Iren-int: suadens E-lat : mentem auferens D-lat: e&e|... -] 


(ckeoravey Wetst) D!: txt ABCPN p. 


neuter plural betokens living agents; see 
Winer, edn. 6, § 58. 3, a. B. aro\hot 
has probably been altered to woAA@yv, to 
agree with tay exdytwy, on the difficulty 
being perceived. 9. Sipwv| Neander, 
in the course of some excellent remarks on 
this whole history (see further on ver. 14), 
identifies, and I believe with reason, this 
Simon with one mentioned as living from 
ten to twenty years after this by Josephus, 
Antt. xx. 7. 2, Kal dv Kaipdy THs “lovdatas 
emetpémevoe PALE, Ocagduevos TavTHy 
(Drusilla) AauBaver TAS yuvaikds 
emOuulav, Kal Siuwva ovéuati, Tay éavTa 
plrwr, *lovdaioy, Kimpioy de yévos, pdryov 
elvat oKynmTéuevoy, TéeuTwv mpds avTIv 
éreiOe Toy &vdpa KaTaAimovoay avTe yh- 
Hac@a. The only difficulty seems to be, 
that Simon is stated by Justin Martyr, 
himself a Samaritan, to have been Sapa- 
péa, ard Kouns Aeyomerns Titrev. But it 
has struck me that either Justin, or per- 
haps more probably Josephus, may have 
confounded Ghittim with Chittim, i.e. 
Citium in Cyprus. This conjecture I also 
find mentioned in the Dict. of Biography 
and Mythology, sub voce. The account 
in Josephus is quite in character with 
what we here read of Simon: not incon- 
sistent (Meyer) with ver. 24, which appears 
to have been uttered under terror occa- 
sioned by the solemn denunciation of Peter. 

Justin goes on to relate that he was 
worshipped as a God at Rome in the time of 
Claudius Cesar, on account of his magical 
powers, and had a statue on the island in 
the Tiber, inscribed ‘Simoni Deo Sancto.’ 
Singularly enough, in the year 1574, a 
stone was found in the Tiber (or standing 
on the island in the year 1662, according 
to the Dict. of Biogr. and Myth.), with 
the inscription SEMONI SANCO DEO 
FID1O SACRVM, i.e. to the God Semo 
Sancus, the Sabine Hercules, which makes 
it probable that Justin may have been 
misled. The history of Simon is full 
of legend and fable. The chief sources of 
it are the Recognitiones and Clementina 
of the pseudo-Clemens. He is there said 
to have studied at Alexandria, and to have 


om To BE. efos B?, 


been, with the heresiarch Dositheus, a dis- 
ciple of John the Baptist. Of Dositheus 
he became first the disciple, and then the 
successor. Origen (in Matt. Comm. § 33, 
vol. iii. p. 851) makes Dositheus also a 
Samaritan: so also contra Cels. i. 57, 
vol. i. p. 372, and Hom. xxy. in Luc. 
vol. iii. p. 962. His own especial fol- 
lowers (Simoniani) had dwindled so much 
in the time of Origen, that he says 
yuvl 5&€ Tos mayTas ev TH olkoupevyn ovi 
€oTt Siuwviavovs cdpeiy Toy apiOudy olwat 
TpidkovTa. Kal Taxa mAclovas elmoy THY 
évtwy, contra Cels. ubi supra ; see also ib. 
vi. 11, p. 638, and zept apxay, iv. 17, p. 
176. In the Recognitiones and the Cle- 
mentina are long reports of subsequent 
controversies between Simon Magus and 
Peter, of which the scene is laid at Czesarea. 
According to Arnobius (adv. Gentes, ii. 12, 
p- 828 ed. Migne), the Constt. Apostol. 
(ii. 14, p. 620; vi. 9, p. 932 ed. Migne), 
and Cyril of Jerusalem, he met with his 
death at Rome, having, during an en- 
counter with Peter, raised himself into the 
air by the aid of evil spirits, and being pre- 
cipitated thence at the prayer of Peter and 
Paul. The fathers generally regard him 
as the founder of Gnosticism: this may be 
in some sense true: but, from the very little 
authentic information we possess, it is im- 
possible to ascertain how far he was identi- 
fied with their tenets. Origen (contra Cels. 
v. 62, p. 625) distinctly denies that his fol- 
lowers were Christians in any sense: Aav- 
Odver Toy KéAcor, br ovdapas Thy “Inaody 
bmoAoyovow vidy Oeo0 Sipmwviavol, GAAG dv- 
vauw Oeov A€yovot Toy Siuwva. pa- 
yevov | Not to be joined with rpotmjpxev 
(as in E, V. and Kuin.), which belongs to 
ev wéAet: exercising magic arts, such as 
then were very common in the East and 
found wide acceptance ; impostors taking 
advantage of the very general expectation 
of a Deliverer at this time, to set them- 
selves up by means of such trickeries as 
‘some great ones.’ We have other exam- 
ples in Elymas (ch. xiii.) : Apollonius of 
Tyana; and somewhat later, Alexander of 
Abonoteichos: see these latter in Dict. 


us 


9—13. 


& éryav 


IIPAZEIS, ATIOSTOAQN. 


87 


e an $ nr = 
10 @ Marposetyov mavtes ‘amo piKpod Ew ® 5 Mkei 


. Vil. 16. 
. 48. ch. 


i weyddou A€yovtes Odvros éotwv x * Svvapis Tod Oeod 1) xix. 27. 


Heb. iv. 14. 


'BCDE Kadovpéevn weyadry. 1 aposetyov S€ avdT@ dia TO} ikav@ *21,. 
dfeh! xpovw tais ™ wayelaus ™ éEeotaxévas avtovs: |? dTE O€ pier. 6 rem. 
pis. ° émrlioTevoay TS Dirirr@ ? ebayyediGomév Tept THs 4 Ba- rom Jer 
agirelas Tod 4 Oeod Kal Tod évduatos Incod ypiorod, éBarr- , 1). 16, 
1 Cor. i. 18, 


/ * \ tal 
Tifovto avdpes TE Kal yuvaiKes. 


intro, ‘Oewpav te onucia Kat “duvapers peyadas ywo- 


tion, Luke viii. 29. Rom. xvi. 25, 
13 reff. perf., here only. 

p w. Tept, here only. see ch. vii. 52. 

s = ch.i. 14 reff. t ch. vii. 56 reff. 
xii, 10. Gal. iii. 5$. 


10. mpose:xay &. 
p 13 vss Chr. 


136 6€ Siuov Kai avtos 
b] / \ fal in rs s 
éemlatevoev, Kal Bamticbeis * Hv 


Luke viii. 27. 
xx. 9. chi 
xiv. 3. xxvii. 
9 only. see 
ch. ix. 23, 43. 
dat. of dura- 


mTposkapTepav To Pid- 


m here only +. see ver. 9. n 2 Cor. v. 

o = Matt. xxi. 25 ||. Johny. 24. 1Johnv.10al. Gen. xv. 6. 
q ch. xix. 8 reff. r constr., ch. ii. 5 reff. 

u = Matt. xi. 20, 21, 23 and ||. Mark vi. 2. ch. ii. 22. 1 Cor. 


om maytes HP rel xth-pl He Thi Iren-int: ins ABCDEN k 
rec om Kadouuevyn (as appearing unnecessary, and being difficult, see 


note), with HLP rel Syr sah eth-pl Chr: ins ABCDEN p 13 vulg syr copt «#th-rom arm 


Orig, Iren-int. 
11. payiais ACDEHN f 18. 
12. rou diAimmov evayyerrCowevou N}. 
om ABCDEX® p 36 vulg syrr eth. 


13. ins «at bef mposk. D!. 


for Oeov, kv N}. 
13) : om ABCDEHLPX rel Chr Thl.—om co. 18. 
Ocopwy(sic) X. 


etiorareva. ACEH k mo: txt BDLPX rel. 


rec ins ta bef wept, with HLP rel Chr: 
rec ins tov bef ine. (with 

om te A lect-12 vss(some). 
for Te, Ta B. transp onb. 


and évy. EHLP rel syr Chr Ge Thi: txt ABCDX k m p 13. 36 vulg Syr coptt «#th.— 
peyada E o syr-w-ast eth-pl: om HLP rel: txt ABCDEN k m p 18 vulg Syr coptt 


eeth-rom Chr. 


of Biogr. and Myth. Twa peyayr | 
Probably not in such definite terms as his 
followers later are represented as putting 
into his mouth: ‘Ego sum sermo Dei... 
ego paracletus, ego omnipotens, ego omnia 
Dei’ Jerome on Matt. xxiv. 5, vol. vii. 
p- 193. 10. 4 Suv. T. 0. 7 Kadoupéevy 
peyaAn | Neander (1. c.) and Meyer think 
that they must have referred to the Adyos, 
the creating and governing manifestation 
of God so much spoken of in the Alexan- 
drine philosophy (see extracts from Philo in 
note on Johni.1. The term, but by no 
means with the same idea, was adopted by 
the Spirit, speaking by John, as belonging 
to the Son of God: see the same note, end), 
and must have regarded Simon as an in- 
carnation of the Adyos (the wntpdémoaArs 7a. 
cay Tav dvvduewy Tod Oeod, Philo), so that 
their erroneous belief would form some 
preparation for the great truth of an in- 
carnate Messiah, preached by Philip. But 
to this De W. well replies, that we can 
hardly suppose the Alexandrine philosophy 
to have been so familiar to the mass of the 
people, and refers the expression to their 
popular belief of a great angel (Chron. 
Sam. 10), who might, as the angels were 
called by the Samaritans the powers of 
God (for which he refers to Reland, de 
Samar. § 7. Gesen. Theol. Samar. p. 21 ff.), 
be designated as 7 Sdbv. 7. 0. 7) Kadoumevn 
MeyaAn. Kadoupevn rests on such 


strong Ms. authority, and is so unlikely 
to have been inserted (the idea of a scho- 
lium to indicate the force of the art. 
[Bloomf.] is quite out of the question, 
no such scholium being here needed), that 
both on external and internal grounds it 
must form part of the text. The lit. ren- 
dering will be, This man is the power of 
God which is called great: the sense, 
‘This man is that power of God (see above) 
which we know as the great one, 
Aeyouevn, found in a few later mss., is an 
explanation of kad. by a more usual word. 
11.] e&eoraxévar can hardly be as 
E. V., transitive, “he had bewitched them:” 
there appears to be no example of the per- 
fect being thus used. 13.] ‘Simon saw 
his followers dropping off, and was him- 
self astounded at the miracles wrought by 
Philip: he therefore thought it best himself 
also to acknowledge this superior power. 
He attached himself to Philip, and was bap- 
tized like the rest: but we are not, as the 
sequel shews, to understand that the preach- 
ing of the Gospel had made any impression 
on his heart, but that he accounted for what 
he saw in his own fashion. He was con- 
vineed, from the works which Philip did, 
that he was in league with some powerful 
spirit : he viewed baptism as the initiation 
into communion with that spirit, and ex- 
pected that he should be able to make use 
of the higher power thus gained for his 


§8 TIPAZEI> AMOZTOAON. Vi 


mid., Matt. 


< 


pévas ¥ é&latato. 1 ’Axovoartes S€ of év “TepoooAvpous ABCDI 


xii 33. P HLPR } 
Markie. amooTonon OTe “* SédexTar 1) Laudpeva Tov *% Noyov Tov bate 


k] m « 
p13 


ii, 47. ch. ii. 


7,12. ix. 2lonly. Gen. xliii. 33. w Luke ix. 53. 2 Cor. xi. 4. x Luke viii. 13. ch: 


Proy. iv. 10. y ch. xi. 1 reff. 


xi. 1. xvii. 11. 1 Thess. i. 6. ii. 13. 


yivoueva EHLP rel Chr Ge Thl: om C 126-80 lect-25: txt ABDN k m p 13. 


etictavto C1DIN}. 
14. tepovoadnp D. 


own purposes, and unite this new magical 
power to his own. All were baptized who 
professed belief in Jesus as the Messiah: 
there was therefore no reason for rejecting 
Simon, considering besides, that from the 
nature of the case he would for the time 
have given up his magical practices.’ 
Neander, Pfl. u. Leit. p. 102. ‘Hoe 
Simonis exemplo clare patet, non conferri 
omnibus indifferenter in Baptismo gratiam, 
que illic figuratur. Papistarum dogma est, 
Nisi quis ponat obicem peccati mortalis, 
omnes cum signis recipere veritatem et 
effectum. Ita magicam vim tribuunt Sacra- 
mentis, quasi absque fide prosint. Nos autem 
sciamus offerri nobis a Domino per Sacra- 
mepta quicquid sonant annexe promis- 
siones, et non frustra nec inaniter offerri, 
modo fide ad Christum directi ab ipso 
petamus quicquid Sacramenta promittunt. 
Quamvis autem nihil illi tune profuerit 
Baptismi receptio, si tamen conversio postea 
secuta est, ut nonnulli conjiciunt, non ex- 
tincta fuit nec abolita utilitas. Szepe enim 
fit, ut post longum tempus demum opere- 
tur Spiritus Dei, quo efficaciam suam Sa- 
cramenta proferre incipiant.’ Calvin in loc. 

14—24.| Mission oF PETER AND 
Joun To Samarra. A question arises 
on this procedure of the Apostles :—whe- 
ther it was as a matter of course, that the 
newly baptized should, by the laying on of 
hands subsequently, receive the Holy Ghost, 
—or whether there was in the case of these 
Samaritans any thing peculiar,which caused 
the Apostles to go down to them and per- 
form this act. (1) The only analogous 
case is ch. xix. 5, 6: in using which we 
must observe that there it is distinctly 
asserted that the miraculous gifts of the 
Spirit followed the laying on of Paul’s 
hands; and that by the expression idoy 
in ver. 18, which must be taken literally, 
the same is implied here. And on this 
point the remarks of Calvin are too im- 
portant to be omitted: ‘Hic occurrit 
questio. Dicit enim tantum fuisse bap- 
tizatos in nomine Christi, atque ideo non- 
dum fuisse Spiritus participes. Atqui vel 
inanem et omni virtute et gratia carere 
Baptismum oportet, aut a Spiritu sancto 
habere quicquid efficacie habet. In Bap- 
tismo abluimur a peccatis : atqui lavacrum 
nostrum Spiritus sancti opus esse docet 
Paulus (Tit. iii. 5). Aqua Baptismi san- 
guinis Christi symbolum est : atqui Petrus 


Spiritum esse preedicat, a quo irrigamur 
Christi sanguine (1 Pet. i. 2). In Baptis- 
mo crucifigitur vetus noster homo, ut sus- 
citemur in vite novitatem (Rom. vi. 6): 
unde autem hoc totum, nisi ex sanctifica- 
tione Spiritus? Denique Baptismo nihil 
reliquum fiet, sia Spirituseparetur. Ergo 
Samaritanos, qui vere Christum in Bap- 
tismo induerant, Spiritu quoque vestitos 
fuisse negandum non est (Gal. iii. 27). 
Et sane Lucas hic non de communi Spiri- 
tus gratia loquitur, qua nos sibi Deus in 
filios regenerat, sed de singularibus illis 
donis, quibus Dominus initio Evangelii 
quosdam esse praeditos voluit ad ornandum 
Christi regnum.’ And alittle after:.... 
‘ Papiste, dum ficticiam suam confirmatio- 
nem extollere volunt, in hane sacrilegam 
vocem prorumpere non dubitant, semi- 
christianos esse, quibus manus nondum 
fuerunt imposite. (See this asserted by 
Wordsworth, in loc. p. 40, col. 2, 
bottom.) Hoc jam tolerabile non est, 
quod quum symbolum hoc temporale esset, 
ipsi perpetuam legem finxerunt in Ec- 
clesia. .. . . Atqui fateri coguntur ipsi 
quoque, Eeclesiam nonnisi ad tempus donis 
istis fuisse ornatam. Unde sequitur, im- 
positionem manuum, qua usisunt Apostoli, 
finem habuisse, quum effectus cessavit’ (in 
loc.). And yet after this, Wordsw. refers 
to “Calvin here,” “in whose opinion,” 
says R. Nelson, “this passage in the 
Acts shews that Confirmation was insti- 
tuted by the Apostles.’ This example 
may serve to suggest extreme caution in 
trusting to Wordsw.’s reports of the opi- 
nions of the Fathers and ecclesiastical 
writers. The English church, in retaining 
the rite of confirmation, has not grounded 
it on any institution by the Apostles, but 
merely declared the laying on of hands on 
the candidates, to certify them (by this 
sign) of God’s favour and goodness towards 
them, to be ‘ after the example of the holy 
Apostles.’ Nor is there any trace in the 
office, of the conferring of the Holy Ghost 
by confirmation ;—but a distinct recogni- 
tion of the former reception of the Holy 
Spirit (at Baptism), and a prayer for the in- 
crease of His influence, proportioned to the 
maturer life now opening on the newly 
confirmed. (2) If then we have here zo 
institution of a perpetual ordinance, some- 
thing peculiar to’ the case before us must 
have prompted this journey. And here 


14—18. 


n / . 
*Qeod, aTréateihav Tpos avTovs Ilétpov cai Twavyny, 1 of- ch. x8v.1, 


IIPABEIS ATIOSTOAON. 


89 


en. 
xlii. 3. 


/ / lal / 
Ties *KaTaBavTes *tposnvEavTo *Trepi advTav Straws *AABO- a Lue vi. 28. 


be Le (ae C 
ol TTVEVLG ~ AYLOV 


4 érrumrem@T@KOS, © povoy Se  BeBatTicpméevot 


‘\ f fal fe ’ a 
To ‘Ovowa Tov Kupiov Inaod. 


Ee 9S an 
16 ovdérw yap tw ém ovdevi avTav % 
$ 


17 sore iérreriGecav Tas 


+ 206 
2 Thess. i. 11. 
iii. 1. Heb. 
xiii. 18 only. 
Ps. Ixxi. 15. 


h barhpxov * ets 


b John vii. 39. 


: a a | > , \ 4 / n ef re 
ivetpas ém’ avtovs, kat  eXauBavov * mrvedua Payrov. fom yi 
OV Nee / i \ a > , an a a ii. 12. 2 Cor. 
18 (d@y d€ 6 Yiuev Stu Sia THs * érrubécews TOV Yelp@Vv TOV xi.4 Gat 
iii. 2. 
c here 3ce. ch. (ii. 38) x. 47. xix. 2. John xx. 22. d of the Spirit, ch. x. 44. xi. 15 only. = Luke 
i. 12. ch. xiii. 11. xix.17. Rev. xi. ll only. Gen. xy. 12. see Rom. xv. 3. e Matt. vili.8. Mark 
y. 36 al. f Matt. xxviii. 19. ch. xix.5. (Rom. vi. 3.) 1 Cor. i. 13,15. w. émt, ch. ii. 38. év, 
ch. x. 48. g1Cor. x. 2. Gal. ili. 27. h Luke xi. 13. xvi. 14. ch. ii. 30. Rom. iv. 
Wal. Jamesii.15. 2 Pet. i. 8. ii. 19. iii. 11. w. part., ch. xix. 36 only. i Num. xxvii. 18. Matt. 


ix. 18. ch. vi. 6. ix. 12, 17. xiii. 3 al. 
2 Chron. xxv. 27. 
for Oeov, xv RX}. 
13 Eus Chr,, 
15. mposevé. B. 


16. om vv. 16, 17 (similarity of endgs) 18. 


rel Ge Thl: txt ABCDEN p 36 Did Chr. 
ovdeva, D'(txt D4[? }). 
Thl-sif: aft xv w ins xpu D. 


eBartiou. XN}. 


k1Tim.iy.14. 2Tim.i.6. Heb. vi.2 only}. see 


rec ins toy bef werp., with HLP rel @e Thl: om ABCDEN o p 


rec (for ovderw) ovrw, with HL 
for em, em: D)(txt D-corr!): ev E!. 
for kup., xpiotov HLUP ade f gh! @e 


17. rec ewetiOovy, with DIEHLP rel Chr Thi: txt A B(-@00av) C(-@ercav) D-corr! or? 


& o p 36 Eus Did Cyr-jer. 


18. rec (for sdwv) Peacapevos, with HLP rel Thl: txt ABCDEN b! dk 0 p13. 36 


again we have a question: Was that moving 
cause in the Samaritans, or in Philip? 
I believe the true answer to the question 
will be found by combining both. Our 
Lord’s command (ch. i. 8) had removed 
all doubt as to Samaria being a legitimate 
field for preaching, and Samaritan converts 
being admissible. (So also with regard to 
Gentile converts,—see ch. x., notes: but, 
as the church at this time believed, they 
must be circumcised, which the Samaritans 
already were,—and keep the law, which 
after their manner the Samaritans did.) 
The sudden appearance, however, of a body 
of baptized believers in Samaria, by the 
agency of one who was not one of the 
Apostles,—while it would excite in them 
every feeling of thankfulness and joy, 
would require their presence and power, 
as Apostles, to perform their especial part 
as the divinely appointed Founders of the 
Church. Add to this, that the Samaritans 
appear to have been credulous, and easily 
moved to attach themselves to individuals, 
whether it were Simon, or Philip; which 
might make the Apostles desirous to be pre- 
sent in person, and examine, and strengthen 
their faith. Another reason may have been 
not withoutitsinfluence: the Jewish church 
at Jerusalem would naturally for the most 
part be alienated in mind from this new 
body of believers. The hatred between 
Jews and Samaritans was excessive and 
unrelenting. It would therefore be in the 
highest degree important that it should be 
shewn to the church at Jerusalem, that 
these Samaritans, by the agency of the 
same Apostles, were partakers of the same 


visibly testified gifts of the one Spirit. The 
use of this argument, which was afterwards 
applied by Peter in the case of the Gen- 
tiles, unexpected even by himself, ch. xi. 
17,—was probably no small part of the 
purpose of this journey to Samaria. 

14. Ilér. «. "Iwdv.| Perhaps éwo, in ac- 
cordance with the dvo dvo of their first 
missionary journey (Mark vi. 7): so Paul 
and Barnabas afterwards (ch. xiii. 2): and 
the same principle seems to have been 
adhered te even when these last separated: 
Paul chose Silas, Barnabas took Mark. 
PrrerR,—because to him belonged, in this 
early part of the Gospel, in a remarkable 
manner, the first establishing of thechurch; 
it was the fulfilment of the promise ém 
TavTH TH TEeTpA oikodounow pov Thy eK- 
KAnolay. It was he who had (in common 
with all the Apostles, it is true, but in 
this early period more especially com- 
mitted to him) tas KAeidas Tis BaciAclas 
7T@y ovpav@y,—who opened the door to the 
3000 on the day of Pentecost, now (as a 
formal and ratifying act) tothe Samaritans, 
and in ch. x. to the Gentiles. So far, is 
plain truth of Scripture history. The mon- 
strous fiction begins, when to Peter is at- 
tributed a fixed diocese and successors, and 
to those successors a delegated power more 
like that ascribed to Simon Magus than 
that promised to Peter. This is the last 
time that JoHNn appears in the Acts. He 
is only once more mentioned in the N. T. 
(except in the Revelation), viz. as having 
been present in Jerusalem at Paul’s visit, 
Gal. ii. 9. 15. mposnvg.| So laying 
on of hands is preceded by prayer, ch. vi. 6; 


90 


1 pres., ch. xvi. 
38 reff. 

m Luke xi. 13. 
John iii. 34. 
ch. v. 32. xv. 
8. 1 Thess. 
iv. 8 (1 John 
iv. 13). 

n = Matt. xxv. 
20. 2 Kings 


xvil. 29. 
o ch. iv. 37 
reff. 


p = Matt. x.1 
al. fr. 1 Mace. 
i. 15. 

q = ch. ii. 39. 


BA a 4 r fal 
rMatt. vii 13. gryp P¢ eyOeta  EvavTe TOU Oeod. 
1 Tim. vie 3. 
Heb. x. 39. 


Rey. xvii. 8, 
ll. Isa. xxxii. 2. s 2 Pet. ii. 1 &c. iii. 7, 16. 
5 v constr., | Cor. vii. 36. 
x Luke x. 42. ch. xvi. 12. 2 Cor. vi. 15. 
see Col. i. 12. 
Ps. Ixxvii. 37. 
d Luke i. 8 only. Exod. xxviii. 34 (38) al. fr. 
Rey. ii. 21 al4. €m, 2 Cor. xii. 21.) 
xi. 13 only. Xen. Mem. ii. 2.2. Anab. iii. 2. 22. 


Constt Bas Chr, Damase Taras. 


ce Luke iii. 4 


IIPABEIS AILOZTOAON. 


2 Mace. vii. 19. 
Col. i. 12 only. L.P. 

z= ch. i. 17, 26. xxvi. 18. a 

, 5 (from Isa, xl. 3, 4). ch. ix. 11. xiii. 10. 


f =1 Cor. xiv. 


VIII. 


aroctoXwy ™ SidoTar TO ™ mvedpua, © TposnveyKey avTois 
/ 

°vpipata 9 Néywv Aote Kapoi ti ? éEovoiay TavTny, 

Cite eaiOa ele Lactancks + wp bier 

iva @ éav ' e700 Tas ' yeipas © NawBavy ” rvedpa » ayov. 
\ ‘ , \ 

20 [létpos d€ efrev pos avtov To apytpuov cov avy cot 

yv qr , rs > / ° \ t6 \ 5 fa) fal uv > , 

ein “els S aTr@devav, OTL THY ‘Swpeayv TOD Oeod “Y évopucas 

dua ° xpnuatov \* KracOat. 

7 n lal Ul , 

%“KXpos ev TO *OYH TOUT@ 1) yap 


21 ovk ExTW aot pepis ovoé 
> kapdia cov ovK 
22 © wWeTavonoor ody © aTrO 


fol re U Ul \ Py Na) nr / £ ? g ” 
TNS ~ KAKLAS DOU TAVUTNS, KAL OENUNTL TOV Kuplov, © €l © Apa 


t=ch. ii. 38 reff. , u Matt. x. 34al.+ Wisd. 
Ps, xlix, 13 Symm. w ch. xxii. 28 reff. 
y Deut. xii. 12. xiv. 27. xviii. 1, Isa. 

= Luke iv. 36. ch. xv. 6. b here 

2 Pet. ii. 15 only. 
Jer. viii. 6 only. see Heb. vi. 1. (=. EK, 
g ch. (vii. 1] xvii. 27. Mark 


e here only. 
20 reff. 


rec aft my. ins To aytoy (common addition, and 


suspicious wherever there is any variation in mss), with ACDEHLP rel 36 vss Chr: 


om BN sah Constt. 
19. ins mapaxadwv kat bef rAcy. D. 
36 Constt Cyr-jer Chr Taras : 
20. avtous X!. 


apyuptoy cov to ch x 
21. wepos El. 


ABDR® 36. 


22. rec for kup., Oeou (corrn from ver 21: 


Taras Thl : 
apnnoera cov D1(txt D?) 1}. 


xiii. 3. id8ev| Its effects were 
therefore visible (see above), and conse- 
quently the effect of the laying ’on of the 
Apostles’ hands was not the zrward but 
the outward miraculous gifts of the Spirit. 
mposyy. avT. xpypata] De W. ex- 
cellently remarks, ‘ He regarded the capa- 
bility of imparting the Holy Spirit,— 
rightly, as something conferred, as a de- 
rived power (see ref. Matt.), but wrongly, 
as one to be obtained by an external 
method, without an inward disposition: 
and, since in external commerce every 
thing may be had for gold, he wanted to 
buy it. ‘This is the essence of the sin of 
Simony, which is intimately connected with 
unbelief in the power and signification of 
the Spirit, and with materialism.’ 
Clearly, from the narrative, Simon himself 
did not receive the Spirit by the laying on 
of hands. His nefarious attempt to treat 
with the Apostles was before he himself had 
been presented to them for this purpose. 
20.| The solemn denunciation of Peter, 
like the declaration of Paul, 1 Cor. vi. 13, 
has reference to the perishableness of all 
worldly good, and of those with it, whose 
chief end is the use of it (see Col. ii. 22), 
‘Thy gold and thou are equally on the way 
to corruption :’ thy gold, as its nature is: 
thou with it, as having no higher life than 


om yap D}(txt D%) 177}. 
word), with EHLP rel Constt Ath Taras Thl: 


mposnveyxay D}(txt D*). 
Steph (for eav) av, with DH a b? ghlmo 
txt ABCELPX rel Gc Thi. 
om to and gov D}(ins D#). 


aft emi0w ins kayw D. 
[NV.B. D-lat is wanting from to 


rec evwmioy (corrn to more usual 
evaytiov Ch p 13 Bas Chr Damase: txt 


or doctrinal ?), with HLP rel vulg Syr 


txt ABCDEN k o p 13 syr coptt arm Constt Ath Bas Chr Ambr. 


thy natural corrupt one: as being bound in 
the civderuos Tis Gdixias. The expression 
of Peter, 1 Pet. i. 7, xpuclov rod a&mroAAv- 
févov, is remarkably parallel with this (see 
too 1 Pet. i. 18). évéptoas | aor. thou 
thoughtest: not ‘thou hast thought, as 
E. V. The historic force of the tense is to 
be kept here: the Apostle uses it as looking 
forward to the day of amdAeia, ‘ Let thy 
lot be az., and that because thou thought- 
est,’ &e. KTao8. | to acquire, not pass. 
as E. V., ungrammatically. 21. pepis 
. . » KAfpos | synonymous: the first lit., 
the second fig. (see ref.), but not without 
reference perhaps to the cAnpovoula of the 
kingdom of God, the nA. &POapros, 1 Pet. 
i. 4. Te Ady. TovT.| The matter 
now spoken of, —to which I now allude.’ 
ev0eta) Hardly, ‘right before God,’ 
E.V., but thy heart is not right,—sin- 
cere, single-meaning,—in God’s presence, 
“as God sees it:’ i. e., ‘seen as it really is, 
by God, is not in earnest in its seeking 
after the gospel, but seeks it with _un- 
worthy ends in view.’ 22. el dpa, 
if perhaps (not ‘ué sane,’ which it will 
not bear: see on its meaning, ‘if, which 
none can say,’ Hartung, Partikellehre, I 
440): and the uncer tainty refers, not to 
the doubt whether Simon would repent 
or not (see below on ydp): but as to 


ABCL 
HLPs 
bdfg 
klm 

pls 


C ELS... 
ABCDE 
HLPNa 
bedfg 
hklm 
opl3 


19—26. IIPABEIS AIOSTOAON. 91 


h = Rom. iv. 
7 reff. 


pee ereral cou 7 iémivota THs Kapdias cour % * eis yap 


Im vodry ™ aiKpias Kal ? cvvderpov ? adiKias Opa oe dvTa. Gaeta 
24 drroxpibels d€ 0 Sluwy eizev Aen Onre bpets brep €wov ran 
Tpos TOV Kupwoy, Otrws pndev * €TéEAON em” Ewe OV eipnKare. greens 
25 Oc pev ovv § Suapaptupdpevoe Kat *NadjnoavTes TOV "Bitar 3 
toyov tod Kupiov, “bméctpepov eis “lepocdAupa, TOAAMS » Kom. is. 1, 


from Ps. ix. 


ae: a a Ney { SA 7 (27). Eph. 
Te YKopas TOV Lapapertov “ evnyyediSovTo aches! Mee 


xii. 15 only. o Eph. iv. 3. Col. ii. 19. iii. 14 only. L.P. p here only. Isa. lviii. 6. rch. xiii. 40 reff. 

s Luke xvi. 28. ch. ii. 40 al7._ 1 Thess. iv. 6. Heb. ii.6. L.P.H. Jer. vi. 10. t = ch. xi. 19 reff. 

u Luke i. 56 al. fr. Luke only, exc. (Mark xiv. 40 rec.) Gal. i. 17. Heb. vii. 1. 2 Pet. ii. 21. Gen. xliii. 10. 

v Matt. ix. 35. Luke ix. 52 al. fr. Josh. xiii. 30. w constr., Luke iii. 18. ch. xiv. 
15,21. xvi.10. Isa. xl..9(?). 


23. nv (= ev? ets D2) yap mixpias xoAn(XoAns D?) k. cuvderuw(cvvderpov D2) D}. 

for opw, Gewpw DE Constt Chr. 

24. om o EH. aft evrey ins mpos avrous D (eth). ins mapaxadw bef 
dend. D 137-80 syr-w-ast Constt. D! has altered den@ynre to SenOnrte. for urep, 
wept D'(txt D2) 96. for kup., Oeov (see above, ver 22) D k m o 13 demid fuld syrr 
(but xupioy syr-mg) eth. for em’ ewe, wor D: enor e: om em’ C. ins TouTwy 
twv kakwy bef wy D. for wy, ov D}(txt D2): ws L. aft erp. ins kakwy E: 
pot D, addg also os roAAa KAaiwy ov SteAvutravey D! syr-mg. 

25. Siapaptupomevoe LPR df lo Thl-sif. for kup., cov A 68 demid Syr copt 
eth Thl-sif-comm: om 7. «. 3. 4). 65. rec vreotpetpay (alteration to historic 
tense), with CEHLP rel vss Thl: txt ABDN p 36 vulg Aug. Yee LepovtaAnt 
(corrn to common form, see ver 26. It has been suggested that -codkvpa occurs here 
as belonging to a narrative in which this form has been the one used, see vv. 1, 14; 
whereas in the follg narrative, -cadnp is used, vv 26, 27), with HL rel vulg Ge Thi: 
txt ABCDERN ck o p 18. 36 Chr. for Te, de D. rec evnyyeAioavto (see above, 
on ureotp.), with HLP rel E-lat syr copt Chr Thl: txt ABCD E-gr N p 36 vulg sah 


Aug. 


whether or not his sin may not have come 
under the awful category of those unpar- 
donable ones specified by our Lord, Matt. 
xii. 31, to which words the form apeOjoeta 
seems to havea tacit reference. Peter does 
not pronounce his sin to have been such, 
but throws in this doubt, to increase the 
motive to repent, and the earnestness of his 
repentance. This verse is important, taken 
in connexion with John xx. 23, as shewing 
how completely the Apostles themselves re- 
Serred the forgiveness of sins to, and left 
it in, the sovereign power of God, and not 
to their own delegated power of absolution. 

23. | yap gives the reasons, not why 
it would be difficult for forgiveness to take 
place, but why he had such extreme need 
of repentance and prayer, as being tied 
and bound by the chain of sin. ovTa 
eis] a pregnant construction—-having 
fallen into and abiding in: not to be taken 
(as Kuin., &c.) as ‘amounting to,—* totus 
quantus es, nil nisi venenum amarum es et 
colligatio iniquitatis,’ which is very harsh, 
and improbable: nor (as Stier) is it pro- 
phetic, as to what would be the conse- 
quence, if he did not repent: ‘JZ see that 
thou wilt come to, &e. Least of all must 
it be said, here or any where else, that «is 
is put for ev. I cannot too often remind 
my younger readers, that it is a funda- 


mental maxim of all sound scholarship, 
that no word is ever put for another. 
XxoA. mikp.| see reff. ‘the gall which is 
the very seat and essence of bitterness ’"— 
a very gall of bitterness. The poison of 
serpents was considered to be seated in 
their gall: so xoA) daomtdos ev yaotph 
avtov, Job xx.14. See Plin. H.N. xi. 37. 
24.| Simon speaks here much as 
Pharaoh, Exod. (viii. 28; ix. 28) x. 17,— 
who yet hardened his heart afterwards 
(Stier). It is observable also that he 
wishes merely for the averting of the 
punishment. The words Omws pndev ér- 
€AOn em ewe av eiphkare seem remark- 
ably to set forth the mere terror of the 
carnal man, without any idea of the eué 
becoming another man in thoughts and 
aims. 
25—40.| CoNVERSION OF THE AUTHIO- 
PIAN EUNUCH BY PHILIP’S TEACHING. 
25.] weév ovv indicates (see note on 
ver. 4) that the paragraph should begin 
here, not at ver. 26 as commonly. 
Kopas T. Sap.] It is interesting to recall 
Luke ix. 52, where on their entering into 
a Kounv Sap., the same John wishes to 
call down fire from heaven, rai avard@oat 
avtovs. On constr. (edvayy. w. accus.), see 
reff. _ The gradual sowing of the seed 
further and further from Jerusalem is 


92 TIPABEIS AITOSTOAON. VIE 
x= Matix, Sé xupiou ehaqoey mpos Pidurmov éyov * ‘AvdornG ABCDE 
iy. 29. ch. 


v. 6, 17. 
Jonah iii. 2. 
y = ver. 36. 
ch. xxv. 6. 
(xxvii. 12.) Phil. iii. 14. 
vii. 13, 14. Prov. vii. 27. 


Josh. v. 7. 
b = here only? 


26. mopevOntt. CD.—avacras mop. D 40. 
for em, evs H: om p. 
disapproving). om eoTly p. 
advancing: not only is this eunuch to carry 
it to a far distant land, but Philip is sent 
to a desert road, away from town or vil- 
lage, to seek him. The imperfects (altered 
in the rec., see var. readd., into aorists) 
are significant. ‘They were on their way 
back to Jerusalem, and were evangelizing 
the Samaritan villages, when the angel 
spake (aor.) to Philip. 26.] An angel, 
visibly appearing : not in a dream,—which 
is not, as some suppose, implied by avd- 
o7761, see reff. The ministration of angels 
introduces and brings about several occur- 
rences in the beginning of the church, see 
chive, Os) x. 35 Xi. 7 (xxv. 2). che 
appearance seems to have taken place in 
Samaria, after the departure of Peter and 
John; see above, on the imperfects. 

He would reach the place appointed by 
a shorter way than through Jerusalem: 
he would probably follow the high road 
(of the itineraries, see map in Conybeare 
and Howson’s St. Paul) as far as Gophna, 
and thence strike across the country south- 
westward, to join, atsome point to which 
he would be guided, the road leading from 
Jerusalem to Gaza. Vafav | The south- 
ernmost city of Canaan (Gen. x. 19), in 
the portion of Judah (Josh. xv. 47), but 
soon taken from that tribe by the Philis- 
tines, and always spoken of as a Philistian 
city (1 Sam. vi. 17; 2 Kings xviii.8; Amos 
i. 6—8; Zeph. ii. 4; Zech. ix. 5). In Jer. 
xlvii. 1, we have ‘before Pharaoh (Necho ?) 
smote Gaza,’—implying that at one time 
it was under Egypt. Alexander the Great 
took it after a siege of five months (Q. Curt. 
iv.6,7. Arrian, Alex. ii. 26), but did not 
destroy it (as Strabo relates in error, xvi. 
759, see below in this note), for we find it 
a strong place in the subsequent Syrian 
wars, see 1 Mace. (ix. 52) xi. 61, f.; xiii. 
43 (xiv. 7; xv. 28; xvi. 1); Jos. Antt. xiii. 
5.5; 138.3 al. It was destroyed by the 
Jewish king Alexander Jannzeus (96 A.C.), 
Jos. Antt. xiii. 13. 3, after a siege of a year, 
but rebuilt again by the Roman general 
Gabinius (Antt. xiv. 5. 3),—afterwards 
given by Augustus to Herod (xv. 7.3), and 
finally after his death attached to the pro- 
vince of Syria (xvii. 11.4). Mela, in the 
time of Claudius, calls it ‘ingens urbs et 


z ch, xxii. 6 only. 


B! repeats tv odor. 


Kal Tropevor Y Kata *peonuPplay € €mt THY * OOoV vy i 57 b ca ts 


Batvovaay ato ‘lepovcadiy eis Tafav: attn éotw » épn- opis 


Gen. xviii. 1. a here only. see Matt. 


for kata, mpos EH 130-80 Chr. 
aft 2nd tyv ins kadAouperny R1(NS 


munita admodum,’ with which agree Euse- 
bius and Jerome. At present it is a large 
town by the same name, with from 15,000 
to 16,000 inhabitants (Robinson, ii. 640). 
The above chronological notices shew that 
it cannot have been épnuos at this time: 
see below. avtn éotiv épypos| The 
words, I believe, of the angel, not of Luke. 
There appear to have been two (if not more) 
ways from Jerusalem to Gaza. The Anto- 
nine itinerary passes from Jerus. to Eleu- 
theropolis—Askalon—Gaza. The Peutin- 
ger Table, Jerus.—Ceperaria—Eleuthero- 
polis—Askalon— Gaza. But Robinson (ii. 
748. Winer, Realw.) found an ancient road 
leading direct from Jerusalem to Gaza, 
through the Wadi Musurr, and over the 
Beit Jiibrin, which certainly at present is 
€pnuos, without towns or villages. Thus 
the words will refer to the way: and denote 
the way of which I speak to thee is desert 
(Schéttg. cites from Arrian, iii. p. 211, 
epjunv de eivar thy ddbv 80 avvdpiav). 
Besides the above objection to applying 
Epnuos to Gaza, there could be no possible 
reason for adding such a specification here, 
seeing that Gaza had nothing to do with 
the object of the journey, and the road 
would be designated the road from Jeru- 
salem to Gaza, whether the latter city was 
inhabited, or in ruins. Those who apply 
épnuos to Gaza, have various ways of re- 
conciling the apparent discrepancy with 
history : most of them follow Bede’s ex- 
planation, that the ancient city was Epnuos, 
and that the Gaza of this day was another 
town nearer the sea. But how this helps 
the matter I cannot perceive, unless we 
are to suppose that the deserted Gaza and 
the inhabited Gaza were so far apart that 
it was necessary to specify which was 
meant, because there would be from Jeru- 
salem two different roads,—of which no 
trace is found, nor could it well be. Some 
again suppose (Hug, al.) that the Acts were 
written after the second Gaza was de- 
stroyed (Jos. B. J. ii. 18.1), just before the 
destruction of Jerusalem, and that Luke 
inserts this notice: but to what purpose ? 
and why zo more such notices? In the 
passage of Strabo, commonly cited to sup- 
port the application of gpnuos to Gaza, 


Pra 


27, 28. ITPASEI> AIOSTOAON. 93 


pos. *7 Kal * avacras érropevOn. 
©evvodyos duvacrns Kavéaxns * Baciiicons Aidcotrwv 

7 7 n ? 
aA iy f > \ £ n g / > a a 2, rE. h cE 
os av * ert maons Ths ® yays avTijs, Os éAndAVOeL ™ mpos 
Kuvnowv eis ‘lepovoadyp, °8 qv tei brrootpépwv Kai Kab- 


i. NE ae 2 1! 
c here &c., 
Kai (dod avip Aiioyp brs» 
Matt. xix. 
{see} only. 
Esth. ii. 14 al. 
d Luke i. 52. 
1 Tim. vi. 15 
only. = Levit. 
xix. 15. Sir. 





’ (EN . 1 ¢ Ie \ m2 / \ vili. 1. 
HfEVOS ~ETTL TOU “ APfaTOS AUTOV Kab QVEYLYUMOKEV TOV & re hago 
1 Rey. 
XViil. 7 only. Jer. XXxvVi. (xxix. )2 f = ch, xii. 20. Rom.ix.5, Eph.iv.6. 4 Kings x. 5. 
g here only. ra Vii. 21. ~Esth. iv. 7. see Luke xxi. 1||. John viii. 20. h abs., John 
iv. 20. xii . ch. xxiy. 11. Jer. xxxiii. (xxvi.) 2. i ver. 25 reff, k = Matt. xix. 


lhere &c., 3ce. Rev. ix.9 only. 4 Kings x. 15, m ch. xv. 21. 2Cor. 


ili, 2, 15. 4 itings xix. 14, 
27. rec ins rns bef Bac. (corrn), with HL rel Chr Thl: om ABCDEN p.—D! adds 
TLWOS. avtov D}(txt D2). om 2nd os AC!D!X! vulg sah Ge (corrn for 
constr sake, to prevent avnp being pendent, and make it the nom to edAnAvOer): ins 
BC2D2EHLPN? rel syrr copt «th Chr Thl: @s 13. om es D!: ey D?L. 

28. for te, de BC E-lat syr coptt Chr. om Ist ka: (as unnecessary to the constr) 
D}(ins D?) 40 vulg copt. om Tov C. om avtov D1(ins D2). om 2nd kar DR? 
acef13(not Ist «. as Sz) (adopted by Lachm and Tischdf 1849. The omissions in 
this case seem to me very like attempts to escape from the repetitions of ka, which how- 
ever are characteristic of this section, see v 27, vv 36, 38, 39. The tein A may have the 
same source).—avayiwworov D vulg(but retains rar) sah.—for k. avey.,avey. Te A; avery. 


evdotds more yevomevn, KaTeonacneyn 8 
bmd ’Adrcidvopov (the Great, according to 
Strabo, which it was not) kal puévovoa 
épnuos, the last three words are wanting in 
some edd. and are supposed to have been a 
gloss from the Acts, Others suppose ép7- 
pos to signify ‘unfortified,’ which standing 
alone it cannot. Besides, this notice would 
be wholly irrelevant ;—and would probably 
not have been true,—see Mela above. The 
objection of Meyer to the interpretation 
given above, that if épnu. referred to 7 656s, 
the article would be expressed, is not valid: 
the emphasis is on attn; ‘that way, of 
which I speak, is desert:’ not, ‘is the desert 
one: no reference is made to the other. 
27. evvovxos | The very general use 
of eunuchs in the East for filling offices of 
confidence, and the fact that this man was 
minister to a female sovereign, makes it 
probable that he was literally an eunuch. 
If not so, the word would hardly have been 
expressed. No difficulty arises from Deut. 
xxiii. 1, for no inference can be drawn from 
the history further than that he may have 
been a proselyte of the gate, in whose case 
the prohibition would not apply. Nay, the 
whole occurrence seems to have had one 
design, connected with this fact. The walls 
of partition were one after another being 
thrown down: the Samaritans were already 
in full possession of the Gospel: it was 
next to be shewn that none of those physical 
incapacities which excluded from the con- 
gregation of the Lord under the old cove- 
nant, formed any bar to Christian baptism 
and the inheritance among believers; and 
thus the way gradually paved for the great 
and as yet incomprehensible truth of Gal. 
ii. 28. Kavdax«ys | As Pharaoh among 


the Egyptians was the customary name of 
kings, so Candace of the queens among the 
AXthiopians in upper Egypt (Al@iomes brep 
Aiytrrov oikodvtes, Dio Cass. liv. 5),—in 
the island of Meroe, Plin. vi. 29, where he 
says, ‘ Ipsum oppidum Meroen ab introitu 
insule abesse LXX m.pass..... Regnare 
foeminam Candacen, quod nomen multis 
jam annis ad reginas transiit..... Ceete- 
rum cum potirentur rerum Aithiopes, in- 
sula ea magnee claritatis fuit.’ yatns | 
A Persian term. Q. Curt. iii. 18. 5, ‘pe- 
cuniam regiam, quam gazam Perse vocant.’ 
See Virg. An. i. 119. ds EAnAVOer.. . ] 
This did not only Jews and proselytes, but 
also those pious Gentiles who adhered to 
Judaism,—the proselytes of the gate, see 
John xii. 20. Euseb. ii. 1, prope fin., 
speaking of this eunuch says, dv mp@tov 
eg eOvav mpds Tov PiAimmov SV emipaveias 
TX Tov Oelov Adyou opyea MeTarx dua, Toy 
TE ave, Thy oikoumeyny TLOTOV arapxiVv 
yevoucvoy x.T.A., taking for granted that 
he was a Gentile. There were (see below, 
ch. xi. 21) cases of Gentile conversion 
before that of Cornelius ; and the stress of 
the narrative in ch. x. consists in the mis- 
cellaneous admission of all the Gentile 
company of Cornelius, and their official 
reception into the church by that Apostle 
to whom was especially given the power. 
We may remark, that if even the plain 
revelation by which the reception of Cor- 
nelius and his company was commanded 
failed finally to convince Peter, so that 
long after this he vacillated (Gal. ii.11, 12), 

it is no argument for the eunuch not being 
a Gentile, sthat his conversion and baptism 
did not remove the prejudices of the Jewish 
Christians. 28. aveyivwoxev| aloud, 


94 TIPASEIS AIIOSTOAQN. VIII. 
nabsol.ch.x. gpopyTyy ‘Haaiav. 9 elev Sé€ TO ™ rvetpa TO Pirie nous 
° Vkaes LI posenOe Kat °KorArAHOnTL TO ldppwate ToOUT@. 89 P apos- ABCEH 
Py telis c 1 om a 
vivre Spapwov 6€ 6 Didurros jKovoev adtod ™ avaywaoKovTos edfgh 
4.P.,eXC. _ mo 
vat ve?) “Hoatay tov mpopyrny, cal eimrev 9° Apa Yye*ywooKes A pi3 
p Mark ix. 15. m 2 , 81 \ > a \ x / 2\ 
x ironly. MavaywooKkes ; *1 6 O€ eizrev Ilds yap av Suvaiuny, éav 


Gen. xviii. 2 


C=] 


only. see 
Luke xviii. 8, 
= Mark iy. 
13. Luke 
xviii. 34 al. 
Dan. ix. 25. 
Matt. xv. 

14. Luke vi. 
39. John 
xvi.13. Rey. 


4 


n 


/ / \ > lal 
Bavta KkaBica ovv ada. 
hy ™ aveyivwoKev Hv avTn: 
Z v fay \ e a? \ b 2. / oo © / > \ 

7X9, Kat @s *apmvos  évavtiov Tod °KelpayTos avToV 

A ¢ \ r 
1 adwvos, oUTwWS OvK © avolyEl TO® aTOMAa avTOD. 


al nog. here HM) TUS SOOnYHTH pe; ‘Tapexareoéy Te TOY PidwTTrOV * ava- 


32 9) bY qrepioy?) Tips “ ypadis 
‘Os * rpoBatov émi ¥ chayny 


33 évy TH 


Pexancs, ‘TATELV@TEL AUTOD H EKpicts avTOU pO, THY [bE] ‘yeveay 


Ps. xxiv. 5. 
t constr., Mark 


v.17. Luke viii. 41. u = Luke y. 19. xix.4 al. 3 Kings xii. 18. v here only $. 4 Kings 
xix. 24, Ps. xxx. 21. (-€yewv, ch. xxiii. 25.) w = Rom. ix. 17 reff. x Matt. x. 16. Mark 
vi. 34. Isa. lili. 7. y Rom. viii. 36 reff. zch. v. 21. xxv. 6,23. Dan. ii. 13. 
a John i. 29, 36. 1Pet.i. 19 only. Exod. xxix. 38 al. fr. b ch. vii. 10 reff. ce ch. xviii. 18. 1 Cor. 
xi. 6 bis only. Gen. xxxi. 19. d = 1Cor. xii. 2. (xiv. 10.) 2 Pet. ii. 16 only. Isa.l.c. Wisd. 


iy. 19. 2 Macc. iii. 29 only. 
iii. 21. Jamesi. 10 only. Gen. xvi. 11. 
22. John i. 29 al. i — Matt. xi. 16 al. 


de 40. 


e = here only. (ver. 35.) 


f Luke i. 48. Phil. 
h = ch, xxii. 


Ps. xxxviii. 9. 


= James ii. 13. 2 Pet. ii. 11. 


no. bef +. tpop. C m vulg(not am fuld demid). 


80. ree tov mp. bef no. (corrn to same order as previously), with EHLP p rel syr 


copt Thl: txt ABCN 13 vulg sah Chr. 
31. om yap E 0 105 sah. 
for re, de E coptt. 


om ay A. 


be bef 08. C. (odnyncet BICR.) 


32. rec Ketpovtos (so LXX-Bx"'3>), with BP p rel Orig Cyr-jer Thl: txt (so Lxx-4x34) 


ACEHL® f kl’ m o! 36 Ign Chron. 


33. om Ist avtov (corrn to LXX) ABN vulg. 


see next verse. Schéttg. quotes from the 
Rabbis: ‘Qui in itinere constitutus est, 
neque comitem habet, is studeat in Lege.’ 
He probably read in the LXX, the 
use of which was almost universal in Egypt. 
The word repioxy below (see on ver. 32) 
is not decisive (Olsh.) against this (as if 
there were meptoxal only in the Hebrew, 
not in the LXX), as it would naturally be 
used us well of one as the other by those 
cognizant of the term. Besides, must 
there not have been zrepioxal in the copies 
of the LXX read in the synagogues ? 
29.| This is the first mention of that inner 
prompting of the Spirit referred to again, 
probably ch. xiii. 2, but certainly ch. x. 
19; xvi. 6, 7. Chrysostom understands 
the words of the appearance of an angel, 
but the text hardly allows it. KoAX, 
no stress—attach thyself to. 30.| apa 
ye = Yea, but... .;q.d. It is well, 
thou art well employed: but ...? Onthe 
force of dpa, used “ ubi responsio expecta- 
tur negans id de quo erat interrogatum,” 
see Hermann on Viger, p. 821. The ye 
strengthens the dpa, implying the passing 
over of all other considerations, and select- 
ing this as the most important: see Har- 
tung, Partikellehre, i. 376 f. It assumes, 
modestly, that he did not understand what 
he was reading. ywook. & avay. | 


ovtos HL f m? o 13. 


om 6e (corrn to LXx ?) ABCN vulg 


So 2 Cor. iii. 2. So too Cato (Wetst.), 
‘ Legere et non intelligere nee legere est.’ 
“Valck. compares the celebrated parono- 
masia of Julian the Apostate, avéeyvwr, 
éyvwv, Katéyvey, and the courageous 
reply of the Christian Bishop to him, 
ayeyvws, GAN ovK eyvws: ef yap eyvws, 
ovk by karéyvws.” Wordsw. 31. | 
yap gives the reason of the negative which 
is understood. The answer expresses at 
once humility and docility. 32.] Per- 
haps it is best to render, The contents of 
the (passage of) Scripture which he was 
reading were as follows: see zepiéxei, 
1 Pet. ii. 6. Cicero indeed appears to use 
meptoxy in the sense of a ‘paragraph,’ or 
‘chapter;’ ad Attic. iii. 25, ‘At ego ne 
Tironi quidem dictavi, qui totas mepioxds 
persequi solet, sed Spintharo syllabatim.’ 
The citation is from the LXX-A, with 
only the variation of avrod inserted after 
ramewdoe: [and d€ before yevedy ]. 

33. év Ty TaTrewwwoet adTov H Kplots avr. 
mp8] Heb. ‘He was taken away by dis- 
tress and judgment :’ i.e. as Lowth, ‘ by 
an oppressive judgment.’ —-yeveav adTov] 
i.e., the age in which He shall live—‘ the 
wickedness of his contemporaries.’ The 
fathers, and Bede (and so Wordsworth), 
explain ‘ His generation’ of His eternal 
Sonship and His miraculous Incarnation. 


29—38. IIPASEIS AIIOSTOAON. 95 
avtod Tis * Sunyjoetas; ote »aiperat ato THS ys 1 Coon \ constr., here 
> na 5) \ ‘ ym > a n / 5 Hood isle 
avtov. ** amoxpiWeis dé 6! edvodyos TO DidlrT@ eitrev *;%s)18* 
m Agopai ™ cov, Tept Tivos 0 TpodyTns Aéyer TOUTO ; b mine. 
jes Ce els EET OUTS 3 Te rae 


a / / = U /- 
€auTov 7) Tepi éTépou TWOS; °° ™ avoiEas bé 6 PiduTTos , 3°: 3. 
absol., Luke 


\ n / > a Sig. E / vo LTC a p fa) / m ab m) 
TO "oTOma avTOD Kal °apfapevos amo THs Pypadas TavTyS "vii. %8! ch, 
a \ > rn / Tey hs 
Levmyyedicato avt@ Tov ‘Incobv. *6 ws Sé érropevovToO Gal.iv-12 
5 ei € lal 
"kaTa THV Odov, HAOoV eri TLS vdwp, Kai dnow oO 'evvod- 


n = Matt. v. 2. 
xiii. 35, from 
Ps. Ixxvii. 2. 


’ \ ef i t e fol ~ 88 \ > fo 1 34 
xvos “ldov tdwp* Ti Kwdver pe BatrticOjvat ; Kal €Ke- ch. x. 34 
Job iii. 1. see Eph. vi. 19. o ch. i. 22 reff. p ch. i. 16 reff. q constr., 
ch. xi. 20 reff. r ver. 26 reff. s = John iii. 23. 
syr sah: ins EHLP p 13 rel tol copt Chr Th] Iren-int. 
34. om tovro B-txt: ins B!-marg. for eav., avtov H. twos bef 


etepou EK. 

35. om o Ec 137. 

36. Ldwp (2nd) X}. 

[87. rec inserts eve Se o Didiwmos et TioTveis e& OANS THS Kapbias ekeoTLY amoKpLOELs 
de evme miotevw Toy viov Tov Beov elvat Tov inoovy xpioroy, with (EL) and 10 others 
specified by Scholz(addg “alii permulti”) am? demid syr-w-ast arm Iren-gr(and int) ec 
Thl-fin-txt Cypr Jer Aug Praedest Pacian—aft de ins avrw E—om o $1A. 36 syr—for e1, 
eay E—aft kapd. ins cov E Cypr Predest—for cfeotw, cwOnoer E; alii aliter—aft 
mot. E has ets tov xp. Tov viov T. 8.—spec reads the whole thus et respondens spado 
ait Credo filiwm dei esse Chr Jes.——: om ABCHLPR 13(sic) rel and 44 others speci- 
fied by Scholz(addg “alii plurimi”) am! fuld syrr coptt ath Chr, c-ms Thl-sif Bede. 
(The insertion appears to have been made to suit the formularies of the baptismal 
liturgies, it being considered strange that the eunuch should have been baptized with- 


aft Tavrys ins kat X1(N3 disapproving). 


out some such confession.) | 


But the Heb. does not seem to bear this 
out. See the meaning discussed at length, 
and another interpretation defended in 
Stier, Jesaias, &c., pp. 466—470. Cf. 
also Gesenius’ Thesaurus under >41. 

34. dtroxpiGets | to the passage of Scrip- 
ture, considered as the question pro- 
posed: not, to the question in ver. 30. 
We can hardly suppose any immediate re- 
ference in érépov tivds to Christ. 

36. ti vdwp| In the scholia to Jerome’s 
Epitaph of Paula (not in Jerome himself) 
on the words, ‘A Bethsur venit,’ we have, 
‘hee etate Hieronymi vocabatur Beth- 
sura: vicus est in tribu Juda, obvius vige- 
simo lapide euntibus ab Hierosolyma Che- 
bron. Juxta hune fons est ad radices 
montis ebulliens, qui ab eadem in qua 
gignitur humo sorbetur. In hoe fonte 
putant eunuchum Candacis Regine bapti- 
zatum fuisse.’ Jerome’s own words [{ Ep. 
108 (27) ad Eustochium, 11, p. 700] are: 
‘ceepit per viam veterem pergere que 
ducit Gazam .... et tacita secum volvere, 
quomodo Eunuchus Athiops, gentium po- 
pulos preefigurans, mutaverit pellem suam, 
et dum vetus relegit instrumentum, fontem 
reperit Evangelii. Atque inde ad dex- 
teram transit. A Bethsur venit Escol’... 
where no reference is made to the tradition, 
save what may be inferred from the men- 
tion of Bethsur. Eusebius also (zep) 7é- 


mov) states it to be twenty miles south of 
Jerusalem in the direction of Hebron: and 
so it is set down in the Jerus. Itin. and the 
Peutinger Tab. (Howson’s map.) Pocock 
found there a fountain built over, and a 
village called Betur on the left. Fabri 
describes the fountain as the head of a con- 
siderable brook, and found near it the ruins 
of a Christian church. There is no impro- 
bability in the tradition except that, even 
supposing a way going across from Hebron 
straight to Gaza to be called épyyos, this 
would not be on that portion of it, but on 
the high road (Winer, Realw.). Tt 
kw. p. Bamw.] There is no reason for sup- 
posing Philip to have preached to him the 
necessity of baptism : his own acquaintance 
with Jewish practices, and perhaps his 
knowledge of the progress of the new faith 
in Jerusalem, would account for the pro- 
position. [$7.] The authorities against 
this verse are too strong to permit its in- 
sertion. It appears to have been one of 
those remarkable additions to the text of 
the Acts, common in D (which is here 
deficient) and its cognates: few of which, 
however, have found their way into the re- 
ceived text. This was made very early, as 
Trenzus has it. The manuscripts which con- 
tain it vary exceedingly : another strong 
mark. of spuriousness in a disputed pas- 
sage. See var. readd. Wordsw. retains it, 


96 IIPABR EIS ATIOZTOAON. VIII. 39, 40. 


= Matt. xx. t pain SALES MO, Z = , ic ABCEH 
J rae AevceV i TO“ apa, Kab KatéBnoav apporepor cob BEEE 
vil. 14. osh. * 


x. 12, 13. TO 
4 Kings xiii. 7 
18. 
u vv. 28, 29. auTov. 
v= John Wall's 


Bdwp, 6 6 te Pirsig Kal oO ' ebv0bxos, Kal éBamticey «ate gh 
39 Ore 6€ " avéBnoav é€x tov vOaTos, * mvetwa pis” 
Vamiun” *«uplov YHptacev tov Pidurmov, Kai ov eidev avTov 
16 ||. .Gen. > , & 9) > a z2 A \ ‘ rae 7 7 
cli. 2. 
zilitiy.1e, ODKETS 0 * edvodxos, erropevero yap THY odo avutou 
Storia, Xalpov. 19 Diremros Sé evpéOn * ets "ASwtov, Kat » dvep- 
3 Kings xviii. 
12. y = John vi.15. 2 Cor. xii. 2,4. 


xxi. 21. zhere only. Josh. ili. 4. 
ver. 20 reff. ver. 4 reff. 


Rey. xii. 5. npma¢ev 0 woTapds, Xen. Anab. iy. 3.6. Judg. 
a =ch. ii. 27. xx. 14. Matt. ii. 23. Luke xi. 7 al. see 
b absol., 

38. e1s To vdwp bef auporepo: E c h 37. 180 syr copt Chr. 

39. for ex, amo E ¢ f 0 1137-77-80. ayyeAos Kuplov npracev Tov diAu@Toy 
ayyedos Se kuptov Al: mvevya aytoy ewemegev emt Toy evvovxoY ayyeAdos Be (see note) 
A-corr! 15-8. 27-9. 36. 60. 100 arm, syr stands thus mvevya kvpiov (ayia syr-mg) 
*ememegev emt Tov evvouxov ayyeAos Se kupiov: Jerome’s testimony is doubtful. On 
Isa Ixiii. 14, vol. iv. p. 754, “ Spiritus Domini ductor ejus fuit,” he says, id est, gregis 
Domini, Spiritum autem hic Angelum debemus intelligere, qui ductor fuit populi 
Israel, juxta illud quod scriptum est | Ps civ. 4, Heb i. 14]. Consideremus illud 
quod in Act. Ap. seribitur, “ Spiritus Domini rapuit Philippum, et non vidit eum 
ultra eunuchus,’ an super Angelo debeamus accipere. Sunt qui Angelum in Spiritu 
sancto hee fecisse testentur. But in Dial. adv. Lucif. 9, vol. ii. p. 182, he says Inde venit 
ut sine chrismate et episcopi jussione, neque presbyter, neque diaconus jus habeant 
baptizandi.. . Ut enim accipit quis, ita et dare potest: nisi forte eunuchus a Philippo 
diacono baptizatus sine Spiritu sancto fuisse credendus est, de quo scriptura ita 


loquitur “ Et descenderunt ambo . 
wenit in Hunuchum.” 
[vv 14—17]” —: 


. eb quum abscederent ab aqua, Spiritus sanctus 
Si autem illud objiciendum putas quia “ Cum audivissent.. . 
txt is supported by Chr(who says overs &yyeAos GAAG Td TvEdME 


avtToy apracer) and by Did(who explains spiritus domini by angelus domini). 


avtovu bef tny odov 


citing Bornemann as doing the same ; but 
it is Bornemann’s principle that all these 
insertions of D and its cognates formed 
part of the original text: so that his au- 
thority goes for nothing. Wordsw. also 
states that it is found in the codex amia- 
tinus of the vulgate, which 2¢ is not, except 
as a correction a secunda manu.] 
38. éxéd.| viz. the eunuch. 39. amv. 
Kup. pt. T. &.| The reading, ‘the Spirit 
fell on the Bunuch, and an angel of the 
Lord caught away Philip, is curious, and 
has probably arisen from a desire to con- 
form the results of the eunuch’s baptism 
to the usual method of the divine pro- 
cedure, and the snatching away of Philip to 
his commission, ver. 26. But the Spirit 
did not fall on the Samaritans after baptism 
by Philip. The text clearly relates a 
supernatural disappe: trance of Philip: com- 
pare Bator e jpev avtoy mvetua xuplov, 4 
Kings ii. 16; no interpretation (as EHich- 
horn, Kuin., Olsh., Meyer) of his being sud- 
denly hurried away by the prompting of’ the 
Spirit, will satisfy the pleas of the above- 
cited passage, ¢ and of (see below) a par: allel 
one in Luke’s own Gospel. The aprd¢ew 
of ref. John, which Meyer cites to justify 
his view, tells in my mind the other way; 
the fear was lest the multitude should come 
and carry Him off to make Him a King: 


and in the reff. I have therefore marked 
the two as bearing the same meaning. 

ovK cidev avTov odKert] Not ‘never saw 
him from that day,’ though (see below) 
that meaning may be indirectly included : 
—but as Luke xxiv. 31, adrds &pavTos 
eyéveTo am atte, and as in the strictly 
parallel words of 4 Kings ii. 12, ob« eldev 
avroy éri,—after the going up of Elijah. 
These last words in my view decide the 
question, that the departure of Philip was 


miraculous. yap| refers to what 
follows (®. 8 cép.). Philip was found at 
Azotus: if the eunuch had gone that way, 


he might have met with him again: but 
he did not, for he went from the fountain 
on his own way, which did not lead through 
Azotus. 40. evp. eis” AL.] A constr. 
pragnans,—Wwas borne to, and found at. 
The word edpem again appears to refer to 
4 Kings ii. 17. Azotus or ASHDOD 
(Josh. xiii. 3; 1 Sam. v. 5 al.) was one of 
the five principal cities of the Philistines, 
never, though nominally in Judah, tho- 
roughly subjug rated by the Jews :—it was 
taken by Tartan the Assyrian g general (Isa. 
xx. 1),—again by Psammetichus, Herod. ii. 
157 ; Jer. xxv. 20 »—again by Judas Mac- 
cabeeus (1 Mace. v. 68) and Jonathan (ib. 
x. 84), and by the latter destroyed ;—re- 
built by Gabinius (Jos. Antt. xiv. 5. 3. 





Exe 1, 2. TIPABEIS ATOSTOAON. 97 


 c constr., ver. 
TOU 25 reff. 
dconstr. w. inf., 
here only. 
1 Kings xvi. 


/ b] 
Nomevos Ceunyyenifero Tas odes macas, * éws 
> lal 
eMOeiv avrov eis Kavodpevav. 


¢ \ -: Im Deeeeye: 
IX. 1°O 8&€ Sadnros ere & éurrvéwy ' arreidjs Kal coven “Lora 

> \ \ a a aA ot A). 
Fels Tovs walnras Tod Kupiov, »aposehOa@v TO apyvepeEl fen ch. vii 


OT RY 4 i > > a ; A > \ A nd clk oe 
NTnCaTO ‘Tap avToOD “émiaToAas ‘ers AauacKov mpog ° ht my. 
” 
Josh. x. 40 B (om gen., A). (-vevots, Ps. xvii. 15.) f ch. iv. [17] 29. 
g ch. xxiii.30. Rom. viii. 7 al. h = Matt. xxvii. 58 |j L. 
(xx.) 13. ich, ili,2. Johniv.9. James i. 5. 
xv. 30. xxiii. 25,33. Rom. xvi. 22 al. L.P., exc. 2 Pet. iii. 1, 16. 
only. see 2 Cor. iii. 1. 

40. tas mod. ma. bef ev. A. [ms 13 is very much defaced from viii. 30 to ix. 1, 
but the words rwAver we Barrio Onvar «ar can be read, thus shewing the omn of ver 37; 
again, in ver. 39, almost the only syllables legible are mvevua «upiov npr, thus shewing 
that cod. colb. does not here, as frequently elsw, agree with A’s peculiar reading. Such 
are the results in two verses alone of Dr. Tregelles’ painstaking collation of the 


k i! 


Eph. vi. 9 only. 
John xii. 21. ch. xxiii. 14 al. 
1 John y. 15 only. Deut. x. 12. 

Neh. il. 7. 


Job xxiii, 6. 
3 Kings xxi. 

ki— ch. 
1 constr., here 


mutilated parts of this important ms. | 


Cuap. IX. 1. for ers, or: B!: om N! 1 24-6. 78. 126 sah. 


2. emiotoAas bef rap avtov &. 


B. J.i.7.7), and belonged to the kingdom 
of Herod, who left it in his will to his sister 
Salome (Antt. xvii. 8.1; 11.5). At pre- 
sent, it is a small village, retaining the name 
Esdud, but no remains. (Robinson, ii. 629; 
iii. 1, 232. Winer, Realw.) TAS 16- 
ets waoas] viz. Ekron, Jamnia, Joppa, 
Apollonia, on the direct road: or, if he 
deviated somewhat for the purpose, Lydda 
also (which seems implied ch. ix. 32). 
Katodperav |] See note, ch. x. 1. 

Cuap. IX. 1—30.] CONVERSION OF 
SAUL. 1.] The narrative is taken up 
from ch. viii. 3, but probably with some in- 
terval, sufficient perhaps to cover the events 
of ch. viii. éuavewv | Meyer charges 
the ordinary interpretation, ‘breathing,’ 
i.e. as in E. V., ‘breathing out, with an 
arbitrary neglect of the composition of the 
word. He would render it ‘¢zhaling,’ with 
the partitive genitives signifying the ele- 
ment. But the sense would thus be flat ; 
and there seems to be no need for pressing 
the sense of the compound verb. We should 
perhaps hardly render it breathing out, — 
but breathing; his ‘spiritus,’ inhaled or 
exhaled, being areiA} kt. pdvos. So & 
aiuatdevtos avamvetwy dpuuaydov, Q. Cala- 
ber, xiv. 72, and mvéwy @uuod, Aristeen. I. 
ep. 5 (Kuin.). epmvéwv, mposed day | 
As ool motevoas, metavacrds, (Hd. Col. 
172, where Hermann remarks, ‘Si recte 
observavi, ea est hujus constructionis ratio, 
ut precedat illud participium, quod, sepa- 
ratim enunciata sententia, indicativus esse 
verbi debet : ut hoc loco sensus sit, 671 ool 
emloTEvoa, METAVATTAS.” TO apxtepet | 
See table in Prolegg. to Acts;—it would 
be Theophilus,—brother and successor to 
Jonathan, who succeeded Caiaphas, Jos. 
Antt. xviii. 5.3. 2. émurtodds | of 
authorization; written by the high priest 
(in this case, but not always, president of 

Voz. II. 


the Sanhedrim) in the name of may 7d 
mpeoButéepiov, ch. xxii. 5. eis Aa- 
paokdv | Damascus is probably the oldest 
existing city in the world. We read of it 
in Abraham’s time (Gen. xiv. 15; xv. 2): 
then no more till David subdued it (2 Sam. 
vili. 6): it became independent again under 
Solomon (1 Kings xi. 24 ff.), and from that 
time was the residence of the kings of Syria 
(1 Kings xv. 18; xx. 1 ff.), who were long 
at war with Israel and Judah, and at last 
were permitted to prevail considerably over 
Israel (2 Kings x.32; Amosi. 3, 4) and to 
exact tribute from Judah (2 Kings xii. 17, 
18, see also 2 Kings xiii. 3, 22, 25). Da- 
mascus was recovered to Israel by Jero- 
boam II. (cir. 825 a.c. 2 Kings xiv. 28). 
Not long after we find Rezin, king of 
Syria, in league with Pekah, king of Israel, 
against Ahaz (2 Kings xv. 37). Ahaz in- 
vited to his assistance Tiglath-pileser, king 
of Assyria, who took Damascus and slew 
Rezin, and led the people captive (2 Kings 
xvi. 5—9; Isa. viii. 4). From this time 
we find it subject to Assyria (Isa. ix. 11; 
x. 9; xvii. 1), then to Babylon (2 Kings 
xxiv. 2; Jer. xxxv. 11),—Persia (Arrian. 
Alex. il. 11, Aapetos téyv ypnu. TH TOAAG 
eae yehe meTouger cis Aauackdy, Strabo, xvi. 
756; Q. Curt. iii, 12. 27),—the Syrian 
Seleucid (1 Mace. xi. 62; xii. 32),—and 
from the time of Pompey (64 A.c.), to the 
Romans, and attached to the province of 
Syria (Jos. Antt. xiv. 4.5; 9.5). Many 
Jews were settled there, andthe majority of 
the wives of the citizens were proselytes, 
Jos. B. J. ii. 20. 2. On its subjection to 
Aretas, see below, ver. 24, note. It was 
later the residence of the Ommiad Caliphs, 
and the metropolis of the Mahommedan 
world. (Conybeare and Howson, edn. 2, 
vol. i. p. 106.) At present it is a large 
city, with (Burckhardt) 250,000 inhabit- 
H 





98 IIPABEIZ AIOTTOAON. ib.© 


m = ch. xviii. 
26. xix. 9, 
23. xxii. 4. 
xxiv. 14, 22. 

n Matt. xiii. 4, 
25. ch. iil. 26. 
viii. 6 al. 


4 iA e 27 er a m 5 A ay 
Tas cuvaywyds, OTws édy Tivas evpn THs ™odod OvTas 
an s Ae VA 
avopas TE Kal yuvatkas, Sedewévous ayayn els “lepoveadnp. 
£ Lal / Lol 
3 ™éy 6€ TO TropeverOar ° éyéveTo avTov ” éyyifew TH Aa- 


bees  paoko, IeEaldvns te avTor * tepinotparev pas * amo 
p dat uke Tod ovpavov, * Kal mecwv él THY yhv *hKovcevy pwviy 
2. chs. 9 A€youtav avT@ Laovr Laovr, Ti pe t dumxers; 5 etmrev Se 
1“ Tis ef [od], dpe; 6 d€ Eye eis Inoods, dv ad * duoxens. 


q Mark xiii. 36. th ; 
Luke ii. 13. ix. 39. ch. xxii. 6 only. Prov. xxiv. 22. 
9, xxvi. 14. John iii. 8. Rey. v. ll al. Exod. xxxii. 18. 


rch. xxii. 6 only +. 8 w. acc., ch. xxii. 


t = ch. vii. 52 reff. 


for tas, Ta B}. for cay, ay X. ovt. bef rns 05. AN p: om ov. 13. 

8. ree kat efaipv., with EHLP rel Chr: txt ABCX8 p. rec mepinotpawev bef 
avrov, with EHLP 13 rel vss Chr: txt (A)BCR m p.—aut. pws 7. A.—mepiotp. C!: 
mepteatp. C3 m; so, appy, but perh wepiacrp. A}. * ex (corrn from ch xxii. 6 P) 
ABCLN d p sah Thl-fin, de vulg E-lat: aro EHP 13 rel Chr Thl-sif. add 
oKAnpoy oo. Tpos KevTpa AakTiCew (from ch xxvi. 14) E 180 am? Syr syr-w-ast (adding 
a note that these words are not here in the text, but where Paul gives the account of 
himself ). 

5. rec om (as ||) ov, with ABEHLPX rel: ins C. rec aft o de ins Kuptos e:mev 
(kupios appears to have been an insertion to avoid the apparent insufficiency of 0 5¢;— 
exrev, from ch xxvi. 15), with HLP 13 rel syrr Chr Thl; kupios apes avroy E o 11. 
27-9. 662; kvpios 100 Hil; ecsrey & k p'3 43. 105-37 copt eth arm: om ABC p? 36 


vulg. 
Aug Ambr,. 


aft ino. add o Na{wpaios (from ch xxii. 8) ACE Syr syr-w-ast copt «th Hil 


5, 6. rec aft SiwK. (omg adda) adds ckAnpov cor mpos KevTpa AaKTiCELW TpEUwY TE Kat 


ants, nearly 70,000 of whom are Chris- 
tians. It is situated most beautifully, in 
a large and well-watered plain, on the river 
Chrysorrhoas (Barrada), which divides 
into many streams (see 2 Kings v. 12), 
and fertilizes the plain (Strabo, xvi. 756, 
y Aapacknvn x@pa diapepdyvTws ematvov- 
pevn),—bounded on all sides by the desert. 
See Winer, Realw., from which the above 
is mainly taken: Vitringa in Jesaiam, p. 
650 ff. (Notitia Damasci et Regni Dama- 
sceni), and a vivid description in C. and H., 
pp. 104—108. aTpos T. cuv.| i.e. to 
the presidents of thesynagogues, who would 
acknowledge the orders of the Sanhedrim, 
and could, under the authority of the Eth- 
narch, carry them out. THs 6800 | Not 
‘this way,’ BE. V., which rendering should 
be kept for the places where the pronoun is 
expressed, as ch. xxii. 4,—but the way, 
viz. of ‘salvation,’ ch. xvi. 17, or ‘of the 
Lord,’ ch. xviii. 25. (The genitive, as ris 
yvouns elva, see 1 Cor.i.12.) The ex- 
pression ‘THE WAY’ had evidently become 
a well-known one among Christians (see 
reff.) ; and it only was necessary to prefix 
the pronoun when strangers wereaddressed. 

The special journey to Damascus 
presupposes the existence of Christians 
there, and in some numbers. This would 
be accounted for by the return of many 
who may have been converted at the Pen- 
tecostal effusion of the Spirit, and perhaps 
also by some of the fugitives from the per- 


secution having settled there. This latter 
is rendered probable by Ananias’s #xovoa 
amd TOAAGY ep TOU avdpos ToUTOD, Ver. 13. 
38. | The journey from Jerusalem was 
probably made on the Roman road, i. e. 
that of the Itineraries, by Neapolis (Sichem) 
and Scythopolis, crossing the Jordan S. 
of the lake Tiberias,—Gadara, and so to 
Damascus. Or he might have joined,— 
either the Petra road, by Jericho and Hesh- 
bon, and so by Botsrah to D.,—or the 
Egyptian caravan-track, which passes to 
the north of the lake of Tiberias, and near 
Cesarea Philippi. In either case the jour- 
ney would occupy from five to six days, the 
distance being 130 to 150 miles. 
mepiyotp. «.T.A.| It was (ch. xxii. 6) aepl 
HeonuBptay,—and from ch. xxvi. 13, the 
light was brép Thy Aaumpétntra Tod HAlov. 
These details at once cut away all ground 
from the absurd rationalistie attempt to 
explain away the appearance as having been 
lightning. Unquestionably, the inference 
is, that if was a bright noon, and the full 
splendour of the oriental sun was shining. 
His companions saw the light, and 
were also cast to the ground, ch. xxvi. 
13, 14; xxii. 9, see below on ver. 7. 4, 
Aéyoveay avr.| 77 ‘EBpald: SiadeeT@, ch. 
xxvi.l4. And it is aremarkable undesigned 
coincidence, that the form SaovA should 
have been preserved in this account, and 
rendered in Greek in the translation of 
Paul’s speech in ch. xxii. In ch. xxvi., 





ABCEH 
LPRab 
cedfgh 
klmo 
p13 


3—7. IIPAZEIS AITOSTOAQN. 99 


see 7. 4 : 
6 ada VNavdotnO& Kal cisehOe els THY TOALY, Kab * Mark ix. 27. 


Luke iv. 39. 
/ / id a a y.20. Ver. 
YRadnOncetai cor 6 Tt ce Set Tovelv. 7 of Sé Gvdpes ob Si ce sii7 


al. 3 Kings 
XX. (KK 
v=ch. (x. 32] 
where only +. Wisd. vi. 23 (25) only. (-5¢a, Luke 
Isa. lvi. 10. Ep. Jer. 41 only. 


w } 7 > lal L3 / x2 VA > / \ 
OUVVOOEVOVTES AUT@M ElOTIKELO AV EVEOL, AKOVOVTES [LEV 


1 Cor. xiv. 3. Ezek. iii. 22. 
x here only. Prov. xvii. 28. 


xxii. 10. 
li. 44.) 


OapBwv erme upic TL Me OeAELS TOLNTAL Kat Oo KUpLos pos avToy (from ch xxvi. 14, and 
xxii. 10. Inserted by Erasmus from the Latin: in his annotations on “ Durum est 
tibi” he says “In grecis codicibus id non additur hoc loco, cum mox sequatur, Surge; 
sed aliquanto inferius, cum narratur hee res.” See Treg on the Printed Txt p 23), 
with no Greek manuscript as far as Griesbach (“codices graeci, quantum scimus, nulli”), 
Scholz (repeating Gb’s words), and Tischdf are aware—vulg(demid fuld) syr-w-ast(but 
varies, and syr ins aAAa) ewth(but varies) arm(ed-zoh: but addg adda) Cc-ed-txt Thl- 
ed-fin-txt Hil(rpeu. to mor., omg the former part): aAAa is inserted and the rec omitted 
by all our manuscripts, by 238 others which Scholz specifies, by am! tol(Tischdf) Syr 


coptt Chr Ge-ms. 
6. exsud: B. 
de: bef ce H-gr: om oe k. 


7. rec evveo, with L rel: txt ABCEHPR a b! h m p 13 syr-mg-er. 


where he was speaking in Greek before 
Festus, he inserts the words 77) ‘Ep. d:aA., 
to account for the use of the form Saova : 
or perhaps he spoke the solemn words, in- 
effaceable from his memory, as they were 
uttered, in Hebrew, for King Agrippa. 
(See note on Saovd, ver. 17.) Tl pe 
Sid«ers;] A remarkable illustration of 
Matt. xxv. 45. The we is not emphatic 
[agst Wordsw.]; but the very lack of 
emphasis, assuming the awful fact, gives 
more solemnity to the question. 

5. 6 8€] That Saul saz, as well as heard, 
Him who spoke with him, is certain from 
Ananias’s speech, ver. 17, and ch. xxii. 
14,—that of Barnabas, ver. 27,—from ch. 
xxvi. 16 (pOnv cor), and from the re- 
ferences by Paul himself to his having 
seen the Lord, 1 Cor. ix. 1; xv. 8. These 
last I unhesitatingly refer to this occasion, 
and not to any subsequent one, when he 
saw the Lord év éxotdoe:, ch. xxii. 17. 
Such appearances could hardly form the 
subject of autoptic testimony which should 
rank with that of the other apostles: this, 
on the contrary, was no €caTagts, but the 
real bodily appearance of the risen Jesus : 
so that it might be adduced as the ground 
of testimony to His Resurrection. On 
the words excluded from our text, as having 
been interpolated from ch. xxvi. 14, and 
xxii. 10, see note at xxvi. 14. It is natural 
that the account of the historian should be 
less precise than that of the person con- 
cerned, relating his own history. In ch. 
xxvi. 15—18, very much more is related to 
have been said by the Lord: but perhaps 
he there, as he omits the subsequent par- 
ticulars, includes the revelations made to 
him during the three days, and in the mes- 
sage of Ananias. igi banehecxci., OF 
oi O€ cy euol dvTes TH pev Has COedcayTO 


rec om 6, with EHLP 18. 36 rel Chr Thl: ins ABCN p Cyr. 


for ev, de 


[k. EupoBar eyévovto], Thy 5 davhy ovK 
Hkovcay Tov AadodvTds wot. Two accounts 
seemingly (and certainly, in the letter) 
discrepant ; but exceedingly instructive 
when their spirit is compared,—the fact 
being this: that the companions of Saul 
saw and were struck to the ground by the 
light, but saw obdéva, no person :—that 
they stood (or ‘ were fixed: but I should 
acknowledge the discrepancy here, and re- 
cognize the more accurate detail of ch. xxvi. 
14, that they fell to the ground) mute, hear- 
ing Tis pwy7js, the sound of the voice, but 
not Tv pwyvhv tod AadovyTds wot, the 
words spoken and their meaning. Compare 
John xii. 29, note. (Only no stress must 
be laid on the difference between the gen. 
and ace. government of @wyh, nor indeed 
on the mere verbal difference of the two 
expressions ;—but their spirit considered, 
in the possible reference which they might 
have to one and the same fact.) Two 
classes of readers only will stumble at this 
difference of the forms of narration ; those 
who from enmity to the faith are striving to 
create or magnify discrepancies,—and those 
who, by the suicidal theory of verbal inspi- 
ration, are effectually doing the work of the 
former. The devout and intelligent student 
of Scripture will see in such examples a 
convincing proof of the simple truth of the 
narrative, —the absence of all endeavour to 
pare away apparent inconsistencies or revise 
them into conformity,—the bond fide work 
of holy truthful men, bearing each his testi- 
mony to things seen and heard under the 
guidance, not of the spirit of bondage, but 
of that Spirit of whom it is said, od 7rd 
mvevpa Kuptov, eAevOepia. I should not 
too hastily determine that this account 
has not come from Saul himself, on ac- 
count of the above differences: they are 


H 2 


100 


y ch. vii. 56 
reff. 

zch. xxii. 11 
only. Judg. 
xvi. 26 A 
only. 

a ch. xxiii. 12. 
Esth. iv. 16. 

b ch. vii. 31 
relf. Se a 2 

c = Heb. ii. 13 QUOE ETT LEV. 
only. 1 Kings , 
il. 4. 

d ch, viii. 26 
reff. 

e Matt. vi. 2. 
Luke xiv. 21. 


oKOV. 


vavias. 


ch. xii. 10 
only. Isa. 
xy. 3. 


(omg Se follg) p. 


dghk1o eth arm Chr Thl. 


TIPAZEIS AMOSTOAON. 


THs povns, wndéva de Y OewpodvTes. 
> \ rn a > / \ la) ? cal > fal > / 
aTo THS Yis, nvewypévov 5€ TOV dfOarpyav avTod ovdéva 
éPrerrev" * yerpaywyovrvtes 5€ avrov eisnyayov eis Aaya- 
\ lal 
9 Kal Hv Auépas TpEls un Br€T@V, Kal ovK * Epayev 
Oy / a 
10°Hp 6€ tis pabnrijs év Aapacke ovomate 
3 c , 
Kal eimev mpos avtov ev »opapate 6 KUpLOS 
eg N ‘ € Oe a c 1d \ , , / 
vavia. 6 6€ €i7rev ov é€y@, KUPLE. 
SEE oN d At \ / ; eae, \ e £ / \ 
avTov vaoTas TopevOnty emt THY © puny THY KaNov- 
/, He n \ / b] > / ’ ‘ ><) r > / 
pevnv evbetav, Kat Entnoov év otkia "lovda Lavrov ovo- 


om ABCERX b! p. 


IX. 
8 nyépOn S€ Laddos 


11 6 8€ KUpLos Tpos 


Beopouytes R83: opwytes RN}. 
8. rec ins o bef cavaos, with HLP rel: 
BHLP rel: txt (A)CE(&) p.—nvory. A: nrvy. &}. 


rec avewy., with 
for 2nd de, re HLP a b (ce?) 


ovdev (cf ch xxii.) AXBN syrr vulg E-lat, non eth 


sah: txt A2CE-gr HLP rel copt Chr Thl.—in N a seems to have been begun above the 


line, but is left unfinished. 
9. for ovde, kat ov C. 


10. rec o kup. bef ev op., with HLP p rel vss Thl: txt ABCEN vulg eth-rom. 
11. avacra B fuld syrr(but so also ch x. 13, 20) coptt ; and, adding rat, vulg(not am) 
zeth(but so also elsw when there is no varn in the Greek). 


no more than might arise in narrations at 
different times by the same person. 
elotykercay| It will be well to warn 
younger readers against an error often 
found in English Commentators (e. g. Dr. 
Burton here),—that €orjka is past, and 
elotnKew pluperfect in signification,— 
€orna, ‘I have beenstanding, and eforn- 
keioav, ‘had been standing.’ This error 
arises from forgetting the peculiar charac- 
ter of the verb formu: with regard to tran- 
sitive and intransitive meanings. €o7nKa 
is strictly present,—etorhkew imperfect : 
as much so as sto and stabam. See Mat- 
thie, § 206. And this accuracy is im- 
portant here: they had not ‘been stand- 
ing,’ but had fallen. See ch. xxvi. 14, 
TdvTwy TE KaTaTETbYTWY TuaY eis THY 
viv. Wordsw.’s explanation, that eiory- 
kecoav refers to the standing still of the 
cavalcade, not to the standing of Saul’s 
companions, is untenable: for 1) the éveol, 
which qualifies the eiorjKe:oay, forbids it: 
and 2) his justifying imstances are all 
aorists, Luke vii. 14; viii. 44; ch. viii. 38, 
not perfect, which surely will not bear this 
sense of mere arrestation in a course. 

8.] On his eyes being opened (it would 
seem that he had closed them on the first 
disappearance of the vision), he saw no 
one. He explains it, ch. xxii. 11, ds be 
ovK eveéBrerov amd THs Sdkns TOD pwrds 
éxelvov. He had seen, what those with 
him had not seen, the glorious Person of 
the Lord Jesus. See below on ver. 18. 

9.] Obs. pi BAérwy, his personal subjective 
stute: ov« &p., the historical fact. 

ovk ed. ovdé Er. | There is vo occasion to 


soften these words: the effect produced on 
him by the ovpdvios émtacta (ch. xxvi. 
19), aided by his own deeply penitent and 
remorseful state of mind, rendered him in- 
different to all sustenance whatever. 

10.] Paul adds, ch. xxii. 12, with par- 
ticularity, as defending himself before the 
Jews, that Ananias was dyvyp ebvAaBis 
Kata Tov vduoy paptupovuevos ord mav- 
Twy TY KaToiKovyTwy *lovdalwy: saying 
nothing of the command received by him, 
nor that he was a disciple. In ch. xxvi., 
speaking before the Roman governor, he 
does not mention him. Mr. Howson 
(edn. 2, vol.i.p. 114) remarks on the close 
analogy between the divine procedure by 
visions here, and in ch. x. Here, Ana- 
nias is prepared for his work, and Saul for 
the reception of him as a messenger, each 
by a vision: and similarly Peter and Corne- 
lius in ch. x. I may add, that in ch. viii., 
where the preparation of heart was already 
found in the eunuch, Philip only was super- 
naturally prepared for the interview. 

11. } “We are allowed to bear in mind that 
the thoroughfares of Eastern cities do not 
change, and to believe that the ‘straight 
street,’ which still extends through Damas- 
cus in long perspective from the eastern 
gate, is the street where Ananias spoke to 
Saul.” (C. and H., p. 115.) olkia 
*Jov8a} The houses of Ananias and Judas 
are still shewn to travellers. Doubtless 
they (or at least the former) would long be 
remembered and pointed out by Christians; 
but, in the long degradation of Christianity 
in the Hast, most such identities must have 
been lost; and imposture is so easy, that 


ABCEH 
LPRab 
edfgh 
kimo 
p 13 


8—15. 


pate Tapoéa. 


IIPABREIS AILOSTOAON. 


101 


12 (800 yap ‘ Tposevxerat, Kal eldev avdpa f*bs0l.. ch. x. 


9 reff. 


Ee viii. l7 
*Avaviay ovopate eiseNOovta Kal § émibévta avT@ Nee se 


oTras "avaBréWyn. | arrexpiOn dé’ Avavias Kijpie, ! nKOUTA 
1amo0 TONY Tepit Tod avdpos TovTOV, boca *KaKa ToIs 
laylows cov éroinoey év ‘lepovoadnm 
m €£ovolayv Tapa TOV apxiEepéwy Shaat TavTas Tovs ” éTLKA- 


ANovupévous TO OvomMa Gov. 


4 la) a e 
°TIopevov, ott PoKedos éxNoyhs é€oTiv fot oUTOS 
\ , 
8 Bactacat TO dvoud pov * éveTrioy EOvay Te Kal Baciréwv 


Oat, 2 Tim. iv. 14. 
xxvii. 52. Ps. xv. 3 and freq.) 
x. 13 reff. 


1 = here first. 


iv. 7. (1 Thess. iv. 4.) 


2 Tim. ii. (20) 21. 
r constr., 1 Cor. x. 13 reff. 


o absol., Matt. ii. 8. ch. xxii. 21 al. fr. 
(1 Pet. iii. 7. 
s = here only {. 


= = oe itt. xi. 5 
al. in gospp. 
Acts, here 
3ce, and ch. 
xxii. 13 bis 


Ni »” only. Isa 
It kal wde ™ Eyer a 
-Wes, Isa. 
Ixi. 1.) 
i Luke xxii. 71. 


1 Johni. 5 


15 Cy be \ =) \ € 4 d . 
E€LTTEV é€ TT pos QavuTOV O KUplos k and constr., 


4 Kings viii. 


Tt - . 4 
TOU 12. w. Tpat- 
TELV, ch. 
xvi. 28. w. 
évdetkvuc- 
Acts, vv. 32, 41, and ch. xxvi. 10 only. Epp. passim. (Matt. 
m | Cor. vii. 37 reff. n ch. ii; 21 and Rom. 


Jer. iii. 12. 
Ps, xxx. 12.) 
t = ch. ii, 25 reff. 


p = Rom. ix. (21) 22, 23. 2Cor. 
q Rom. ix. 11 reff. 


12. rec aft evdev ins ev opapati (addition to complete sense, as is shewn by its various 


position), with EHLP 13. 36 rel; aft avdpa BC: 
ovopatt bef avaviav, with HLP 13 rel Thl-sif: om ov. sah wth-rom Chr: 
Tas xeipas BEX? Anton: 


a hm pvulg arm Thl-fin. 


om AN p vulg coptt eth. ree 


txt ABCEN 


xetpas ACN! p(appy): txt 


HLP 18 rel “syrr(but Syr [Etheridge] has the sing in ver 17) sah eth-pl One (Ec Thl. 


18. rec ins o bef avavias: 


om ABCEHPR® (c Thi. 
ingly more appropriate tense), with HLP 13 rel Chr: 


ree aknkoa (corrn to seem- 
aknroauev lect-14: txt ABCEX 


rec emot. bef T. aytors wou (alteration of. characteristic arrangement to more 


Pp. 
usual one), with HLP 13 rel Chr We Thi: 


demid fuld.—om gov p. 


ev tep. bef ero. A: txt BCEX m p am 


15. rec por bef eor., with EHLP 13 rel coptt Archel Thdrt Thl Iren-int: txt ABCX 


em p vulg syrr Did-e. 


ins twv bef eAvwy BC! Cyr. 


rec om Ist re, with HLP 


rel Chr Thdrt Thi-sif: ins ABCEN p 13. 36 Thl-fin. 


it is hardly possible to cherish the thought 
that the spots now pointed out can be the 
true ones. And so of all cases, where we 
have not unalterable or unaltered data to 
go on. Still, true as this is, we have 
sometimes proofs and illustrations unex- 
pectedly appearing, as research goes on, 
which identify as authentic, sites long 
pointed out by tradition. So that our way 
seems to be, to seek for all such elucida- 
tions, and meantime to suspend our judg- 
ment: but never to lose sight of, nor to 
treat contemptuously a priori, a local belief. 

Tapoéa| The first place where 
he is so specified. TaRsus was the 
capital of the province of Cilicia, a large 
and populous city (ris Kid. wow peyaanv 
k. evdatuova, Xen. Anab. i. 2. 23) in a 
fruitful plain on the river Cydnus, which 
flowed through the midst of it (‘Cydnos, 
Tarsum liberam urbem procul a mari se- 
cans.’ Plin. v. 27. Strabo, xiv. 673. Q. 
Curt. iii. 5. 1), with a swift stream of re- 
markably cold water. Strabo speaks most 
highly of its eminence in schools of philo- 
sophy: tocattn Tots evOdde avOpamors 
amovd)) Tpds TE Pirocodiay Kal Thy BAAnY 
eyKUKALoy Gmacay maidelay yéeyovev, bs? 
brepBeBAnvra Kal "A@hvas ka “Aretav- 
Sperav Kal ef twa &AAov témov Suvatoy 
elmety, ev @ TxXora kal Siar piBa Ta&Y pido- 


d€ TocodTov, OT evTadOa mev of Pidoma- 
OovvTes émtydpior mavres eiol, xiv. 674. 
He enumerates many learned men who had 
sprung from it. It was (see Plin. above) 
an ‘‘urbs libera,” i.e. one which, though 
under Rome, lived under its own laws and 
chose its own magistrates. This ‘libertas’ 
was granted to it by Antony (Appian. Civ. 
y. 7): and much later we find it a Roman 
colony. As a free city, it had neither the 
‘jus coloniarum,’ nor the ‘jus civitatis : 
see ch. xxi. 39, also xxii. 28, and note. It 
is now a town with about 20,000 inhabit- 
ants, and is described as being a den of 
poverty, filth, and ruins. There are many 
remains of the old town (Winer, Realw.). 
12. mposevxetat | This word would 
set before Ananias more powerfully than 
any other, the state of Saul. avipa 
*Av. 6v.| A man, whose name in the same 
vision he knew to be Ananias. The sight 
of the man and the knowledge of his name 
were both granted him in his vision. 
13. tots Gytous wov| This is the first time 
that this afterwards well-known appella- 
tion occurs as applied to the believers in 
Christ. 14.] It could hardly fail to 
have been notified to the Christians at 
Damascus by their brethren at Jerusalem, 
that Saul wis on his way to persecute 
them. 15. ox. éxdoyys] A genit. of 


odpav kal Tey Adywy yeyou "EL PBRARY “OP ‘the man of his choice.’ 
TENNENT COLLEGE 


102 


u ch. x. 36 reff. 

v and constr., 
Luke (iii. 7 
\| Mt.) vi. 47. 
xii. 5. ch. 
xx. 35 only. 
Esth. v. ll. 

weh.y. 4). xv. 
26. xxi. 13. 
Rom. i. 5. 
3 John7 only. 

x — ch. v. 26 
reff. 

y ch. viii. 17 
reff. 

z ch. ii. 3 reff 

a ver. 12. 

b ch, ii. 4 reff. 

c here only. 
Job xxix. 24. 

d = ch. ii. 3. 
Matt. iii. 16. 

e here only. 
Levit. x1. 9, 
12. (-7éGewv, Tobit xi. 13.) 


h \ i Sows, 
Tpopny ' eviayucev. 
Luke xxii. 43 only. 2 Kings xxii. 40. 


17. for de, re A. 
coptt «th-rom Cc Thl. 


TIIPAHEIS ATOZTOAQON. 


f ch. viii. 26 reff. 
hhere only. “eTad. Tp., ch. ii. 46. xxvii. 33, 34. TMpOsA. TP., xxvii. 36. 
i j ch. x. 48 reff. 


tas x. bef em aut. C vss. 
om 7 npxov X}(ins X-corr?). 
18. [awerecay, so ABCEHN p Thl-sif. | 


IX. 


“vidv te “Iopand 16 eyo yap ‘ vTodeiEw aiTd doa det A 
aitov “ imrép Tod * dvopatos pov Trabeiv. 1 * amhdOev de cdi: 
’"Avavias Kab eisdOev els THY oiKiav, Kai ¥ éubels Em abToY P13 
Tas ¥ yeipas eirrev LaovA adedé, 6 KUpLOs aTéTTANKEY Ee, 
"Incots 6 *ob0els cou €v TH 06@ % Hpyov, OTws * ava- 
Br&vens Kal »arnoOys Tvevpatos aryiov. 
‘ anérecav avtod ato Tav odOaryav “asel © emides, 
4 avéBrewéev te kal! dvactas éBarTticOn, |! Kai § AKaBov 
éyéveTo O€ peta TOV ev AapacKke@ 
pabntav i npépas i twas, 29 Kat evOéws ev Tais cvvaywyais 


18 cal ev0éws 


Mark xy. 23. 1 Tim. iv. 4. 
Gen. xlviii. 2. trans., 


g = John xix. 30. 
i = here only. 


om imo. HLPbdghk1lm 


rec am. T. of0. bef aut. (more 


usual instead of more characteristic arrangement), with CEHLPN rel: txt AB m. 


ws (more usual word) ABN? p. 


for te, de C28 copt. rec aft Te 


ins tapaxpnua (addition for precision), with EL rel syr: om ABCIHPR d gl’ m p36 


vulg Syr coptt arm. 
19. evicxv@y BC!. 


rec aft ey. 5¢ ins 0 cavAos (commencement of an ecclesias- 


tical portion: so lect-12 has eyev. ewat Tov mavaov), with HLP rel Thl: txt ABCEN 


c p vulg syrr copt xth arm Chr. 
Thl-fin. 


See Winer, edn. 6, § 34. 3, b. Paul 
often uses this word oxevos in a similar 
meaning, see reff., especially Rom. ix., &e., 
where it is in illustrating God’s ‘sovereign 
power in election. Baoctacat, per- 
haps in reference to the metaphor in 
oKEUvOS. é6vav | This would hardly be 
understood at the time: it was afterwards 
on a remarkable occasion repeated to Paul 
by the Lord in a vision (see ch. xxii. 21), 
and was regarded by him as the specific 
command which gave the direction to his 
ministry, see Gal. ii. 7, 8. Baonk. | 
Agrippa, and probably Nero. 16. 
tmrodcigw | The fulfilment of this is testi- 
fied by Paul himself, ch. xx. 23, 25: see 
also xxi. 11. 17. SaovA}| The He- 
brew form of Saul’s name is only found 
here, and in the report of our Lord’s pre- 
vious address to him. kK. Ano Ors 
amv. ay.) I can hardly think, with De W. 
and Meyer, that these words imply that 
the Lord had said to Ananias more than 
is above related: I would rather view them 
as a natural inference from what was said 
in ver. 15. In ch. xxii. 14, where the 
command to Ananias is omitted, his speech 
contains much of the reason given in the 
command here. It is remarkable again 
how Paul, speaking there to an infuriated 
Jewish mob, gives the words spoken just 
that form which would best gain him a 
favourable hearing with them—e. g. 6 Geds 


ins ovtwy bef ev dauackw HLP bd g k m o Chr 


TOV TaTépwv juav,—idety Toy Sikaroy.— 
mavTas avépémous, avoiding as yet the 
hateful word éévn. He there too gives 
avacTas Bartioat Kal amdAovoat Tas apap- 
tlas cov, émikadeoduevos TO bvoMa avToU 
as part of the exhortation of Ananias. 

18. aset Aemides| The recovery of 
sight is plainly related as miraculous, the 
consequence of the divinely appointed lay- 
ing on of the hands of Ananias. And this 
scaly substance which fell from his eyes 
was thrown off in the process of the in- 
stantaneous healing. eBamrioty | It 
has been well remarked (Olsh.) that great 
honour was here placed upon the sacra- 
ment of baptism, imasmuch as not even 
Saul, who had seen the Lord in special 
revelation and was an elect vessel, was 
permitted to dispense with this, the Lord’s 
appointed way of admission into His 
Church. 19. évicy.] intrans. see reff. 

jp. twas] A few days; of quiet, 
and becoming acquainted with those as 
brethren, whom he came to persecute as 
infidels: but not to learn from them the 
gospel (ov5€ yap eyw mapa avOpdrov map- 
€AaBov aito, ote ed:ddxOnv, Gal. i. 12), 
nor was the time longer than to admit of 
ev0éws being used, ver. 20,—and indeed 
the same ev@éws of the whole space (in- 
cluding his preaching in our vy. 20, 21) 
preceding the journey to Arabia, in Gal. i. 
16. Pearson places that journey before 


BCE! 
Pal 


16—23. 


b] / XN ’ rt e , an fal 
K éxnpuccev Tov Inoodv, 6tt! obTOs éoTLV O vids TOD Oeod. 
1/ ‘ , € > i: \ »” > 
eEictayto S€ Tavtes of akovovTes Kai EXeyov Ody 

Bf 5 if ig , 
ovToS é€oTW oO opOnaas év ‘lepovcarip Tods ° érvKadou- 

L \ p bl lal \ e > lal > / 
fevous TOP dvowa TOUTO; Kal WdEe VEls TOUTO 4 éXndVOEL, 


21 m 


~ 
iva Oedepévous avto’s ayayn 


(9) lal al lal 

22 Sadros € paddXov * évedvvamovto, kai t cuvéyuvvev Tods 

>, / \ a nn 

lovdaiovs tovs Katotxodvtas év Aapacke, * cupBiBatov 

93 id oe Ww > ri n x id / 
as O€ “ émAnpodvTo *i)uépae 


er ee > e / 
OTL * OUTOS EOTLY O KXploTos. 


e , Ce) a a 
*ixaval, Y cuveBovAevcavTo ot “lovdatou 7 avedeiv avtov: 


Mark i. 38. 
of Paul, and Heb. xi. 34. 
v ver. 20 reff. 


r = Matt. x. 18 al. 
Berit. 
w ch. vii. 23 reff. 


IIPAR EIS ATOSTOAON. 


t ch. ii. 6 reff. 


103 


k ky. T. no., 
ch. xix. 13. 
2 Cor. xi. 4, 
LP.» KN. Te 
XP., see ch. 
viii. 5 reff, 
ver. 22. 


1 John y. 20 
al. fr. 

m ch. viii. 13 
refi. 

n Gal. i. 13, 23 
only +. 

o ver. 14, 

p ch. vy. 28 (iv. 
12. James ii. 


Tees \ 
€77lb TOUS 


apylepets. 


7). 
q John xviii. 37 
only. see 
s Rom. iv. 20 al5. Paul only, exc. here, which is 
ul Cor. ii. 16 reff. Exod. xviii. 16. 
x ver. 43. ch. xviii. 18. xxvii. 7 L. see ch. viii. 11. 


ry, constr., Rey. iii. 18 only. 1 Macc. ix. 69. see Dan. vi.7 Theod. w. tva., Matt. xxvi.4. John xi. 53 only. w. 


O7t, John xviii. 14 only. 


z ch. y. 33 reff. 


20. rec for ino., xpiotov (doctrinal alteration? see note), with HLP rel Chr: alii 
aliter: txt ABCEX a ch p 18 vulg syrr Iren-int. 


21. efiotaTo N}(but corrd). 


for ev, evs AN. 


eAndAvéev (alteration, not 


observing the force of the pluperf?) E-gr HLP p rel vss Chr Gic Thi: txt ABCN 0 (13) 


36 E-lat. avayayn P. 
22. aft eved. ins Tw Aoyw C, ev Tw A. EH. 


exeev E 57. 662. 137-80 Thl-fin : ecvvexuver 13: txt BIC. 


23. ins a bef nuepu H. 


our éyévero 5¢,—which however is mani- 
festly against the sense of the text :— 
Michaelis and Heinrichs, between vv. 19 
and 20,—to which there is the same ob- 
jection: Kuinoel and Olsh., after ver. 25, 
—which the ev@éws of Gal. i. 16 will not 
allow: Neander and Meyer, in the 7uépau 
ixaval of ver. 238, which time however in 
our text is certainly allotted to the pro- 
gress of his preaching in Damascus, and 
the increase of the hostility of the Jews in 
consequence. See below. 20. *In- 
covv| The alteration to xpiordv has pro- 
bably, as Meyer suggests, been made from 
doctrinal considerations, to fix on 6 vids 
Tov beod the theological sense, —that Christ 
is the Son of God—instead of that which 
it now bears,—that Jesus is the Son of 
God, i.e. that Jesus of Nazareth as a 
matter of fact, is the Son of God, i. e. the 
Messiah expected under that appellation. 
Be this as it may, the following 76 dvopa 
Tovto (ver. 21) is decisive for the reading 
*Incovv, and ovrds éotiv 6 xpiords ver. 22 
still more so. 21. wop§ycas]| ‘ Mi- 
litari verbo usus est,’ Erasm. So Asch. 
Choeph. 680, of ’yé, Kar’ &kpas evOae as 
mop0ovpeba. See also Sept. c. Theb. 176 
(194 Dind.). eAnAvOer}] had come 
here, implying the abandonment of the 
purpose. 22.| I regard the paddov 
eveduvapovto, as the only words beneath 
which can lie concealed the journey to 
Arabia. Paul mentions this journey (Gal. 
i. 17) with no obscure hint that to it was 
to be assigned the reception by him, in 


rec ouvexuveyv, with AHLP rel: cuv- 
om lst rovs BX}. 


full measure, of the Gospel which he 
preached. And such a reception would 
certainly give rise to the great accession 
of power here recorded. I am the more 
disposed to allot that journey this place, 
from the following considerations. The 
omission of any mention of it here can 
arise only from one of two causes: (1) 
whether Paul himself were the source of the 
narrative, or some other narrator,—the in- 
tentional passing over of it, as belonging 
more to his personal history (which it was 
his express purpose to relate in Gal. i.) than 
to that of his ministry : (2) on the suppo- 
sition of Paul not having been the source 
of the narrative,—the narrator having 
not been aware of it. In either case, this 
expression seems to me one very likely to 
have been used:—(1) if the omission was 
intentional,—to record a remarkable acces- 
sion of power to Saul’s ministry, without 
particularizing whence or how it came: 
(2) if it was unintentional,—as a simple 
record of that which was observed in him, 
but of which the source was to the nar- 
rator unknown. ovvexuvvev | Chry- 
sostom strikingly says, Gre vowouabhs dv 
emeoTomicey avTovs Kal ove ela p0eyye- 
oOa evoutcay amnrAdAdxOa THs év Tots 
Towovros dSiadctews GmadAayevtes Sre- 
gpdvov, Kal Srepdvov apodpdtepoy cipov 
étepov. (Cramer’s Catena.) 23. 
Fpepar txavai | Zn Damascus, see above on 
ver. 19. The whole time, from his con-' 
version to his journey to Jerusalem, was 
three years, Gal. i. 18. Gvedetv avr. | 


104 


TIPAREIS ATLOZTOAON. 


IX. 


lal / lal 
aconstr, Phil. 24 éyye@aOn 5€ TH LavrAw 7» ertBovdry avTav. © mapeTn- 
peh.xx.3,19. pouvTo b€ Kal Tas TUAAS 4 épas Te Kal “vUKTOS STraS 
xxill. 30 \ , or , a 
only. Esth. QUTOV *avéAXwaow? 2 ©&RaBovTes S€ of pabyntat avTov 


c mid., Luke vi. 7. xiv. 1. Gal. iv. 10. Ps. xxxvi. 12. 
xviii.7. Rev.iv.8al4. Ps.i.2. v.«. mépas, Mark v. 5. 
e Matt. xxi. 35, 39. Gen. xii. 5. 


act., Mark iii. 2. 


Luke xx. 20 only. 
1 Thess. ii. 9al. Isa, xxxiv. 10. 


d gen., Luke 
acc., ch. xx. 31 reff. 


24. rec mapetnpouy (mistake : see below), with HLP 13 rel: txt ABCEN Fr-coisl p 36 


Orig. 


copula was wanted : 


ABCERX Fr-coisl p 36 vulg Orig. 


TiATwoW avToV nM. Kat vuKT. A. 


om te Ad f k Orig. 
aver. bef avrov 3. 


rec for 5¢ ka, te (the -ro of mapernpovrto being mistaken for te, no other 
and thus 5¢ xa was struck out: 


unnecessary aft Se), with HP 13 rel Syr Chr Thl: 


thus also the xarin L &e as 
de L 137-80 syr coptt arm Thi: txt 
for nu. to aved., orws 


25. rec avroy ot wadytra, with EHLP 13 rel syrr coptt «th-pl Chr-txt @e Thi: 


avTov ot ad. avrov b: 


ot wadnrat avtoy m p2(or p-corr! ?): 


ot padyra 36. 69 lect-12: 


txt ABCN Fr-coisl p!(perhaps) am demid Orig(vol. ii. p. 394) Chr(éwérpeve Tots uadnrats 


én) tov ioxupody ovAdoyioudy EpXovra 
mad of lovdatot. ovKeTi yap cukopavras 
kK. katnyépous Kk. Wevdoudprupas emi(n- 
tovow, Chrys. Hom. xx. 4.] In 
2 Cor. xi. 32, Paul writes, év Aauack@ 6 
eOvdpxns *Apeta Tov Baothews eppovpet 
Thy TOA Aauacknvar, Tidoat ue [ @éAwy }. 
A somewhat difficult chronological ques- 
tion arises respecting the subor ‘dination of 
Damascus to this Aretas. The city, under 
Augustus and Tiberius, was attached to 
the province of Syria: and we have coins 
of Damascus of both these emperors, and 
again of Nero and his successors. But we 
have none of Caligula and Claudius; and 
the following circumstances seem to point 
to a change in the rulership of Damascus 
at the death of Tiberius. There had been 
for Some time war between Aretas, king of 
Arabia Nabatzea (whose capital was Petra), 
and Herod Antipas, on account of the di- 
vorce by Herod of Aretas’ daughter at the 
instance of Herodias, and on account of 
some disputes about their frontiers. A 
battle was fought, and Herod’s ae en- 
tirely destroyed (Jos. Antt. xviii. 5. 1). 
On this Antipas, who was a favourite with 
Tiberius, sent to Rome for help: and Vi- 
tellius, the governor of Syria, was com- 
missioned to march against Aretas, and 
take him, dead or alive. While on his 
march, he heard at Jerusalem of the death 
of Tiberius (March 16, a.p. 37), and 
médewov exepew ovKel duolws duvamevos 
bia Td eis Tdiov peramentwKevar Ta mpdy- 
pata (Antt. xviii. 5. 3), abandoned his 
march, and sent his army into their win- 
ter quarters, himself returning to Antioch : 
Antt. ibid. This petawertwxévar ta mp. 
brought about a great change in the situ- 
ation of Antipas and his enemy. Antipas 
was soon (A.D. 39) banished to Lyons, and 
his kingdom given to Agrippa, his foe 
(Antt. xviii. 7. 2), who had been living in 
habits of intimacy with the new emperor 


(xviii. 6. 5). It would be natural that 
Aretas, who had been grossly injured by 
Antipas, should, by this change of affairs, 
be received into favour; and the more so, 
as there was an old grudge between Vitel- 
lius and Antipas, of which Jos. says (Antt. 
Xvili. 4. 5), Expumtev dpyny, méexpt 6 Kat 
meTIAGe, Talov thy apxiv mapeiAnpédros. 

Now in the year 38 Caligula made 
several changes in the East, granting Itu- 
rea to Sowmus, Lesser Armenia and parts 
of Arabia to Cotys, the territory of Cotys 
to Rhzmetalces,—and to Polemon, the 
son of Polemon, his father’s government. 
These facts, coupled with that of no Da- 
mascene coins of Caligula and Claudius 
existing (which might be fortuitous, but 
acquires force when thus combined), make 
it probable that about this time Damascus, 
which belonged to the predecessors of Are- 
tas (Jos. Antt. xiii. 5. 2), was granted to 
Aretas by Caligula. This would at once 
solve the difficulty. The other supposi- 
tions, —that the Ethnarch (see on 2 Cor, 
xi. 32) was only visiting the city (as if 
he could then have guarded the city to 
prevent Paul’s escape),—or that Aretas 
had seized Damascus on Vitellius giving 
up the expedition against him (as if 
a Roman governor of a province would, 
while waiting for orders from a new em- 
peror, quietly allow one of its chief cities to 
be taken from him), are in the highest 
degree improbable. The above is taken in 
substance from Wieseler, Chron. des Apost. 
Zeitalters, pp. 167—175. His further ar- 
gumnent from a coin BactAéws Apéra pid- 
€AAnvos does not seem conclusive, as it 
leaves the latter title altogether unac- 
counted for. It probably (C. and H. i. 
pp- 101 and 132) belongs to a former Are- 
tas. 25.) ‘The reading in the text, AaB. 
ot pabyrai aitod, is ambiguous. Chrys. 
(see in var. readd.), al. take it as if Saul had 
disciples of his own who didthis. The only 


24—29. TIPAHEIS, AIIOSTOAQON. 105 


\ \ a Pp - , a ; 
vuxtos ' dia tov ® telyous " KaOhKav avtov ‘ yaddaoavTes 5,250" * 
2 k 1) 9% 1 , 8 NS eee ¢ \ g 2 Cor. xi. 33. 
ev * orupiot. 75 | waparyevouevos dé | eis ‘lepovoadn * iter: xis. 

ev. xxi. 12 


™ évretpato " KoNAaT Oat Tois waOnTais* Kal TaVvTEs EpoBodVTO &¢; (6 times) 


, , ¢ / y civ, 22. 
avTov, “n° miatevovTes ° OTL P Eotw paOnTyns. 7 BapvaBas x tuic v.19. 


Se a2 x. Bo BLES ” € \ ‘ 3 ar si Bone 
(= ETTLAADOMEVOS AUTOV NYAYEV TPOS TOVS ATOTTOAOUS, ocd 


kab Sunynjcato avtois * THs ev TH O0@ ‘ cidev TOV * KYpLOD, i Mirkiis. 
Kat OTt éXdAnoEV a’TO, Kai 'TS Ev AapacKe © érrap- ch. agvi I, 
pnowacato év TH dvopate ‘Incod. 

bs EiSTrOpEvoMLEVvos 


9 \ S ’ lal we 30 = 

28 -Kal Hv eT avT@v ¥:%30nly- 
\ v2 / > € , (xxxyiii.) 6. 

Kal Y éxtropevopevos ets —Lepovoadnp, * Matt. xv. 


a aie 7 = PAS ay ~ ; 99 ON 37 ||. xvi. 
Trappnovalopevos €V To OVOLATL TOU KUPLOV, EAQAAEL TE 1 
1. [John viii. 2.) ch. xiii. 14. xv.4 only. Josh. xxiv. 11. 
18 N34, F(not A) only. n ch. vy. 13 reff. 
xy. 3l. p pres., ch. xvi. 38 reff. 

4.) xxiii. 27 only. (Proy. vii. 13.) gen., ch. xvii. 19 reff. 
sas above (r), Mark ix. 9. Luke viii. 39. ix. 10. ch. viii. 33. 
xx. 20. (ch. xxii. 18.) Opav T. «., 1 Cor. ix. 1 reff. 

vi. 20. 1 Thess. ii. 2 only. L.P. Prov. xx. 9 al. 


10 || only +. 
Matt. ii. 

m ch, xxvi. 2l only. Prov. xxvi. 
o John xiv.10. Rom.x.9. 1 Thess.iy.14al. Job 
q constr., ch. xvi. 19. xviii. 17. Luke ix. 47. (xiv. 
r constr., Mark y. 16. ch. xii. 17 only. 
Heb. xi. 32 only. Josh ii. 23. t John 
uch. xiii. 46. xiv. 3 al3. Eph. 
v here only. Zech. viii. 10. see ch. i. 21. 


avTov: Kal yap wabntas elyev evOews). rec KaOnkav bef dia 7. Terx., omg avToy 
(correction apparently, for the sake of perspicuity, to prevent AaBovtes and Sia Tov 
teixous being connected together), with HLP (13) rel Chr: txt ABC(E m) & Fr-coisl 
p Orig Petr Jer—om avroyv EHLP m rel: ins ABCN Fr-coisl p 13. opupid: &. 

26. rec aft map. Se ins 0 cavaos (insertion as in ver 19: further shewn by o mavdos 
in E &e), with HLP 13 rel syr eth-pl Chr-txt Th]: 0 zavaos E 33-4. 105: om ABCN 
p vulg coptt eth Chr-comm Jer. for es, ev EHLP rel We-ed Thi-sif: txt A 
B(sic: see table) CX a d f g o p(Treg expr, so also Scriv) 36. emeipatev (corrn 
to more usual form, see reff) ABCX p: txt EHLP 13. 36 rel Chr Thi. i 

27. om 3rd «ka X1(ins X-corr!s), rec ins tov bef ijo., with EHLPN p 18 rel; 
kuptov, A 98-mg; Tov cvahk lect-12: om BC mo. 

28. om Kat ex. (homeotel) HLP bd f 1m o Chr, Thl-sif. rec (for ers) ev, with 
H ah Chr,: txt ABCELPR p 13. 36 rel Chr, He Thi. (Meyer holds that es is owing 
to a wish to have a prep that may apply to one or other of the participles : but surely 
no corrector would have left exmop. eis together, and H which omits «. ex. reads ev.) 

rec ins ka bef wapp., with KHLP rel vss Chr Thl: om ABCR p 13. 40 fuld 
zeth-rom arm. rec aft 7. kup. ins ingov, with HLN? 13 rel wth-pl Chr,: for 7. 
kv, w C 3. 10-4. 38. 672. 80! Syr eth Chr,: om tov m: om «up. a h: txt ABEPN! p 


40 vulg syr coptt 2th-rom arm Jer. 


escape from this inference is by supposing 
an unusual government of a gen, by Aa- 
Bévres, such as we sometimes find in Ho- 
mer, e.g. ayxas AaBerny aAAAay, Il. yp. 
711; ’Odvojos AdBe yovvwy, Od. x. 310: 
see also Il. y. 369, 6. 371; Od. €. 428, 7. 
480. So we have kpatrjoas tis xetpbs 
avtTis, Luke viii. 54. But whether this is 
justified in a case where the whole person 
is concerned, as here, may be a question. 
If it is, it must be because not the taking 
and bringing him to the spot, but the act 
of laying hold of him to put him into the 
basket, is intended. Sia. 7. Tetxous | 
Further particularized by the addition of 
51a Ouvpidos, 2 Cor. xi. 33. Such windows 
in the walls of cities are common in the 
East: see Josh. ii. 15, 1 Sam. xix. 12: 
and an engraving of part of the present 
wall of Damascus in C. and H. i. p. 124. 

omvpt&.| capydvn, 2 Cor. xi. 33. 
See note there, and on Matt. xv. 37. 


26. wapay.| Immediately: the purpose 
of this journey was to become acquainted 
with Peter, Gal. i.18: a resolution pro- 
bably taken during the conspiracy of the 
Jews against him at Damascus, and in 
furtherance of his announced mission to 
the Gentiles: that, by conference with 
the Apostles, his sphere of work might be 
agreed on. And this purpose his escape 
enabled him to effect. Kat] Not but: 
the 5€ follows. 27.| It is very pro- 
bable that Barnabas and Saul may have 
been personally known to each other in 
youth. ‘Cyprus is only a few hours’ sail 
from Cilicia. The schools of Tarsus may 
naturally have attracted one who, though 
a Levite, was a Hellenist: and there the 
friendship may have begun, which lasted 
through many vicissitudes, till it was 
rudely interrupted in the dispute at An- 
tioch (ch. xv. 39).’ (C. and H., edn. 2, i. p. 
127.) Tovs Groot. | Only Peter, and 


106 


w Mark i. 27. 
ix. 16. Luke 
xxii. 23 
only t. see 
ch. vi. 9. 

x ch. vi. 1 
(reff.) only. . 

y Luke i. 1. ch. 

" xix. 13 only. Tapoov. 

Esth. ix. 25 


% QVENELY AUTOV. 


=. 





TIPABEIS ATOZTOAON. 


IX. 


‘\ > 
nyayov avtov eis Kavcdpevay cai * éEarréotethay avtov €is 


31°H pwev ody &éxxAnola ‘xa ‘ drns THs lovdatas Kal 


sad: Tadivalas nal Lapapelas § eixev * eipyvny, © oikodopov- 


b = John xxi. 
23 only in 
Gospp. Acts 
and Epp. 
passim. 

e ch, xxiii. 15 
reff. 

d ch, vii. 12 reff. L.P. 

14. xxiii. 5. ver. 42. ch. x. 37. 
villi. 1. x. 23. xiy. 4,17. 1 Thess. v. 11. 

ch, xxi, 21. w. €v, Luke i. 6. 1 Pet. iv. 3. 
iii. 18 reff.). 1 = Rom. xii. § reff. 


29. aft ovve¢. ins re (but corrd) XN’. 


e sing. w. two or more places adjoined, here only. 
g John xvi. 33. } 
i constr., ch. xiv. 16. 
Josh, xxii. 5 A. 
m ch, vi. 7 reff. 


2 Pet. ii. 10. 


/ ae | / A k UY rn k Ff; \ fol 

evn Kai ' Tropevonevn TO * HOB Tod * Kupiov, Kat TH 
lal , a 

‘qrapakdjoer ToD aylou TrEevpaTtos ™ emANOUVETO 


es 
82 éyé- 
f Luke iv. 
Rom. y. 1 only. h = ch. xx. 32. 1 Cor. 
Jude llonly. Prov. xxviii. 26. see 
k 2 Cor. v. 11 only (Rom. 


eAAnvas A many vss(G@cos): vulg has 


loquebatur quoque gentibus, et disputabat cum Grecis, but not am demid &e (corrn 


Srom ch xi. 20). 
vss Chr. 
80. for kaio., 1epomoAva A. 


rec avtoy bef aveA., with HLP 13 rel Thl: txt ABCEX ah m p 


add 81a vuetos E, vuxros c 180 Syr syr-w-ast sah. 


om 2nd avtoy (as unnecessary) AE a2 h: ins BCHLPX p rel coptt Chr Thi. 
31. rec at pev ovyv exxAnown Ke etxov . . o1kodomovmevat Kk. Topevomevar Ke ewAn- 
Ouvovro (see note), with EHLP rel syr Chr @e Thl-sif: txt ABCX p 13 vulg Syr copt 


sah wth arm Dion Thl-fin. 


James the Lord’s brother, Gal. i. 18, 19. 
Probably there were no other Apostles 
there at the time: if there were, it is 
hardly conceivable that Saul should not 
have seen them. On his second visit, he 
saw John also (Gal. ii. 9). Perhaps he 
never saw in the flesh any other of the 
Apostles after his conversion. Sinyq- 
gato} viz. Barnabas, not Saul. 29. 
“EdAnvioras | See ch. vi.1 and note. This 
he did, partly, we may infer, to avoid the 
extreme and violent opposition which he 
would immediately encounter from the 
Jews themselves,—but partly also, it may 
well be believed, because he himself in the 
synagogues of the Hellenists had opposed 
Stephen formerly. 30. emryvdvtes 
Se. ...] There was also another reason. 
He was praying in the temple, and saw 
the Lord in a vision, who commanded him 
to depart, for they would not receive his 
testimony :—and sent him from thence to 
the Gentiles: see ch. xxii. 17—21 and 
notes. His stay in Jerusalem at this visit 
was fifteen days, Gal. i. 18. eis Kat- 
odpeav) From the whole cast of the sen- 
tence, the karijyayov and éfaréoreiAay, we 
should infer this to be Cxsarea Stratonis, 
even if this were not determined by the 
word Kaiodpea used absolutely, which 
always applies to this city, and not to 
Cesarea Philippi (which De Dieu, Olsh., 
and others believe to be meant), From 
Gal. i, 21, it would appear that Saul about 
this time traversed Syria (on his way to 
Tarsus 2). Ifso, he probably went by sea 
to Seleucia, and thence to Antioch. The 


etamwéotetAay looks more like a ‘sending 
off’ by sea, than a mere ‘sending forward’ 
by land. eis Tapodv | towards, ‘for,’ 
Tarsus. He was not idle there, but cer- 
tainly preached the Gospel, and in all pro- 
bability was the founder of the churches 
alluded to ch. xv. 23 and 41. 

31.] FLOURISHING STATE OF THE 
CHURCH IN PALESTINE AT THIS TIME. 
Commencement of new section: compare 
Hey ov, and note, ch. xi. 19. The reading 
exxAnota can hardly (as Meyer) be an 
alteration to suit the idea of the unity of 
the church,—as in that case we should have 
similar alterations in ch. xv. 41; xvi. 5, 
where no variations are found in the chief 
mss. More probably, it has been altered 
here to conform it to those places. This 
description probably embraces most of the 
time since the conversion of Saul. De Wette 
observes, that the attention of the Jews 
was, during much of this time, distracted 
from the Christians, by the attempt of Cali- 
gula to set up his image in the temple at 
Jerusalem, Jos. Antt. xviii. 8. 2—9. 
oikodopoupevy | See Matt. xvi. 18. It 
probably refers to both external and inter- 
nal strength and accession of grace. Paul 
commonly uses it of spiritual building up: 
see reff. mop. TO 6B.] walking in 
the fear: for construction see reff.:—not 
‘following after the fear’ (Winer, edn. 2, 
§ 31.1; not in edn. 6, see § 31. 9),—nor 
‘walking according to the fear’ as their 
rule (Meyer),— nor ‘advancing in the 
fear’ (Beza, Wolf). K. T. TapakA., T. 
ay. mv. érAnO. | And was multiplied (reff.) 


kal cuvetntet “ mpos Tovs **EXAnviaTas. of bé ¥ érrexelpouv ABC: 
30 4 écruyvovtes O€ ot > adeApol ° KaT- cdf 


pl 


30—35. 


IIPAEERI> AITOZTOAQON. 


107 


veto 6€ Ilérpov ™ Stepyomevov Sia mavrav ° catedbeip »¥. 5%, 


\ \ \ ¢ / \ 
Kab mpos Tovs Paryiovs Tous 


ns SE a / , a 
33 ebpev O€ éxel avOpwrov twa dvopate Aivéav *é& érov 
2 Sees t 52 ahr / a sal u 
OKT® *KaTaKeiwevov ert *kpaBatTov, os Hv “ Tapadedv- 


Matt. xii. 43. 
1 Cor. x. 1. 
2 Cor. i. 16. 
Ley. xxvi. 5. 
(with ace.,ch. 
xiil. 6 reff.) 
och. viii. 5 
reff. 
p ver. 13. 


4 xatouxcoovtas Avdda. 


/ n a) n 
Héevos. %4 Kai eirev adT@ 6 Ilétpos Aivéa, iaral ce Inoods 4 constr, en. i. 
c en, 


0 xXpLoros* 


Were w > J \ 76 SEX / e q a 
EUVEMS “ AVEOTN, KAL ELOAVY AVTOV TAVTES Ol 4 KATOLKOVYTES 12.) 


30. ch. xxviii. 8. Prov. vi. 9. 
here (ch. y. 42 y. r.) only. (ch. xviii. 5.) 
15 || L. only. Job xvii. 13. Ezek. xxiii. 41. 


w > / @ \ ze “ lal 
aAVaOTHUL Kab OTPWOOV GEAUTW. 


t ch. v. 15 reff. 


constr., here only. 


5 \ y = Luke viii. 
88 wal ag 
Kings xviii. 
8 = Marki. 
u ch, viii. 7 reff. v inc. 6 : 
w = ver. 6 reff. x Mark xi. 8 bis || sates 
Esth, iv. 3. 


32. rec Avddav (here and in ver 35 alteration to an inflected form from the original 
Avdda: cf ers Avdda mapeAbwv Jos. B J ii. 19.1), with CEH rel 36 Chr: Avday P m 
57: txt ABN 13. 40. (13 def here.)—N has ev Avdda, but ev is marked for erasure by 


X! or corr!. 


33. rec aw. bef ovou., with HLP rel 36 Chr Thl-sif: om ovow. 13: txt ABCEN 


k m p vulg Syr arm (coptt eth) Thl-fin. 


rec kpaBBatw, with EHL 13 rel Thi: 


txt ABC p.—x«pafBar. B?; kpaBarr. AB'CEHLPN?: xpaBakr. &?. 
34. ins o kup. bef ino. A 15-8. 36. 40. 68 vulg sah eth arm Thl-fin Ambr Cassiod. 
om 2nd o (alteration to the Name ino. xp.) B'(but “ superadditur”) CX 0 13: 


ins AEHLP p rel Chr. 


by the exhortation of (i.e. inspired by) 
the Holy Spirit. This is the only ren- 
dering which suits the usage of the words. 
Those of the Vulg. ‘consolatione reple- 
bantur,—of Kuin., ‘adjumento abunda- 
bant,’ are unexampled, see reff. Nei- 
ther must 77 mapaka. be coupled with 7é 
~oBw, as in E. V.,and by Beza and Rosen- 
miiller, which would leave oixodou. stand- 
ing by itself, and render the sentence 
totally unlike Luke’s usual manner of 
writing. 

32—35.| Hratinc or AINEAS AT 
Lyppa By Peter. Thisand the following 
miracle form the introduction to the very 
important portion of Peter’s history which 
follows in ch. x.,—by bringing him and his 
work before us again. 32. Svepyop. 8. 1. ] 
These words are aptly introduced by the 
notice in ver. 31, which shews that Peter’s 
journey was not an escape from persecution, 
but undertaken at a time of peace, and for 
the purpose of visiting the churches. 
mavtTwv may be neuter, ‘all parts:’ but it 
is probably masc. and aylfwy understood. 
Wieseler (p. 145, note) doubts whether we 
can say diepxerOar bid mdvTwy T. ayloy, 
—but see reff. The «af makes the masc. 
more likely, as it presupposes some @ytor 
in the mind of the writer before. As 
I have implied on ver. 31, this journey of 
Peter’s is not necessarily consecutive on 
the events of vv. 1—30. But an alternative 
presents itself here; either it took place 
before the arrival of Saul in Jerusalem, or 
after his departure : for Peter was there 
during his visit (Gal. i. 18). It seems 
most likely that it was before his arrival. 


For (1) it is Luke’s manner in this first part 
of the Acts, where he is carrying on several 
histories together, to follow the one in 
hand as far as some resting-point, and then 
go back and take up another : see ch. viii. 2 
thus taken up from avaipéoe: avTov, ver. 1: 
ver. 4 going back to the diacmapévres : — 
ch. ix. 1 taken up from viii. 3 :—xi. 19, 
from viii. 4 again :—and (2) the journey 
of Peter to visit the churches which were 
now resting after the persecution would 
hardly be delayed so long as three whole 
years. So that it is most natural to place 
this section, viz. ch. ix. 32—xi. 18 (for all 
this is continuous), before the visit of 
Saul to Jerusalem, and during his stay 
at Damascus or in Arabia. See further on 
xi. 19. Avdda.| Lod, Neh. vii. 37. 
A large village near Joppa (ver. 38), on the 
Mediterranean (Jos. Antt. xx. 6. 2, kéuny 
twa Avdday Acyou., TéAEwWS TO MEyEDOS OVK 
amodéovcav), just one day’s journey from 
Jerusalem (Lightf., Cent. Chor. Matth. 
prem. cxvi.). It afterwards became the 
important town of Diospolis. 33. 
Aivéav | Whether a believer or not, does 
not appear; from Peter’s visit being to 
the saints, it would seem that he was: 
but perhaps the indefinite av@pwmrdy tiva 
may imply the contrary, as also Peter’s 
words, announcing a free and unexpected 
gift from One whom he knew not. 

34. orpac. ceavt.| Not‘ for the future ? 
but ‘immediately, as a proof of his sound- 
ness. 35. wavtes .... ottives| Not 
‘all, who had turned to the Lord,’ as Kuin.: 
this would make the mention of the fact 
unmeaning,—and surely more would see 


108 TIPABEIZ ATIOLTOAON. IX. 36—43. 


y so ch, xxiv. 
1 


Avdda kai Tov Ydpwva, ¥ oitiwes * érréotpeirav * él Tov 
*xuptov. °6’Ky "lommn oé tis tw * wabntpia ovopate 


z ch. xxvi. 20 
reff. 


a here only Tt. , ix 5 
og. Laert. b c / Tae o = 
Diog. Lact. Ta Biba, i) » dvepnvevomevn °rAéyetat Aopxas: attn Hv 
2 tA > lal 4 \ an 
vite si, “WANpns °ayabav © épyov Kat *édennoouvay * dv érolet. 
30 reff. A 37 oN as. Se > a ec ee b) / h 2 6 , ais 
c—Matt-x.2, 9 €yeveTo O€ Ev Tals nuEpats exeivats » acbevicacay avTHY 
ae as a . , \ aN y , 
adh ix2s GTOOaveivy i dovoavtes SE avTyv EOnxav év * bTrepao. 


eff. \ , nA OoTs s 
ePaulonly 85 éyyus d€ ovans Avddas TH lomiry of wabntai aKovcoav- 
(Rom. ii. 7. 


xiii. 3 alll.), 
exc. here and 
Heb. xiii. 21. 
f plur., ch. x. 
2,4,31. xxiv. j ble 
17 only. Dan. iv. 24 (27). see ch. iii. 2 reff. 
xiii. 4 A (-yys, B,F). (Ps. xxx. 10.) 


o , ‘ Su: 7 ” 
tes Ott Liétpos léotw év avth aréoteiiay S00 dvdpas 
mTMpos avTov ™rapakadovvtes Mn “oxvynons ° diedOetv 


g attr., ch. i. 1 reff. 
i John xiii. 10, ch. xvi. 33. 


h = Matt. x. 8 al. 
Heb. x. 22. 


2 Kings 
2 Pet. ii. 22. Rev. 


i.5only. Exod. il. 5. k ch. i. 13 reff. Acts only. 3 Kings xvii. 19. 1 pres., ch. xvi. 38 reff. 
m = ch. xi. 23 al. fr. n here only. Num, xxii. 16. ow. €WS, Luke ii. 15. ch. xi. 19, 22 only. Gen. 
xxii. 5. 


85. [edav, so AB: eda C.] om Toy &}. Steph capwvav (corrn with the 
same view as rAvddav: but seeing tov before it, the transcriber could not make it an 
accus. fem., and has therefore made it a mase from capwvas, not seeing that it was 
already an accus from capwy), with b! ¢ k p 36: accapwvay f: accopava Hla b? gh 
1013 Chr Thi-sif, acapwva Pe 106!: txt A(appy) BCE d m (coptt) Thl-fin: cappwva &. 

86. epy. bef ay. BCE m 13 vulg spec syrr coptt: txt AH LX rel Chr Thl. 

37. €Onx. bef avr. AX! p 40: om aur. B: txt CEHLN3 13 rel Chr Thi. 
bef urep. ACE a h o Orig Thl: om BHLPX p rel Chr,. 

88. rec Avddns, with B2EHLP rel 36: Avddas AN* (possibly the original as ABN 
agree in dvdba vv 32, 35): txt BIC p. (13 def.) om dvo avip. HLPabdfghlo 
Chr, Ge Thl-sif. rec oxvnjcar 8. €. autwy (alteration to avoid the harshness of the 
direct constr with mapax. Meyer thinks the direct constr has been written in the marg 
and found its way into the text), with C3(appy) HLP 13. 36 rel syrr Chr: oxvnom. . 


ins Tw 


nuwv coptt: txt ABC1ER p vulg spec. (oxvnol. . | p.) 


him than the believers merely. The similar 
use of ofrives in the ref. shews its meaning 
to be commensurate with the preceding 
aavres, and to gather them into a class, of 
which that which follows is predicated. All 
that dwelt in L. and S.saw him ;—which 
also (i.e. and they) turned to the Lord. 
A general conversion of the inhabitants to 
the faith followed. Tov Sdapwva | 
Perhaps not a village, but (and the art. 
makes this probable) the celebrated plain 
of that name, extending along the coast 
from Cesarea to Joppa, see Isa. xxxiii. 9; 
xxxv. 2; Ixv. 10; Cant. ii.1; 1 Chron. xxvii. 
29; and Jerome on Isa. xxxiii. and Ixv., 
vol. iv., pp. 436, 780. Mariti (Travels, 
p- 350) mentions a village Saren between 
Lydda and Arsuf (see Josh. xii. 18, marg. 
E. V.): but more recent travellers do not 
notice it. See Winer, Realw., where other 
places of the same name are mentioned. 

36—43.] Raisinc or TABITHA 
FROM THE DEAD. 36. év “Idr1ry | 
Joppa was a very ancient Philistian city, 
on the frontier of Dan, but not belonging 
to that tribe, Josh. xix. 46; on the coast 
(ch. x. 6), with a celebrated but not very 
secure harbour (Jos. B. J. ill. 9. 3: see 
2 Chron. ii. 16; Ezra iii. 7; Jonah i. 3; 
1 Mace. xiv. 5; 2 Mace. xii. 3),—situated 


in a plain (1 Mace. x, 75—77) near Lydda 
(ver. 38), at the end of the mountain road 
connecting Jerusalem with the sea. The 
Maccabean generals, Jonathan and Simon, 
took it from the Syrians and fortified it 
(1 Mace. x. 74—76; xiv. 5, 34. Jos. Antt. 
xiii. 9. 2). Pompey joined it to the pro- 
vince of Syria (Antt. xiv. 4. 4), but Cesar 
restored it to Hyrcanus (xiy. 10. 6), and it 
afterwards formed part of the kingdom of 
Herod (xv. 7. 3) and of Archelaus (xvii. 
11. 4), after whose deposition it reverted 
to the province of Syria, to which it be- 
longed at the time of our narrative. It 
was destroyed by C. Cestius (Jos. B. J. ii. 
18. 10); but rebuilt, and became a nest 
of Jewish pirates (Strabo, xvi. 759), in 
consequence of which Vespasian levelled it 
with the ground, and built a fort there 
(B. J. iii. 9. 3, 4), which soon became the 
nucleus of a new town. It is now called 
Jaffa (Idpa, Anna Comnena, Alex. ii. p. 
328), and has about 7000 inhabitants, half 
of whom are Christians. (Winer, Realw.) 

TaB.0d | xmav, in Aramaic, answer- 
ing to ‘22 Heb., dopxds (AE. Hist. An. xiv, 
14), a gazelle. It appears also in the Rabbi- 
nical books as a female name (Lightf.) : the 
gazelle being in the East a favourite type 
of beauty. See Cant. ii. 9,17; iv. 5; vii. 3. 


ABCE 
LPNa 
cedfg 
kim 
p 13 


ae X7- 

Qe 

BCEL 

Nabe 

fehk 

mop 
13 


rl: TIPABEIS ATIOSTOAON. 109 


fol 2 A a os 
Eos nuav. 39 Pavactas 5é Llérpos tour AOev avtotss ov P ch," % 


" Taparyevo sdvijyayov eis TO *bmrep@ov, Kab * rap- “ret” ” 
= eq. 
pnearevojievov * avayaryav ets si see ag a po tet 
EOTNOAY AUTW TATAL AL “ynpat KrNalovoat Kal Y émrloeLK- eee 
ch. xvi. 34. 


f lal c ¢i by rl fa. n 
vopevat “ yiT@vas Kal iwatia doa errolel * eT AUT@V OvTa 


(Luke only, 

. Matt. iv. 
e€ , 4 ? \ \ » s ec , \ LR oa 
» Aopxas. 419% ékBarov dé e&w mavtas o Iletpos Kat }, Rom x7 

t = ch. iv. 10 


/ \ / \ \ 
2 Meigs Ta *yovata *mposnvEato, Kal” émiotpéas Tpos TO * vert : 
u Mark xii. 40. 


c a 3 s / d > / ¢€ \ e v \ 2 st 
cOpa eltrev Tapiba, avant. 7) be iorkev TOUS chev.” 
> y a fa) v2 ye Safe 

©ddbarpovs avris, Kat iSodca tov Ilétpov ‘avexabicev. RP". * 

lxxyii. 64. 


41 Sots Sé adTh & xeipa* avéctncev abtyv i povncas dé 
tous Jdyious Kal tas “ yjpas * rapéotncev avtTny Cacav. 
42 leyworov S€ éyéveto ™ kal’ ™ Odns THs low7ns, Kat ” éri- 
oTevoay ToNXOl “emi TOY KUpLOV. 


vy mid., here 
only. 2 Macc. 
xv. 32. (ch. 
XViii. 28.) 

w Matt. v.40 al. 
Gen. xxxvii. 

x = Matt. xvii. 


43 @yéveto O€ ° 7Mépas 


17. John 
c \ a SN Si eh ee , / r al xiv. 9 al. 
°iKavas 1 weivar adtov év lorry Ptrapa Tut Lipmeove’ Bupael. y join vi. 37. 
Rev. xi. 2. 
ile s , 2 / AVO A sé - 2Chron. 
X. 1’Avnp 6€é tis év Karcapeia ovopate Kopynruos, Eea= 8 Cen, 
z ch. vii. 60 reff. a abs., ver. 12. b = ch. xvi. 18. w. 7pos, Luke xyii.4. 2 Cor. 
iii. 16. 1 Thess.i.9. Ezek. xli. 18. c Acts, here only. = Matt. xxvii. 52, &c. ||. Jude 9. Josh. 
Vili. 29. d = ver. 34. eyer.8. Matt. ix. 30. 4 Kings iv. 35. f Luke 
vii. 15 only +. ghere only. 4 Kings x. 15, h trans., = here only. see ch. ii. 24 reff. 
i=ch.x.7. Johni. 49. ii, 9al. Tobit v, 8, j ver. 13. k ch. i. 3 reff. lch. 
i. 19 reff. m ver. 31 reff. nch. xi. 17 al2. Rom. iv. 5, 24. L.P. Wisd. xii. 2. see 
Heb. vi. 1. o ver. 23 reff. p = Johni. 39. ch. xvi. 15. Gen. xxiv. 55. g—ch: 


xxi. 7,8 reff. rch. x. 6, 32 only+. (-7a, Job xvi. 16.) , S-XNS; Matt. viii. 13. ch. 
xxiy. 23 al. -xos, Matt. vili.5, &c. ch. xxvii.6al. Matt. Luke only. = KevTuptwv, Mark xy. 39, &c. 


89. ins o bef metpos C ec o 130. 
Chr. 


40. wavtas bef ef C m vulg spec: om ef e. 
vss Chr ec Thl-sif: ins ABCEN p copt Thl-fin. 


bef wdovca eeth-pl. 
Al. for 1st Se, re A c Syr eth. 


42. om tns BC!: ins AC3ELPR rel Chr. 


mepteaTnoay avtov c vulg H-lat spec Bas 


rec om Ist kat, with LP 13 rel 
ins mapaxpnua bef nvoitey E sah, 


rec moAA. bef emor., with LP 13. 35 


rel vss Chr: txt ABCEN m p 40 vulg spec arm. 


43. for icavas, tTivas C 36. 
b: txt CLP 13. 36 rel Chr. 


avtoyv bef nuepas ux. uw. AER? ah p 40: om aut. BN! 


Cuar. X. 1. rec aft tis ins nv (corrn, see ch ix. 36; not observing that the constr is 
carried on to «dev, ver 3), with P rel vss Thl: om ABCELN p 13. 36 E-lat Chr. 


Lightf. remarks, that she was probably a 
Hellenist, and thus was known by both 
names. 987. évvrepaw| No art., asin the 
expressions eés olkoy, ‘on deck,’ &e., which 
usually occur after prepositions, cf. Middl. 
ch. vi. § 1. See 1 Kings xvii. 19. 
39. waoat ai x.| The widows of the place, 
for whom she made these garments. 
émrote. | ‘was making, i.e. used to make 
(i. e. weave): not ‘had made? 40. 
éxBadov| After the example of his divine 
Master, see reff. 43. Bupoet] From 
the extracts in Wetstein and Schéttgen, it 
appears that the Jews regarded the occupa- 
tion of a tanner as a half-unclean one. In 
this case it would shew, as De W. observes, 
that the stricter Jewish practices were 
already disregarded by the Apostle. It also 
would shew, in how little honour he and his 
offide were held by the Jews at Cesarea. 
CHap. X. 1—48.] CoNnvVERSION (BY 


SPECIAL DIVINE PREARRANGEMENT) AND 
BAPTISM OF THE GENTILE CORNELIUS AND 
HIS PARTY. We may remark, that the con- 
version of the Gentiles was no new idea to 
Jews or Christians, but that it had been uni- 
versally regarded as to take place by their 
reception into Judaism. Of late, however, 
since the Ascension, we see the truth that 
the Gospel was to be a Gospel of the wneir- 
cumcision, beginning to be recognized by 
some. Stephen, carrying out the prin- 
ciples of his own apology, could hardly 
have failed to recognize it: and the Cyprian 
and Cyrenzan missionaries of ch. xi. 20 
preached the word zpbs robs “EAAnvas 
(not -cards), certainly before the conver- 
sion of Cornelius. This state of things 
might have given rise to a permanent 
schism in the infant church. The Hel- 
lenists, and perhaps Saul, with his de- 
finite mission to the Gentiles, might have 


110 


9’ 
John xviii. 


3,12. ch. 


IIPAREITS ATLOZTOAON. 


X. 


ae an a , 
tMatt,xxvii, toyTapyns €x tomeipns THS Kadovpévyns Itadukys, * “ ev- 
—- \ \ oy , \ Q \ \ \ a wy 
aeBns Kat ‘ hoBovpevos Tov Ocov aly TavTi TO ~ olK@ 


xxi. 31. > = rn = / \ n a \ tA 
xxvii. 1 avuTov, * Tomy Y éhenuwoouvas TOoANAS TO AAD Kal *” d¢0- 
only T. 
Judith xiv. 11. 2 Macc. viii. 23. xii. 20, 22 only. uver.7. 2 Pet.ii.9 only. Isa, xxiv. 16. (see 
ch. iii. 12 reff.) Vv =v. 22,35. ch. xiii. 16,26 al. Prov. iii. 7. w = ch, vii. 10, xi. 
14, xvi. 15, 31 al. Gen. vii. 1. x = Matt. vi. 1,2. ch.ix.36. xxiy.17. Tobit xii. 9. y ch. 


ix. 36 reff. z absol. w. gen., here only. 


om exarovtapx. L. 


Job vy. 8. 


see ch. iv. 31. 1 Thess. iil. 10. 


ometpas BP a b? g h! 1 o Chr. 


2. ree aft mowv ins Te, with LP 13 rel eth-pl Hc Thl: om ABCEN p 40 vulg Syr 


zeth-rom Chr. 


formed one party, and the Hebrews, with 
Peter at their head, the other. But, as 
Neander admirably observes (Pfl. u. Leit. 
p- 111), ‘The pernicious influence with 
which, from the first, the self-seeking 
and one-sided prejudices of human nature 
threatened the divine work, was counter- 
acted by the superior influence of the 
Holy Spirit, which did not allow the dif- 
ferences of men to reach such a point of 
antagonism, but enabled them to retain 
unity in variety. We recognize the pre- 
venting wisdom of God,—which, while 
giving scope to the free agency of man, 
knows how to interpose His immediate 
revelation just at the moment when it is 
requisite for the success of the divine work, 
—by noticing, that when the Apostles 
needed this wider development of their 
Christian knowledge for the exercise of 
their vocation, and when the lack of it 
would have been exceedingly detrimental, 
—at that very moment, by aremarkable co- 
incidence of inward revelation with a chain 
of outward circumstances, the illumination 
hitherto wanting was imparted to them.’ 

1. Katoapeta | As this town bears 
an important part in early Christian his- 
tory, it will be well to give here a full 
account of it. CmsAREA (Palestine, Ka:- 
odpea TIS Tadaorlyys, called mapdacos, 
Jos. B. J. ii. 9.1; vii. 2. 2; Antt. xiii. 11. 
2, or 7 em Oadatrn K., Jos. B. J. vii. 1. 
3; 2.1, or Stratonis (see below),—distin- 
guished from Czesarea Philippi, see note 
Matt. xvi. 13) is between Joppa and Dora, 
68 Rom. miles from Jerusalem according 
to the Jerus. Itinerary, 75 according to 
Josephus (i.e. 600 stadia, Antt. xiii. 11. 2. 
B. J. i. 3. 5),—86 miles (Abulfeda) from 
Ptolemais (a day’s journey, ch. xxi. 8),— 
30 from Joppa (Kdrisi) ;—one of the largest 
towns in Palestine (Jos. B. J. iii. 9.1), with 
an excellent haven (Jos. Antt. xvii. 5. 1, 
SeBaords Aitv,—dv Karackevdocas ‘Hpoé- 
dns TOAAGY XpHUdTwY em TMA TH Kaloa- 
pos kaAet SeBaordv). It was, even before 
the destruction of Jerusalem, the seat of the 
Roman Procurators (see ch. xxiii. 23 ff. ; 
xxiv. 27; xxv. 1), and called by Tacitus 
(Hist. ii.'79) ‘ Judzew caput.’ It was chiefly 
inhabited by Gentiles (Jos. B. J. iii. 9.15 


ii. 14. 4), but there were also many thousand 
Jewish inhabitants (Jos. B. J. ii. 18. 1; 
Antt. xx. 8.7; Life, 11). It was built by 
Herod the Great (Amm. Marcell. xiv. 8, 
p. 29, Bipont. Beforetime there was only a 
fort there, called Stpdtwvos mipyos, Jos. 
Antt. xv. 9. 6 al.; Strabo, xvi. 758; Plin. 
v. 14)—fortified, provided with a haven (see 
ch. ix. 30; xviii. 22; Joseph. above), and in 
honour of Cxesar Augustus named Ceesarea 
(at length Kacdpe S<Baorh, Jos. Antt. 
xvi. 5. 1). Vespasian made it a Roman 
colony (Plin. v. 13). Abulfeda (Syr. p. 80) 
speaks of it as in ruins in his time (A.D. 
1300). At present there are a few ruins 
only, and some fishers’ huts. (From Winer, 
Realw.) éxatovtapxys | The subordi- 
nate officer commanding the sixth part ofa 
cohort = half a maniple. See Dict. of Gr. 
and Roman Antt. om. T. Kad. “Ita. | 
A cohort (or.) levied in Italy, not in Syria. 
Mr. Humphry quotes from Gruter, Inser. 
i. p. 434, ‘Cohors militum Italicorum vo- 
luntaria, que est in Syria’ Biscoe (Hist. 
of the Acts, pp. 217—221) maintains that 
this was an independent cohort, not one 
attached to a legion. The legio Italica 
(Tacit. Hist. i. 59, 64; ii. 100; iii. 22) 
was not raised till Nero’s time. 

2. eto. x. oP. tr. O.| i.e. he had aban- 
doned polytheism, and was a worshipper of 
the true God: whether a proselyte of the 
gate, or not, seems uncertain. That he 
may have been such, there is nothing in the 
narrative to preclude: nor does Meyer’s 
objection apply, that it is not probable that, 
among the many thousand converts, no 
Greek proselyte had yet been admitted by 
baptism into the church. Many such cases 
may have occurred, and some no doubt had : 
but the object of this providential inter- 
ference seems to have been, to give solemn 
sanction to such reception, by the agency of 
him who was both the chief of the Apostles, 
and the strong upholder of pure Judaism. 
It is hardly possible that paptupoduevos 
imd bAov Tod Ebvous Tav “lovdalwy (ver. 
22) should have been said of a Gentile not 
in any way conformed to the Jewish faith 
and worship. The great point (ch. xi. 3) 
which made the present event so important, 
was, that Cornelius was vip axpoBvetiav 


ABCE!] 

Prabi 

dfgh) 

lmop 
13 


2—7. TIPABEIS AIOSTOAON. Ti 


an lal e r ss = 
Kevos TOD Geod * Sia Travtos, 3 cider ev » opdpats © havepas, *%-H,257°- 
hoe. \ ef S407 Ape Tae iF ” a a reff. 
@sel wept * wpav evatny tis  nucpas, ayyeXov TOD Oeod c= here (Mark 


2 t nian 2 : i. 45. John 
elsehOovta Tpos avtov Kal eirrévTa ait@ Kopyyjdue. 46 86% 10) 

> f oes \ y 1 = Luke xxiii. 
Satevicas avtT@ Kat » EuoBos yevopevos eimev Ti éotw, i ius. 


Kuple ; eitrev 6€ avT@ Al iaposevyal cov Kal ai Y éXenuwo 0 aces (we 
i — F if ° 
pres C P x as mept), Matt. 


7 eS / > n 
ovvat cov * avéBnoav | ets ™ wynwoovvoy ™ éutrpocbev Tod **.3.>*;, 


a \ a , ” 5) 77 \ , ly +. (with- 
Geod. © nai viv tréurpov avdpas eis “lommny Kai ° weta- eres) 
/ 1 a > a , (3 we John iy. 52. 
mena. Liwwvd tiva os ? ériKadeitar Uértpos: ® oftos Rev. it 9a 
osh. Xl, 6. 
/ , / a #2 Dik eo EST 
4 €eviterar * rapa twe Yiwwve § Bupoei, d €otw oikia tmapa °° 
s ¢ Ny oan <r, c an a oD. 5 
Garacoav. 7 ws 5é amAdOev 6 dyryeXos 6 AaAOY adTO, Oh.ni 33? 
Xxiil. 23 
only ft. g ch. iii. 12 reff, h Luke xxiv. 5,37. ch. [xxii. 9] xxiv. 25. Rev. xi. 13 
only. 1 Mace. xiii. 2 B (exd., AN). Sir. xix. 24 only. i plur., ch. ii. 42 al. + k = here 
only. Exod. ii. 23. 1 Mace. v.31. see ch. xxi. 31. = ch. xix. 27. Rom. iy. 3, &c. (from Gen. 
xy. 6) al. m Matt. xxvi. 13||Mk only. Exod. xii. 14. Tobit xii. 12. n = Luke 
x. 21. 1 Thess.i.3al. (1 Kings xviii. 13.) O Vv. 22, 29, bis. ch. xi. 13. xxiv. 24, 26. xxv. 3 


pass. = VV. 


p ch. i. 23 reff. qt 
John i. 40. ch. 


only. Gen. xxvii. 45. Num. xxiii.7. 2 Macc. xv. 31 only. 
r = Luke xi. 37. 


18, 32. ch. xxi. 16 (1 Pet. iv. 4, 12) only +. act., ver. 23 reff. 


xxi. 7, 16. s ch. ix, 43 reff. t Matt. xiii. 1. Mark vy. 21. Heb. xi.12al. Num. 
xiii, 30. 3 Kings iv. 29, 
3. for evdev, wedev (but w marked for erasure) XN}. om ev &. rec om 7rept 


(as unnecessary; this is much more probable than Meyer’s suppn that rept was a gloss 

On wset: comp TeEpt wp. ExT., ver 9), with LP rel (Chr) @c: ins ABCEN k 0 13. 36. 40 

Damasce Thl-fin.—zrep:, omg wset, ¢ d 3. 65-7 (sah arm ?).—ws & 36.40 Damase Thl-fin. 
rec evvatny, with L 13 rel: txt ABCEPRabghkImp. 

4. om 2nd ec: Cad'm p. om ers pynuocuvoy XR}. rec evwmiov (substitution 
for the less usual ewrpooOev), with CELP 13 rel Sevrn Chr: txt ABN p 36. 40. 

5. rec evs tom. bef avdp., with LP 13. 36 rel Chr: txt ABCEN m p vulg D-lat syrr 
coptt arm. rec om tiva (corrn from respect to the Apostle. This is much more prob 
than Meyer’s supposn, that twa was inserted to conform the first ow. to the other. 
The same considerations have led to the var read in ver 32), with ELPN 13 rel demid 
D-lat Syr sah Orig Chr Thl Iren-int: ins ABC p 36 vulg syr-mg copt arm. Tov 
emikadoumevoyv metpov (corm from ch xi. 13? or origl, and os emikaderta a corrn from 
ver 32? the uss authority must decide) KLP 13 rel He Thi: txt ABCN a h p 36 Chr,. 

6. ciwwyt bef tut C m vss: om tit D-lat. ins 7 bef ota C lect-12. 
rec aft @ad. adds ovros AaAnoet oor TL oe Set Torey (interpolation from ver 32, and ch 
ix. 6, combined: see also ch xi. 14), with (86?) demid eth-rom Thl-fin; os AaAnoes 
pn. mpos oe... to oxos cov from ch xi. 14 4-marg 8. 26-7. 73. 81 copt; os AaAnoer 
cot 133: om ABCELPX p rel vss Chr Thl-sif. 

7. om 2nd o LP g m lect-26. rec Tw KopynAtw (explanatory corrn for avTw), 


7 ha@| The Jewish inhabitants, see ch. 
xxvi. 17, 23; xxviii. 17; John xi. 50; 
xviii. 14 al. 3. év épdp. dhavepds | 
not in a france, as ver. 10, and ch. xxii. 17, 


éxwv. Doubtless also among his company 
(ver. 24) there must have been many who 
were not proselytes. Sedpevos T. 
Qeod Sa a.| From Cornelius’s own nar- 


rative, ver. 31, as well as from the analogy 
of God’s dealings, we are certainly justified 
in inferring, with Neander, that the subject 
of his prayers was that he might be guided 
into truth, and if so, hardly without refer- 
ence to that faith which was now spreading 
so widely over Judea. This is not matter 
of conjecture, but is implied by Peter’s 
oidate To yevdu. pia Kal’ dAns Tis 
*Iovdatas. Further than this, we cannot 
infer with certainty; but, if the particular 
difficulty present in his mind be sought, we 
can hardly avoid the conclusion that it was 
connected with the apparent necessity of 
embracing Judaism and circumcision in 
order to become a believer on Christ. 


—but with his bodily eyes : thus asserting 
the objective truth of the appearance. 
@sel wept dp. év.| It here appears that C. 
observed the Jewish hours of prayer. 

4. eis pyynp.] Not iustar sacrificii (Ps. 
exli. 2) as Grot.: but, as E. V., for a me- 
morial, ‘so as to be a memorial.’ 

There has been found a difficulty by some 
in the fact that Cornelius’s works were re- 
ceived as well pleasing to God, before he 
had justifying faith in Christ. But it is 
surely easy to answer, with Calvin and 
Augustine, ‘non potuisse orare Cornelium, 
nisi fidelis esset.’ His faith was all that he 
could then attain to, and brought forth its 
fruits abundantly in his life : one of which 


112 IIPAZEIS AIOSTOAON. X. 


u ch. ix.41 reff. 
v Luke xvi. 13. 
Rom. xiv. 4. 


u / 8 4 lal Vv ’ na \ if Ww td lol na 
dovncas dvo TOV * OiKeTOV Kal oTpaTLOTHY “ EvoEBH TOV ABC 
, a Pr 2 
*qposkaptepovvTwy avT@, § Kal ¥ éEnynoduevos aravta at: 


1 Pet. ii. 18 
only. Gen. me sae \ , a lm 
oly... QUTOWS, améaTelAev avTovs eis THY “lowmnv. % TH Sé Y 


x ch. i. 14 reff. 

y ch, xv. 12, 14 
reff. 

z John i. 29, 
&e. ch. xiv. 


Z ’ Di a 55. ig 3 / \ nr / b of 
ETTAUPLOV * OO0OLTTOPOLYTMY EKELVWY KAL TH TONE ” EYYL- 
/ c > / Tlé > \ \ qd 86 e IL lal ‘ 

Covtwy © avéBn Ilétpos eri To 1 Sama ° rposevEacOat rept 


20; seal 7 2 , , 
wane" @pav Extnv. 1 éyévero 5é' rpostrewos, Kai 7Oedev & ryev- 
a here only +. h ! \ Pa Loe Fae ee 2 eee] fas 

(pia,2Cor. TaTVat, qapacKevalovtwy S€ avTtoy ' éyéveto em avToV 
xi. 26. -pos, k ¥ 


1a Nay a Ay ee? Ve gy 9 L \ 
EXOTAOCLS, Kal Gewpet TOV OUPQVGV ~ AVEWYMEVOV Kat 


Gen. xxxvii. 
24.) 


an al ig > / 
baat chix. MearaBaivov °cKedds TL OS POOoVNY peyadnV, Téeccapow 
c=Lukev.19. q >» a § , \ r bré as a a 19 
Josh. iis I apyats [dedeuevov Kat] * kaOtéwevov ert THs yas, © év 
Ings 1x. . 
d Matt. x. 27 | 7 xxiv. 17 ||. Luke y. 19 only. 2 Kings xi. 2. e absol., ch. ix. 12. xx. 36. f here only +. 


2 Cor. ix. 2,3 only. 2 Mace. ii. 27 
(ch. iii. 10 reff.) Gen. ii. 


h 1 Cor. xiv. 8. 

k = ch. xi. 5. xxii. 17 only. 

m Matt. ili. 10|,L. Rev. xix. 11. Ezek. i.1. see ch. vii. 56. 
o Mark xi. 16. John xix. 29.- Exod. iii. 22. 


q —ch. xi.5 only. (Exod. xxviii. 23 Compl. F (not AB). 


rch. xx. 21, 
1 = ch. v. 5 reff. 
21. xv. 12. 


Jonah ili. 7. Jos. Antt. vi. 14. 3. 
2 Chron, xiv. 14. xx. 29. 
1 ch. vii. 56 reff. 
n = Matt. iii. 16. John i. 52. vi. 33. al. Gen. xxviii. 12. 
pch. xi. 5only+. (-vtov, John xix. 40. Hos. ii. 9.) 
Ezek. xlvili. 1.) see note. r ch. ix, 25 reff. 





txt ABCEN p vulg Syr coptt eth arm. rec aft ork. ins 
om ABCEX p 40 arm. 
illis visum D-lat: txt ABEX p 


with LP 13 rel syr Chr: 
autou (explanatory), with LP 13. 36 rel vss Chr: 

8. rec avTous bef amavra, with CLP 13. 36 rel Chr: 
coptt. 

9. for exei., avtwy (corrn to correspond with avtos above) AELX d k o p 13. 86: 
av. ex. c: txt BCP rel Chr Ge Thl. for extnyv, evatny &3. aft ext. ins ts 
neepas A tol. 

10. rec (for avtwy) exeway (probably from exewwv having been in the margin in 
some MSS at ver 9, and thus inserted here by mistake, or as in note), with LP rel 
Chr: txt ABCEX p 18. 36 Orig. rec eremecev (corrn to avoid the repetition of 
eyeveto, and to the more usual word, see ch viii. 16 reff. Meyer holds emer. to have 
been origl: but being usually said of mvevpa, and thus seeming inappropriate to 
exotaots, to have been altered in conformity with ch xxii. 17, yeveoOat we ev exoracet. 
But this is very careless: for, Luke i. 12, we have poBos emem. ex avt., and so ch xix. 
17: and xiii. 11, ewer. em avtoy axAvs), with EL 13 rel vss Chr: (erecey 19. 78. 96 
Clem :) txt ABCPX d p 36 copt Orig. 

11. rec aft kataBaww. ins em avtoy (al avtw) (inserted to correspond with axpis emou, 
ch xi. 5), with LP rel D-lat Chr Thl: om ABC?EN ec p 13 vulg syrr coptt eth Orig. 
(C! has perished.) om meyadny C2. om dedeuevoy kat ABC?2EXN 40 vulg eth arm 
Orig, Cyr Thdrt : txt (C! perhaps) LP p rel 36 (D-lat syrr coptt) Chr Thl-sif.—transp 
kataBa.voy and dedenevov c 13 Thl-fin.—also ¢ has teocapow apxats immediately aft 
avewy. Kat; 13, at end of ver.—kataBavoy is omd by lect-12 D-lat syrr sah; these 
vss have other varns, e. g. celum apertum ex quattuor principiis ligatum vas quodam 


et(sic) linteum splendidum quod differebatur de celo in terram D-lat. 


fruits, and the best of them, was, the ear- 
nest seeking by prayer for a better and more 
perfect faith. 7. awqAGev| So in 
Luke i. 38:—another token of the objective 
reality of the vision: eiseA@dvra (ver. 3) 
and am7A@. denoting the real acts of the 
angel, not the mere deemings of Cornelius. 
AaA@y must be regarded as the im- 
perfect participle, as in John ix. 8. 
9.] By Sopa, Jerome, Luther, Erasm., 
al., understand an upper chamber. But 
why not then brepgorv, a word which Luke 
so frequently uses? It was the flat roof, 
much fr equented in the fo for pur- 
poses of exercise (2 Sam. xi. 2; Dan. iv. 29, 
marg.),—of sleeping in summer (1 Sam. 
ix. 26, by inference, and as expressed in 


LXX),—of conversation (ib. ver. 25),—of 
mourning (Isa. xv. 3; Jer. xlvili. 38),—of 
erecting booths at the feast of tabernacles 
(Neh. viii. 16),—of other religious celebra- 
tions (2 Kings xxiii. 12; Jer. xix. 13; Zeph. 
i. 5),—of publicity (2 Sam. xvi. 22; Matt. 
x. 27; Luke xii. 3. Jos. B. J. ii. 21. 5),— 
of observation (Judg. xvi. 27; Isa. xxii. 1), 
—and for any process requiring fresh air 
and sun (Josh. ii. 6). (Winer, Realw., art. 
Dach.) éxtyy | The second hour of 
prayer: also of the mid-day meal. 

The distance was thirty Roman miles, part 
of which they performed on the preceding 
evening, perhaps to Apollonia,—and the 
rest that morning. 10. yevo. | see reff. 
éxelvwv is more likely to have been a cor- 


TOV 


BCDE 
PN ab 
dfgh 
Jmop 
13 


8—15. TIPASEIS ATOSTOAON. 113 
© Simnpyey wavta Ta ™ TeTpaTroda Kal “Y épTreTa THS yhs >i 16 


13 Nye anne \ Stich. mr; 6! 
Kal ¥ eyeveTo Pwvn TPOS ‘Komi. 23. 


5 u as above (t) 
14 6 dé Hétpos 


only. Gen. 
i. 24 


\ na yx a 
Kat ** qreTewa Tov * ovpavod. 

> / ’ \ / la) 
avtov,”’Avaoras Létpe * Adcov Kal paye. 


> a fe cr IN? 5 a \_ vas above (t). 

etrrev » Mndapds xvpue: OTe CovderroTe Ehayov “Trav *kowwon * Fine sit: 
Wee? 10 15 \ A ¢ , fg 2 5 , \ Gen. vi. 7. 

Kat ~ AKA apTov. Kal povn Tanw eK EUTEPOU T pos wi posta hs u) 

only. 

x Matt. vi. 26. viii. 20 ||. xiii. 32 ||. Luke viii. 5. xiii. 19. ch. xi. 6. Gen. i. 26, y ch. vii. 31 reff. zch. 
vill. 26 reff. Dan. vii. d. a = Matt. xxii. 4. Luke xv. 23, 27,30. John x. 10. ch. xi. 7 only. Deut. xii. 
15. (ch. xiv. 13 reff.) bch. xi. 8 only. Ezek. iv. 14. c constr., Rom. iii. 20 reff. d = Mark 
vii. 2,5. ver. 28. ch. xi. 8. Rom. xiv. 14 (3ce). Heb. x. 29. Rev. xxi. 27 onlyt. 1 Macc. i. 62. e@ = yer. 
28. ch. xi. 8. 1 Cor. vii. 14. 2 Cor. vi.17. Rev. xviii. 2. (elsewh. always with Tvevia [ch, y. 16 reff.], exc. Eph. 
y. 5.) Judg. xiii. 14. f Matt. xxvi. 42 only +. gas above (f). Mark xiv. 72. John ix. 24. ch, 
xi. 9. Heb. ix. 28 only. Jer. i. 13. 


12. rec rns yns bef Ist Kat (reTpamroda THs yns: see ch xi. 6), with LP rel Chr: om 
T. y- 342. 662. 163 D-lat sah (Ambr): txt ABCEN p (386) Syr copt arm Clem Orig 
Constt Thdrt.—ins ta em bef 7. yns 36. rec ins Ta O@npia kat bef [ra] epz. (from 
ch xi. 6), with LP 13. 36 rel syr(@ypia syr-mg-gr) Chr, and, but aft epm., E: om ABC?8& 
p 40 vulg D-lat Syr coptt arm Clem Orig, Constt Thdrt Thl-sif-comm Aug Cassiod.— 
rec ins va bef epz., with LP 138. 36 rel Clem Thdrt Chr Thl-fin : om ABC?EX p Orig, 
Constt Thl-sif.—(C' is illegible.) rec ins ta bef mer. (conformn to ch xi. 6), with 
C1ELP 13. 36 rel Clem Constt Chr Thdrt Thl.: om ABC?N p Orig,. 

14. rec for kat, n (conformn to ch xi. 8), with C D-gr ELP p rel copt Chr: txt ABX 
13. 36 vulg D-lat syrr sah Clem Orig, Constt Cyr-c Aug Ambr. 


rection of air@y as applying better to the 
people of the house, than the converse. 
éxotaocts| The distinction of this 
appearance from the épaua above (though 
the usage is not always strictly observed) is, 
that in this case that which was seen was a 
revelation skewn to the eye of the beholder 
when rapt into a supernatural state, having, 
as is the case in a dream, no objective 
reality: whereas, in the other case, the 
thing seen actually happened, and was be- 
held by the personas an ordinary spectator, 
in the possession of his natural senses. 
11. téoo. apx.] not, ‘by the four 
corners,’ which would certainly require the 
article, as in reff.,—but by four rope-ends. 
This meaning of apx7 is justified by Diod. 
Sic. i. p. 104, who, speaking of harpooning 
the hippopotamus, says, €/@” év) Tay éuma- 
yevtwv evantovtes apxas oTumivas aplact 
méxpis dy mapadvén. The ends of the 
ropes were attached to the sheet, and, in 
the vision, they only were seen. 
At all events, as Neander observes (Pfl. 
u. L. p. 126, note), these four apxal (whe- 
ther ends of ropes attached to the corners, 
or those corners themselves) are not with- 
out meaning, directed as they are to the 
four parts of heaven, and intimating that 
men from the North, South, East, and 
West, now were accounted clean before 
God, and were called to a share in his king- 
dom: see Luke xiii. 29, The symbolism 
is, as usual, fancifully exaggerated by 
Wordsw. in his note. The four apyai are 
the four gospels, because the word apx7h 
occurs somewhere near the beginning of 
each, &e., &e. Who can wonder, after this, 
Vou. Il. 


at the distrust of all Scripture symbolism 
by intelligent, but unspiritual minds ? 
I have retained the words 5¢5. kai, doubt- 
fully, because it seems difficult to account 
for their insertion, but they may have been 
omitted to assimilate our text to ch. xi. 5. 
12. mdayta ta Ter. literally: not 
‘many of each kind,’ nor ‘some of all 
kinds,’ in which case the art., the sense of 
which is carried on from ra Terp. to the 
subsequent words (see ch. xi. 6), would be 
omitted :—in the vision it seemed to Peter 
to be an assemblage of all creation. 
tetp., €pw., eT. | In ch. xi. 6, from which 
our text has been corrected, Peter follows 
the more strictly Jewish division: see there. 
14.] Peter rightly understands the 
command as giving him free choice of all 
the creatures shewn to him. We cannot 
infer hence that the sheet contained wn- 
clean animals only. It was a mixture of 
clean and unclean,—the aggregate, there- 
fore, being wnclean. Kvpte | So Cor- 
nelius to the angel, ver. 4. It is here ad- 
dressed to the unknown heavenly speaker. 
On the clean and unclean beasts, &c., 
see Levit. xi. 15.| These weighty 
words have more than one application. 
They reveal what was needed for the occa- 
sion, in a figure: God letting down from 
heaven clean and unclean alike, Jew and 
Gentile,—represented that He had made of 
one blood all nations to dwell on the face 
of all the earth: God having purified these, 
signified that the distinction was now 
abolished which was ‘added because of 
transgressions’ (Gal. iii. 19),—and all re- 
garded in his eyes as pure Je the sake of 


114 


h = ch. xi. 9. 
Heb. ix. 22, 
23. see ch. 


avtov, “A o Geos 


TIPABEIS AILOZTOAON. 


b 


héxabapicev od pn ‘Koivov. 16 TodTo AB 
be b] / j > \ j / \ Wel kl >] / fa} \ m r LP} 
é éyéveto il émiitpis, cai evOvds * avernupOn To ™ oKedos ca 


xv. 8. 

Gea 8 eft) eis Tov !ovpavov. 17 as bé év éavtw™ Sintroper 6 Ilétpos — 
ithist ot av etn TO Pbpapa O cider, [ai] (Sod of avdpes of 

i Mark xvi 18. aTrectanpévor *aTo ToD Kopynrtov 4 dvepwtjcavtes TV 
iBingsi  Ofklay Tou Ltuwvos * éeréctyoay * eri Tov StruA@va. 18 Kal 
moby i 1 ef. ‘ dwrvjcavtes “érruvOdvovto “ei Xipwwv o Y émiKadovpevos 
piers“ Tlérpos évOade * Eeviferar. 19 rod dé Ilérpov * dvevOupov- 

rh att a pévou Tept Nala aegis) elrrev 70 y medpa avT@ ‘Tdod H i 
cee hiv dvOpes enrouvres gee? aXe, * avaoras *xarafin Ot, Kal 
sMati.xxvi, gropevou avy avTois pndev ” dvaxptvopevos, OTL ey aTr- hh 
xi. 20.ch égradka avTovs. *! 8 cataBas dé Tlétpos mpos tovs 
bis. xiv. 13. 


Rey. xxi. 12, &c. xxii. 14. Gen. xliii. 19. 
u here only +. v ch. i, 23 reff. 

iv. 1. ch. ii. 4. viii. 29. xi. 12, 28. xxi. 4. 

a = ch. xx. 10 reff. b = Matt. xxi. 21. 


15. gevncas de D-gr. 
(itacism ? as E p kuvov for ow.) D 18. 


w ver. 6 reff. 
Rom. viii. 16, &e, 
Rom. iy. 20. xiv. 23. 


exafepicoeyv ACLP m p: txt BDER® rel. 


t absol., = Luke viii. 8, 54. xvi. 24. Dan. iv. 11 (14). 
x here only +. y absol., Matt. 
z ch. viii. 26 reff. Gen. xxxv. 1. 


James i. 6$. (Jer. xv. 10.) 


for cv, cot 


16. rec (for evOus) madw (from ch xi. 10), with D-gr LP 13 rel E-lat syr Chr 
(aveAnupén bef rad D-gr): om 15. 36 D-lat Syr sah ewth-pl arm Constt Ambr: txt 
ABCENR p vulg syr-mg copt #th-rom. 

17. avrw Bk. D adds evyeverto. for erm, es D}(txt D3). om Kat 
(corrn of Hebraism?) ABN p 36. 40 vulg arm: ins CDELP 13 rel fuld eth-rom Chr. 

*Umro BEX ab%eghop: aro ACDLP rel Chr Thi-sif. om Tov { bef 
kopy. | D Thi-fin. ewepwtnoaytes D. rec om Tov [bef om.], with ELP 13 
rel Thl-sif: ins ABCDX ce p 40 Chr Thl-fin. 

18. exv@ovro BC. 

19. rec evOuu. (prob negligence of the significant compounded verb), with b: d:a- 
voovuevou 15-8. 36 Did: add kat d:avoovmevou syr: txt ABCDELP(X) rel Chr.—érev6v- 
pBevou &. rec autw bef to mvevya, with DELP 13 rel vss Chr: om aut. B copt: 
txt ACN m p vulg sah. rec aft avdpes ins Tpets (conformn to ch xi. 11 and ver 
7), with ACEX f p 13. 36 vulg Syr syr-mg Thl-fin; bef avé., copt; tives arm; dvo B: 


om DHL rel spee syr Constt Cyr-jer Chr Thl-sif Aug Ambr. 


ACDELP rel: txt BN p. 
20. avacra D'(txt D3) vulg coptt. 


rec (yTovat, with 


rec Sto7:, with LP 13 rel Constt Bas,: txt 


ABCDEHN h p 36. 40 Cyr-jer Bas, Did Thl-sif-comm. 


21. trove kar. DE Syr. 


His dear Son. But the literal truth of 
the representation was also implied ;—that 
the same distinctions between the animals 
intended for use as food were now done 
away, and free range allowed to men, as 
their lawful wants and desires invite them, 
over the whole creation of God: that crea: 
tion itself having been purified and ren- 
dered clean for use by the satisfaction 
of Christ. The same truth which is as- 
serted by the heavenly voice in Peter’s 
vision, is declared Eph. i. 10; Col. i. 20; 
1 Tim. iv. 4, 5. Only we must be careful 
not to confound this restitution with the 
a&mrokatdotacis mavrwy of ch. iii. 21; see 
notes there. 16. émt tpis] denoting 
the certainty of the thing revealed: see 
Gen. xli. 32. 17.} Valeknaer and Stier 


ins o bef retpos DEL b d o Chr Thl-fin: om ABCHPN 


understand éy éavT@, as ch. xii. 11, where 
yevéuevos is expressed (see D in var. readd. 
here),—‘ when he came to himself, but 
without yevduevos this is very harsh, and 
it surely is better not to force from its 
obvious meaning so natural a conjunction 
of words as éy éavr@ dinmdper. 18. 
dwvycartes | having called out (some one), 
they were enquiring. The present, 
Eeviferar, is a common mixed construction 
between the direct and the indirect inter- 
rogation. 19.] See ch. viii. 29, note. 

20. adda) ‘make no question as 
to who or what they are,—but :’—So also 
ch. ix. 6. éy® | The Holy Spirit, shed 
down upon the Church to lead it into 
all the truth, had in His divine arrange- 
ments brought about, by the angel sent to 


115 


ce = Luke viii. 


BA 95 ] \ a a raw 
avOpas eimev “Idov eyo eiue ov Enteire tis 7 Caitia bv Hi. ch, xx. 
24. 2 Macc. 


AN , ‘ s sty Rae 
nv wapeote; » of S€ eirray Kopyidwos éxatovtapyns, , \\.*.°. 


ver. 2 reff. 


16—26. IIPASEIY AIOZDTOAON. 


Be eS) \ / \ , Mf s ch. xvi. 2. 
avnp Sixavos Kat * hoBovpevos Tov * Pedy, ° waptTupovpmevos * Wiis, 

Gx 2 '\ / a a , Rom. iii. 21. 
Te °um0 Odov Tod EOvous Ta “lovdalwv, ' éxpnuaTioOn * Join 12, 
(ENC £2 ay BA f h / fA) Li > \ = reff, ine, 
u70  ayyéXou 8 aylov ” wetatréuracOal ce Els TOV ObKOD ¢ "Sint. iin, 
22, Luke il. 


avtTov Kat ‘axodoa ‘pyuata mapa cod. 8 * eisxadeoa- 26, Heb. xi 
fevos ody avtovs 'é&éucev. “Th O€ érravpioy “avacTas Rom. vil 3.) 
°éEMAOev ory avTots, Kal TWes TOV PadeAdoV TOV aTO Ta.” 
lorans Your dOov aire. %™ 7H SE emadbpov * cis Ooy Karat. vn 
eis THv Kaiodpevav. 0 *6é Kopyndsos * Hv ' rposdoxay Fos" Ant x 
avTovs, “cuyKkadecdmevos Tods ‘auyyeveis avTod Kal = Mk 


} 5 a xiv. 10 only. 
Tos “dvayKalous dirous. % ds &8 eyévero * TOD Y elg-nieovtt” 
t: Pp ld Z / ? aA e , 1 Jobe vil 47. 
eXOeiy Tov Iletpov, % cuvavtnoas avt@® o Kopyyrtos Bi 


\ ape \ , s € \ , il 
*qeowv *ért ToUs *odas ” rrposexuvyncev. 29 6 b€ ILétpog x here only. 
lact., = ch. 
m ver. 9 reff, Num. 
Gen. xix. 14. p— ch; 
Ruth ii. 18. s ch, 


Sir. xxix. 25. 


(xvii. 20.) xxviii. 7. Heb. xiii. 2 only t. 
i o absol., ch. vii. 7 al. 


xi. 32. n ch. viii. 26 reff. 
ix. 30 reff. q ch. i. 21 reff. r = Matt. viii. 5 al. fr. 
ii. 5 reff. t= Lukei. 21. 2 Pet. iii. 12al. Ps. cxviii. 166. u mid., Luke ix. 1. xv. 
9. xxiii, 13. ch. xxviii-17 only+. act., ch. y. 15 reff. Exod. vii. 11. v Luke i. 58. L.P., exc. 
Mark vi.4. John xviii. 26. Ley. xxv. 45. w = here only (ch. xiii. 46 reff.)+. Jos. Antt. x. 1.2 
TPEls TOUS AvayKaLOTATOUS P, AUTH. x ch. iii. 12 reff. Luke xvii. 1. Rev. xii. 7. 
y Matt. x. 12. Mark vi. 22. z Luke ix. 37. xxii. 10. ch. xx. 22. Heb. vii. 1,10 only. Gen. 
xxxii.l. (-Tyjots, Matt. viii. 34.) ahere only. 4 Kings iv. 37. (els, John xi.32y.r.) ™pos, 
Mark v. 22. mapa, Luke viii. 41. €«mpooOerv, Rey. xix. 10. b = Matt. ii. 11. viii. 
2al. Job i. 20, 
p 18. 36 rel Thl-sif. for T. avd., avtous C arm. rec aft avSpas ins Tous ame- 
oTaAMEVoUS ato Tov Kopy. mpos auvtov (explanatory interpolation, ver 21 beginning an 
ecclesiastical portion), with H(but om tov) (f) He Thi-sif; 7. areor. vo copy. (alone) 
m: om ABCDELPX p 18 rel vulg syrr coptt eth arm Chr Thl-fin. ins Tt OeAeTe 
(-rat D) 7 bef tis 7 D syr (om Ist 7 D-lat syr). for Tis n, T?.7 M: Om 7 B. 

22. [ eav, so ABCEN p. |] add pos avtoy D Syr sah. aft Kopy. ins Tus 
D-gr Syr. for vio, up D. 

23. for ersk. ovv, ToTe mposkad. EX: Tote eisayaywy o metpos D 40 sah, introducens 
vulg E-lat Syr(addg Simon); ingressus D-lat. etev. bef avr. D 40 vss. 
rec for avaoras, o metpos (avacr. being erased as unnecessary, the vacant space thus 
left in some copies has been filled up with o merp. the subject of the verb), with HLP 
rel Thl-sif: avaor. or. Ec k m 13(omg 6) 36 syr Chr Thl-fin: txt ABCDX d p vulg¢ 
Syr coptt eth. om 2nd rey D. rec ins Tys bef tom.: om ABCDEHLPR 
rel Chr Ge Thl-sif. tommnv D'(txt D-corr?). curnaAbay D. 

24. rec kat Ty (corrm appy to avoid the recurrence of Tn Se, Ty Se, o Se), with HLP 
13 rel syrr eth Chr Thl-fin: txt ABCDEN p 40 vulg copt Thl-sif. ersnACey 
(corrn to suit e&nr@ev above) BD p syr-txt wth Thl-sif: cvvnAdoy m: txt AEHLP 13. 
36 rel vss syr-mg, -@av CX. om tnv D m 1338. nv mposdeXOmEvos avTous Kat 
ovr. D. for avtov, avtovs B!(Tischdf.). aft pidous add weprevervey D syr-mg. 

25. rec om Tov, with H k 36 Ge: ins ABCELPR® p 13 rel Bas Chr Thl. aft 
modas ins avrov g o vulg Syr sah eth arm Thl-fin. for ver, mposeyyiCovTos Se Tov 
TETPOU ELS THY KaLoaplay, Tpodpauwy els TwY DJovAwWY SieTAapnoEY Tapayeyovevat aUvTOY. oO 
de KopynAtos exmndnoas Kat TuvaYTNOUS avTW TETwWY TPOS TOUS TODAS MposeKUYNoEY avTOY 
(avrw D-corr!) D syr-mg(but avtov for mposex. autor). 


pass., ver. 6 reff. 


hy 





friends. 


Cornelius, their coming. 28. é&évicev | 
This was his first consorting with men 
uncircumcised and eating with them (ch. 
xi. 3): though perhaps this latter is not 
necessarily implied. Ties TavV ad. | 
Six, ch. xi. 12: in expectation of some 
weighty event to which hereafter their tes- 
timony might be required, as indeed it was, 
ib. 24. advaykatous| his intimate 


So Jos. Antt. xi. 6. 4, pidos 
avaykadtatros TG Bacide?, and Xen. Mem. 
li, 1. 14, pidAous mpds Tots avayraiors 


KaAdoumévols &AAovs KTa@vTat Bondods. 
These, like himself, must have been 


fearers of the true God, or at all events 
must have been influenced by his vision to 
wait for the teaching of Peter. 25. 
vov eisedO.| This, the most difficult and 


I 2 


116 


TIPASEI> ATOZTOAON. 


X. 


2 ¢ ’ 4 \ , \ 3.2%. »” 
c= Mukisl ¢pmvetpep avtov réyov *’AvactnOr Kai eyo avTos av- AB 
a ; x. 1 . \ r > lal x, A A | 
aise Opwmrds eius. 77 Kal *aovvopidGv adT@ % eispdOev, Kal © 
reff. , , , ‘ ’ \ 
ehereonly+. eyplaoxet f cuveNndvOotas ToANOUs, 78 Eby TE TPOS aUTOUS °F 
Acs bb c a hy, G h 292 , > ee aT 5 y 
mas 1 Tels éerictacbe Sas ™abémitov éotw avdpi lovoaiw 
f = ch. i. 6 reff. ; aA , \ € 
vera} KOANaTOaL 7) * mposépyecBar 'adrodvrAM* Kapol oO 
ch. xi. 16. 
Luke vi. 4. x me A n ce i ea ee oa 
baked Meds ™ &SevEev pundéva ™Kowov 1) ™aKa@aptov ° déyeLv 
only Tf. 
a ee vii. lal2. Jos. B. J. iv. 9.10. Xen. Mem. i. 1. 9 (-to7a), i= ch, v. 13 reff, k = ch. 
ix. l reff, Levit. xix. 33. lhere only. 1 Kings vi. 10. xiii. 3, 5. 1 Mace. iv. 12. m constr. , 
here only. = w. OTL, Matt. xvi. 21. Wisd. xiv. 4. w.acc.,1 Cor. xii.3l. 1 Kings xii. 23. n ver, 14 
(reff.). i o = Mark x. 18. xii. 37 al. 


26. rec aut. bef ny., with HLP rel Thl-sif: txt ABCDEN a ¢ d fh k m 18 Chr Thl- 


fin. 


for avaor., Tt movers D; syr-mg has both. * 


nk. aut. ey. C Thdrt: kat yap 


eyo, omg avtos, Ec k 13 Chr: om autos D sah: k. yap ey. avt. 137: txt ABHLPR p 
rel 36 Mare Thl-sif.—ree for ca: eyw, kayw, with ADHLP ab df ghlmol1s: txt 


BN p lect-12. 


aft exus ins ws kat ov D}(and Jat) E(om rat E-lat) copt eth. 


27. for x. cvvop. to evp., at erseAOwy Te Kat evpey D} (and lat). 


28. bef emo. ins BeAtiov D Aug,. 
D-gr lect-12 Syr sah. 
0. edeé. bef o 6. AEN vulg eth. 


best supported reading, is a harshness of 
construction hardly explicable (see Winer, 
edn. 6, § 44. 4) on any principles. It 
probably arose from taking the so fre- 
quent tov with the infin. almost as one 
word, and equivalent to the infin. itself. 

Tovs mddas| viz. those of Peter. 
Kuinoel’s rendering ‘in genua provolutus’ 
is clearly inadmissible. TT POSEKUY. | 
“‘Adoravit ; non addidit Jucas, ‘eum, 
Euphemia.” (Bengel.) May not the 
same reason have occasioned the omission 
of avrod after mébas? the one avr. would 
almost require the other. It was natural 
for Cornelius to think that one so pointed 
out by an angel must be deserving of the 
highest respect; and this respect he shewed 
in a way which proves him not to have alto- 
gether lost the heathen training of his child- 
hood. He must have witnessed the rise of 
the custom of paying divine honours first 
to those who were clothed with the dele- 
gated power of the senate (Suet., Octay. 
52, mentions, ‘‘templa etiam proconsulibus 
decerni solere”’?), and then kat’ éefoxjv 
to him in whom the imperial majesty cen- 
tered. 26. kal éym ait. avOp. cipe) 
This was the lesson which Peter’s vision 
had taught him, and he now begins to prac- 
tise it:—the common honour and equality 
of all mankind in God’s sight. Those 
who claim to have succeeded Peter, have 
not imitated this part of his conduct. 
See Rey. xix. 10; xxii. 8, in both which 
cases it is €urpoo0. trav mwodav Tod ayy., 
supporting the above rendering of éml 7. 
médas. (See the gloss in D, ver. 25, digest.) 

27.| The second eisqAGev betokens 
the completion of his entering in; or (as De 
W.and Meyer) the former, his entering the 


abewioroy DD}. ins avdpe bef adAog. 


rec kat euot, With HLP 13 rel Thl: rat wor p: txt ABCDEN 


etredeié. D. 


house, —this latter, the chamber. 28. | 
tpeis, you, of all men, | best | know: being 
those immediately concerned in the ob- 
struction to intercourse which the rule 
occasioned. @s &0duttov. ..| that it 
is unlawful, ... or ‘how unlawful it is:’ 
better the former, because in the order of 
the words, a@€u:roy has the stress on it: 
the other rendering would more naturally 
represent @s €otiv GBeuitoy. In both the 
reff. the ambiguity is the same. There 
is some difficulty about this unlawfulness of 
consorting with those adAépuaAo who, like 
Cornelius, worshipped the true God. It 
rests upon no legal prohibition, and seems, 
at first sight, hardly consistent with the 
zeal to gain proselytes predicated of the 
Pharisees, Matt. xxiii. 15,—with Jos. Antt. 
xx. 2. 3 (Iovdaids tis Eumopos, *Avavias 
dvoua, Tpos TAS yuvaikas eisiwy TOU Bact- 
Aéws (Monobazus, of Adiabene) ed(Sackev 
avras Tov Oedy cdacBeiv), and with the 
Rabbinical comment Schemoth Rabba on 
Exod. xii. 4, “Hoe idem est quod scrip- 
tum dicit Jes. lvi. 3. Et non dicet filius 
advenz qui adhesit Domino, dicendo: se- 
parando separavit me Dominus a populo 
suo.” But, whatever exceptions there may 
have been, it was unquestionably the general 
practice of the Jews to separate them- 
selves in common life from uncircumcised 
persons. We have Juvenal testifying to 
this at Rome, Sat. xiv. 103, ‘non monstrare 
vias, eadem nisi sacra colenti: Queesitum 
ad fontem solos deducere verpos.’ And 
Tacitus, Hist. vy. 5, ‘adversus omnes alios 
hostile odium, separati epulis, disereti eu- 
bilibus;” ie. ./255. Kapol]} not, ‘but 
God hath shewed me,’ as E. V.: kat can 
never have this meaning, and in all cases 


117 


p here only +. 


27—33. IIPABEIZ AIOZTOAON. 


” x \ > dey 5 
avOpwrrov, *9 810 Kai P avavtippyntas ArOov % weraTreuPOeds. ” Heer: 
/ 5 / 4 , 8.15 (- 7 
tT rvOdvouar odv, * ti toyo 4 perarréupacbé we; 30 Kai lis 385 
« , ” u? \ , en a7 ae , q ver. 5 reff. 
6 Kopyydsos efn “Amro teraprns nuépas % mexpl TAYTNS * constr.. ch.iv. 
a a w 2 x / \ y \ 3G 2 Z x d cqusnte Rane 
THs opas “ nunv [Xvnotevwv Kai] Y tHv évarny * Tposevyo- * "2530. 
a , t = Matt. v. 32. 
Mevos €v TO oiK@ pov, Kat LOov avnp ETH * EvwOTTLOY [MoU =") Natt. 
xXu. ° 
a a / s , a i 
ev * éo OArt 4! Naurpa, *! cai dynoww Kopvijrue, ° eisnxovcOn Joh x. 5% 
e \ \ ef} s g > / 6 ayia en (butsee note), 
cou 1 Tposevyxy Kal ai * ehenpoovvar gov FeuvncOncay *Eva-— 9 (2)cn.xv. 
lal lal 82 , a , , , \ h , 10. od eae vu. 
mov ToD Oeod. meprvov ovv els lommny kat» wetakd- 0% 
a i2 al f a / y ch. xi. 5 reff. 
Aecat Yipwova os ‘émixanretras Ilétpos: ovtos * Eeviferar ¥ Maiti. is. 
év oikia Siwwvos ! Bupcéws ™ rapa Odraccay|* Os ™ Tapa- chy aii 2,8 
t Nea p p Pp Judg. xx. 26. 
I / 2 es) 5 bf & y acc,, J iv, 
ryevomevos Narnoer cor]. 33 °€E avThs obv Ereuwa pos GE, 732 Rev ik. 3 
, a , , = z absol., ver. 9 
ov TE? Kaas ETrOlnaas ™ TapayevomeEvos, TVOV LObVv TraVTES rei” 
a oe es li. 25 
rent. 


b Luke xxiii. 11. James ii. 2, 3 only. c as above (b). Luke xxiv, 4. ch. (i. 10 v, r.) xii. 21. James 


ii. 2only+. 2 Mace. xi. 8. d Rey. xv. 6: xviii. 14. xix. 8, xxii, 1,16 only+. Wisd. vi, 12 
al. Cant. v. 10 Symm. e 1 Cor. xiv. 21 reff." Ps. iv. 3. f plur., ch, ix. 36 reff. 
g pass., Rev. xvi. 19 only. Ezek. xviii. 22. mid., ch. xi. 16 al. fr. h ch. vii. 14 reff. i yer. 5. 
k ver. 6 reff. 1 ch. ix. 43 reff. m ver. 6 reff. n absol., ch. xvii. 10. o Mark 


vi. 25. ch. xi. 11. xxi. 32. xxiii 30. Phil. ii. 23 only. p = 1 Cor, vii. 37, 38 reff, 1 Mace. 


xii. 18, 22. q ch. xv, 10. xvi. 36, xxiii, loonly. Gen, xlv. 5, 

29. avavtipntws B'D p. aft wetameud. ins up vuwy DE. 

30. for rerapt., rns TpiTHs D1(txt D? [appy]: austertiana D-lat). for ravT. T7s, 
Ts aptt D. om ynor. Kat (erased perhaps, as nothing is said of fasting above, 
ver 3) A'BCR p vulg copt «th arm: ins A2DEH(L)P 13. 36 rel syrr sah Thl.—om kat 
mere LOU La: for kat T. ev., THY Evatny Te D?. rec aft ev. ins wpav, with HP 
13. 36 rel Chr: om ABCDN p 40. Kal MposevX. amo ExT. wp. ews evaTns KH. 
for 2nd pov, enov &. 

31. 7» mposevx. cov E 96. 142 lect-12 vulg D-lat: 7 denots cov e 80. 

82. for & oir. oc. B., mapa twa o. B. (corrn from ch ix. 43) C 36.180. om os Trap. 
Aad. ca (to suit ver 6?) ABN p vulg copt «eth-rom : ins CDEHLP 13 rel vss Cbr Thl. 

38. aft mpos ce add mapaxadwy cAOew mpos nuas D(D3 and lat ins ce aft €A@.) syr- 
w-ast. for re, 5¢ D E-lat coptt. — ins ev raxet bef mapay. D. for ovr, 
dov D!-gr(idov D-corr!: txt D%{and lat]). 


where it is so rendered we may trace the 
significance of the simple copula if we 
examine. Here, for instance:—the two 
parties concerned are bpets, kaye. ‘ Ye, 
though ye see me here, know, how strong 
the prejudice is which would have kept me 
away: and J, though entertaining fully 
this prejudice myself, yet have been taught 
&e 29. rive Adyw] on what ac- 
count: the dative of the cause: see reff. : 
and ef. Hes. Theog. 626: yalns ppad- 
poovrnow avnyayev,— Winer, edn. 6, § 31. 
6.c, and Bernhardy, Syntax, ch. iii. 14, 

80. awd ter. ny.| The rendering of 
Meyer and others, ‘From the fourth day 
(reckoned back) down to this hour have 
I been fasting,’ is ungrammatical; for 
(1) this would require tHsde tis Spas, 
and (2) #uny cannot possibly reach to the 
present time, but is the historical past: 
I was fasting. This being so, amd Te- 
TapTns Huépas must indicate the time de- 
noted by #unv—‘ quarto abhine die’—four 
days ago; see reff. (2), which fully justify 
this rendering. De Wette’s and Neander’s 


rendering, ‘For four (whole) days was I 
(i.e. had I been) fasting up to this hour 
(i. e. the hour in which he saw the vision),’ 
does not satisfy tavtys tis Spas, which 
must in that case be éxeivns, if indeed 
such an expression could be at all used 
of ‘the time when the following incident 
took place.’ The only legitimate mean- 
ing of tavt. Tr. dp. I take to be this hour 
of the day: and this meaning is fur- 
ther established by the omission of épay 
after évaTnyv. The hour alluded to 
is probably the st#th, the hour of the 
mid-day meal, which was the only one 
partaken by the Jews on their solemn 
days. (Lightf.) appa] bright. In 
Luke (ref.) the brightness was in the 
colour: here, probably, in some super- 
natural splendour. The garment might 
have been white (as in ch. i. 10), or not,— 
but at all events, it was radiant with bright- 
ness. $1.] The two are separated 
here, which were placed together in ver. 4, 
and each has its proper verb: eis7K..-- 7 
mposevxX) K. ai eA... EMvijod. 33. | 


118 TIPAZEIS ATIOSTOAON. bf 


r here only. 

s ver. 48. ch. 
xvii, 26. 
Matt. i. 24. 
viii. 4 || only. 
constr., here 

Jonah 


Hyeis *€vetriov tod Oeod * Tdpecwev aKovoal TavTa Ta ABCI 

; - Ps 
Sqrpostetaypéva cou ‘amd tod *Oeov. %*"’Avol—as débed' 
Ilérpos 70“ otopa eitrev ¥’ Er’ adnOelas © KatadXapBavopuat opi 


- 
| 


vy Luke iv. 25. 
ch. iy. 27 al. 
Job ix. 2, 

w = ch. iv. 13 reff. 

z=Matt. vii. 23. 

lviii. 2. 


Heb. xi. 33. Jamesi. 20. Ps. xiv. 2 


for Ist 7. @eov, cov D'(and lat) vulg Syr sah eth arm Bede. (See note.) 
aft axovca ins BovAopevo: mapa cov D; volumus D-lat: 


mapeouev D! sah. 
BovdAou.(alone) Syr: mapa cov(alone) D°. 
co bef mayta A. 


x here only +. see James ii. 9. 


b Luke iv. 19, 24. 2 Cor. vi. 2. Phil. iv. 18 only. Levit. i. 4. 


¢ = ’ \ 

OTL ovK EoTW * TposwroAnuTTNS O Beds, *° aXAN Ev TavTt 

eOver 0 ¥ hoBovpevos avdtov Kai * épyalopmevos * duKatocv- 
b n joe Ok 96 5k. hie = #8 on ae 

vnv » dextos avT@ éotiv, “6 Toy “doyov ov ° améoTEhev 


Rom. ii. 11. Luke xx, 21. y ver. 2 reff. 
a = 1 John ii. 29. iii. 7,10. Rey. xxii. 11. Isa. 

c Ps. evi. 20. 
om 


om trayvta D 96. 142 sah: ta mpost. 


rec uvmo, with BHLPN? p13. 36 rel Chr: wapa E: txt ACDNS. 


* xuplou (corrn to avoid repetition of @cov?) ABCEN ec 13, 36.40 vulg 
syr copt arm: feov DHLP p rel Syr sah eth Chr. 


84. to oroua bef retpos D. 
arm Thl: om BDHLPN! p am fuld Chr. 
35. adda A. egtat A Constt. 


36. ins yap bef Aoy.C! D-gr c 137 Syr syr-w-ast sah. 


aft ro oroua ins avtov ACEN? d k o 36 eth sah 


KkaTakauBavonevos D'(txt D? ?). 


om ov (corrn to simplify 


the constr) AB c p vulg coptt eth: ins CDEHLP(!) rel 36 syrr Cyr-jer Chr Thl. (13 


The reading évér. cou, for évdm. Tov Oeod, 
is remarkable, and had it more manuscript 
authority, would seem as if it might have 
been genuine. It was much more likely 
to have been altered into r. @cod (as making 
the expression more solemn), than the con- 
verse: and the sense, ‘We are all here 
present before thee, follows better on the 
two preceding verses. 7a ™post. | Not 
doubting that God, who had directed him 
to Peter, had also directed Peter what to 
speak to him. 84. avottas 16 oT. | 
Used (see reff.) on occasions of more than 
ordinary solemnity. ew anGetas Kar. | 
‘For the first time I now clearly, in its 
Sulness and as a living fact, apprehend 
(grasp by experience the truth of) what 
I read in the Scripture (Deut. x. 17; 
2 Chron. xix. 7; Job xxxiv. 19)’ 

35.| ad\a gives the explanation,—what 
it is that Peter now fully apprehends: 
but as opposed to mposwroAhumTns in 
its now apparent sense. év mavtt 
€6ve. «.7.A.| It is very important that we 
should hold the right clue to guide us in 
understanding this saying. The question 
which recent events had solved in Peter’s 
mind, was that of the admissibility of men 
of all nations into the church of Christ. Zn 
this sense only, had he received any infor- 
mation as to the acceptableness of men of 
all nations before God. He saw, that in 
every nation, men who seek after God, who 
receive His witness of Himself without 
which He has left no man, and humbly 
follow His will as far as they know it,— 
these have no extraneous hindrance, such 
as uncireumcision, placed in their way to 
Christ, but are capable of being admitted 


into God’s church though Gentiles, and as 
Gentiles. That only such are spoken of, is 
agreeable to the nature of the case; for 
men who do not fear God, and work un- 
righteousness, are out of the question, not 
being likely to seek such admission. It is 
clearly unreasonable to suppose Peter to 
have meant, that each heathen’s natural 
light and moral purity would™ender him 
acceptable in the sight of God :—for, if so, 
why should he have proceeded to preach 
Christ to Cornelius, or indeed any more at 
all? And it is equally unreasonable to 
find any verbal or doctrinal difficulty in 
épy- dixatocdyny, or to suppose that duc. 
must be taken in its forensic sense, and 
therefore that he alludes to the state of 
men after becoming believers. He speaks 
popularly, and certainly not without re- 
ference to the character he had heard of 
Cornelius, which consisted of these very two 
parts, that he feared God, and abounded in 
good works. The deeper truth, that the 
preparation of the heart itself in such men 
comes from God’s preventing grace, is not 
in question here, nor touched upon. 

36. Tov Adyov | The construction is very dif- 
ficult. Several ways have been proposed of 
connecting and rendering this accusative. 
(1) Erasm., Wolf, Heinrichs, Kuin., &e., 
take Tov Adyor with oYdare, and understand 
Td ev. piu. K.7.A. as in apposition with it. 
“The word which, &e., ye know, viz. the 
yev. p.’ But this immediate connexion of 
Ady. and o%5. is hardly consistent with the 
interruption of the sense by obTos . . . Kdpios. 
(2) Meyer, and Winer, edn. 6, § 62. 3 
end, adopt virtually the same construction, 
but understand du. of. to be a taking up 


d4—38., 


tois *viots “lopanr * evayyenifopevos ' eipnvnv Sia “Inood 


vptatoo ®ovTds éotw © 


TIPABETS AIOSTOAON. 


TavTov © KUpLos. 
Na / lal ra fol $ ay 
70 ivevowevov phua * caW * Orns THs lovdaias, '™ apEduevos ff iy 


119 
™ dch. y. 21. vii. 
23 (from 
a Exod, ii. 11), 
Sl iundigs ofSaGe’ HELE 
Opes oiare Fi 


= Luke i. 19. 


> \ a \ , e e 
mano THs VadiAaias peta TO Bamticopa 0 ™ éxnpugev 3 Kings i. 42: 


Ps, xxxix. 9. 


‘lwavyns, 8’Incotv tov °amd Nabvapéd, Pas 4 éypicen f (Roms) 


ii. 17 only. Nah. i. 5. 


i= Luke ii. 15, iii. 2. John x, 35. ch. vii. 31 al. 


g ch. ix. 20 reff. 
Gen. xy. 1, 


from Isa. lii. 
7.) Eph. 
h = Rom. x. 12 (Gal. iy. 1) only. 


Jer. i. 1. k ch, ix. 31 reff. L. 


lconstr., see note. m ch. i. 22 reff. n Luke iii. 3 ||. Exod. xxxii. 5. O— ch. 
Xxiil. 34. Matt. xxi. 11. Johni. 46. xi. 1. xii. 21 al. Pp = Ver. 28 reff. q ch. 
iy. 27 reff. 
def.) —oy is marked for erasure by &!, or more probably by &-corr!. 
37. om vues B eeth-rom. yevanevoy Hi: yeyovos Cc. om pyua D. 
rec aptamevov, with LP p 13. 36 rel Ath Chr Thdrt Thl; quod factum est . . . incipiens 


vulg E-lat Iren-int Hil Ambr Faustin, q.f. . . cwm cepisset D-lat: txt ABC D-gr E-gr 


H 40. om Ist rns D'(ins D). 


aft apé.ins yap AD vulg E-lat Ath Iren-int, 


38. rec va¢aper, with AHLabdfghlop1s: txt BCDEPN k m vulg coptt eth 


of the sense which was broken by (in this 
case) the ¢wo parentheses evayy.... .- : 
xpiorov, and ovTos ... . KUptos. 
also is the rendering of E. V. But it does 
not sufficiently account for the two clauses 
parenthesized. Besides, it is an objection 
to both these, that the hearers did not know 
the Adyos—‘noverant auditores historiam 
de qua mox, non item rationes interiores, 
de quibus hoc versu.’ Bengel. (3) Rosenm. 
and others understand xara, ‘secundum 
eam doctrinam quam Deus tradi jussit Is- 
raelitis,’ or (4) take it as an accusativus 
pendens, ‘ad sermonem filiis Israel missum 
quod attinet’?.... But an accusative is 
never found thus standing alone, unless 
there be an anacoluthon, which (3) pre- 
cludes, and which would, if assumed in 
(4), give us a construction of unexampled 
harshness. (5) Grot. and Beza take rdv 
Adyov dv, for dy Adyov, ‘quem nuncium,’ 
justifying it by Matt. xxi. 42, and so nearly 
(6) Kypke, ‘verbum quod misit ... . illud 
in omnes habet potestatem,’ a rendering 
altogether out of all N. T. analogy, as is 
also (7) that of Heinsius, who understands 
Adyos as personal, ‘Verbum quod misit 
Deus, omnium est Dominus,’ a usage con- 
fined in the N. T. to the writings of St. 
John, and, even if admissible, most harsh 
and improbable here. (8) I agree in the 
main with De Wette, who joins tov Adyoy 
with katadAauBavouat,—and regards ver. 
36 as exegetic of O71... . Sextds adTa 
eott. Of a truth I perceive, &c....... 
(and recognize this as) the word which 
God sent to the children of Israel, 
preaching peace (see reff.) through Jesus 
Christ: (then, for the first time, ém’ aAn- 
Ocias KatadauBavéuevos this also, on the 
mention of Jesus Christ, he adds odtdés 
est wavtwv Kvpios,) He is Lord of atu 
MEN; with a strong emphasis on mavTwy. 
I the more incline to this, the simplest 


and most forcible rendering, from observ- 
ing that so far from tyes ofSare being 
(Meyer’s objection) a harsh beginning to 
a new sentence, it is the very form in 
which Peter began his address to them 
ver. 28, duets erictacbe, &c.: and, as there 
it answers to «auol, so here also (ver. 39) 
to kal iets. dua “Ino. xp. belongs 
to evayyedA., not to eiphyny. 37. 
7o pypa| the matter: not the thing, 
here or any where else: but the thing 
said, the ‘materies’ of the proclamation, 
in this case perhaps best ‘the history. 
yevspevov | Not ‘which took place,’ 
but, which was spoken, ‘published,’ as 
E. V. See reff. This meaning, which 
pjua itself renders necessary, is further 
supported by ka@ 8Ans Tt. *Iovd., which 
can only be properly said, and is used by 
Luke (only, see reff.) of a publication, or 
spreading of a rumour, not of the happening 
of an event or series of events relating to 
one person. apé. aw. tT. Tad.| It was 
from Galilee first that the fame of Jesus 
went abroad, as Luke himself relates, Luke 
iv. 14,37 (44.v.r.); vii. 17; ix.6 (xxiii. 5). 
Galilee also was the nearest to Caesarea, and 
may have been for this reason expressly 
mentioned. dpiduevos is an unexpected 
transference of the case and gender into 
that of the prime agent, a construction 
common enough in the Apocalypse (iv. 1 
reff.), but surprising in St. Luke. 
peta TO Bamrt.| So also Peter dates the 
ministry of our Lord in ch. i. 22. (See 
note there.) 38. “Ingotv T. ard 
Naf.] The personal subject of the yevd- 
pevoy pjua, q. d. ‘Ye know the subject 
which was preached .... , viz. Jesus of 
Nazareth.’ as éxp. avt. | how that 
God anointed him ..., not as Kuin. and 
Kypke, ‘how that God anointed Jesus of 
N.,’ taking airdv as redundant by a He- 
braism. See a construction very similar in 


120 


TIPAHEIS AIIOZTOAON. 


X. 


dryip Kat * duvapet, Os * OumrOev ABC 
f evepyeT@v Kal (@mevos TaVTas TOUS “ earadvvacrevopevous bed 


x 4 BJ / ” r / 
@MV €TTOLNOEV EV TE T)) XePe 


8 HryeLpev Th TpITD 


r=Lukeil7. @yTov 0 Oeds mvevpare 

vi. 19 al. 
s absol., oe 

villi. 4 re 

t here only. 

Ps ih a vmod Tov dvaBorov, OTL O Oeos Yay per adTood 

7s. Luke ) : ; 
u eae 6 nets " HMapTupes TTAVT@V 

only. Ezek. a ’ / 8 9 Sie / aA , tal 
iw. TOV Llovdatwy Kat év ‘lepovoadrp: ov Kat ¥ aveiiav * Kpe- 
v Luke i. 66. A F j x \ 

John ii. yacavtes emt * Evrdov. 19 rovTov o Beds 

xviii. 10, 


Cer \ 
Isa. lviii. 11. NHMEPa Kab 
w constr., Luke 

xxiv. 48. ch. 
i. 22. ii. 32. 

iii. 15. xxvi. 16. 

x. 8. xi. 5. xxviii, 6 ||. Rom. iv. 25. 

x. 20 only, from Isa. Ixy. 1. 


1 Cor. xy. 4, &e. 


Chr Did. 
Bas, Faustin. 
outros D tol Syr sah Iren-int Faustin : 
Oevtas D. for d:aB., catava E-gr. 
39. vucis A D-gr. 
ABCDEN p 36 syrr eth Chr Iren-int-mss. 
tep. BD p demid fuld Syr: 


T® AAW, AAA papTUdW Tots 
L L 
x attr., ch, i. 1 reff, y 
d here only +. see ch. iii. 
for ws exp. avt., ov exp. D}(and lat: 
ins ev bef mv. ay. EL b mw. 
ws &1 13 lect-12 Thl-sif. 


rec aft nu. ins ecuev, with HLP 13 rel vss Cosm Thl: 


> edmKev avTov ° eupavi) yevéeo@ar 4) od mavrtl 


4 TpoKexelpoTovnpmevols UO 


z ch. y. 30 (reff.). a Matt. 
b = ch. ii. 4 reff. c Rom. 


= ch. v, 23 reff. 
Isa. xxvi. 19. 
20. 


D3 adding avrov) syrr eth arm 
ay. bef mveuu. D. for os, 
KaTaduvacTev- 


om 


for mavtwy, avrov D. om ev bef 


ins ACEHLPRN 13. 36 rel am coptt Chr Cosm Iren-int. 


rec om 3rd kat (its force not being seen), with 13 rel fuld copt Cosm Iren-int: ins 


ABCDEHLPX rel 36 am demid tol syr arm Chr. 


[averAayv, so ABCDER p 13.] 


40. ins ev bef tn Tp. nu. C R'(N8 disapproving) m vss(some): meta THY TpITHY NuEpay 


for avtov, avtw D o 45. 


D)(and lat). 


Luke xxiv. 19, 20. The fact of the 
anointing with the Holy Spirit, in His 
baptism by John, was the historical open- 
ing of the ministry of Jesus: this anoint- 
ing however was not His first unction with 
the Spirit, but only symbolic of that which 
He had in His incarnation: so Cyril in 
Johan. lib. xi. vol. vii. p. 998, od 6qrov wadw 
exceivd gamer Ort TéTE yeyovey, Gytos 6 Kaze 
odpka xpliotds, OTE TO myedpa TeOéaTat 
Kar aBaivov 6 Bamriorns* dytos yap hv Kal 
éy éuBptw kal witpa... GAA dedoTar wey 
cis onuetoy TH BartioTH 7d Oeaqua :—which 
unction abode upon Him, John i. 32, 33, 
and is alleged here as the continuing 
anointing which was upon Him from God. 
Stier well remarks, how entirely 
all personal address to the hearers and all 
doctrinal announcements are thrown into 
the background in this speech, and the 
Person and Work and Office of Christ put 
forward as the sole subject of apostolic 
preaching. kataduvacr. | Subdued, 
so that he is their duvdorns,—and this 
power used for their oppression. Here, it 
alludes to physical oppression by disease (see 
Luke xiii. 16) and possession: in 2 Tim. 
ii. 26, a very similar description is given of 
those who are spiritually bound by the 
devil. 6 Beds Hv pet adr. | So Nico- 
demus had spoken, John iii. 2; and pro- 
bably Peter here used the words as well 
known and indicative of the presence of 
divine power and co-operation (see Judg. 
vi. 16): beginning as he does with the 
outer and lower circle of the things re- 





garding Christ, as they would be matter of 
observation and inference to his hearers, 
and gradually ascending to those higher 
truths regarding His Person and Office, 
which were matter of apostolic testimony 
and demonstration from Scripture,—His 
resurrection (ver. 40), His being appointed 
Judge of living and dead (ver. 42), and 
the predestined Author of salvation to all 
who believe on Him (ver. 43). 39. 
kal nets] Answering to sueis ofdare, 
ver. 37. * You know the history as matter 
of universal rumour: and we are witnesses 
of the facts.’ By this jue?s Peter at once 
takes away the ground from the exagge- 
rated reverence for himself individually, 
shewn by Cornelius, ver. 25 (Stier): and 
puts himself and the rest of the Apostles in 
the strictly subordinate place of witnesses 
for Another. év Kal dveth.| Whom 
also they killed. «af is not ‘yet,’ as 
Kuinoel, but merely introduces, in this 
case passing over it without emphasis, a 
new fact in this history. He even omits 
all mention of the actors in the murder, 
speaking as he did to Gentiles: a striking 
contrast to ch. ii. 23; il1.14; iv. 10; v.30, 
—when he was working conviction in the 
minds of those actors themselves. 

Kpep. eri §.) So also ch. v. 30, where see 
note. 41, | Bengel would understand 
cuved. kK. cuver. of previous intercourse 
during His ministry, and parenthesize od 
mavrt ai7@,—finding a difficulty in 
their having eaten and drunk with Him 
after His Resurrection. But this would 


39 Kal op 


VEKpwv 


.BDE 
LPN a 
edfg 
klm 
p 13 


39—4.4, 


IIPABEIS AIOSTOAON. 


121 


fal lal lal f sa 0 
Tov Oeod Hiv, ° oitwes ‘cuveddayomer Kal © cvveTTiomEV AUT & Matt. xvi-28. 


h \ Ms i > a > \ i > a 
META TO  AVACTHVAL AUVTOV “EK VEKPOWV, 


ch. v. 16. vii. 
53 (note). 
xill. 31. 


42 Kal * rapny- : 
Heb. vii. 5. 


cal r n / “ 9 
yeirev tyutv Knpv&ar TO AAW Kai | dvawaptvpacOar OTL f Luke xv.2. 


m > / b 7 ps , € \ ta) fa) "oOo \ / 
aUTOS €oTLY 0 ™ MpLapévos UTO TOD GEov ° KpLTHS CoVTwY 
43 P rovUT@ TayTEs ol TpodHTat 4 wapTUpodoW, 


\ rn 
Kal VeKPwV. 


ch. xi. 3. 

1 Cor. y. 11. 
Gal. ii. 21 
only. Gen. 
xliil. 32. 

Ps. c. 5 only. 


iy lal an - \ As , fa / ay = 
“ddheow *apapti@v NaPetv § dia TOD § OvOMATOS AVTOD TraVTA ® HK, 


\ t , +) 23 ny 
TOV TLOTEVOVTA €lS AUTOV. 
reff. 1 Chron. ii, 24. 
xvii. 3. Eph. vy. 14. see ch. iv. 2. 


m Matt. viii. 17. Luke xxiy. 21 al. 
Anthol. xii. 158. 7. 

q = Luke iv. 22. John iii. 26. ch. xiii. 22. 

t John ii. Ll and passim. ch. xiv. 23, xix, 4. 


41. nuwy bef vo 7. 0. C Syr sah. 


44 "Hire 


i Mark vi. 14. ix. 9, l0oxii. 25. 
k dat. and aor., ch. xvi. 18 reff. 


0 ='2 Dim: iy. 8: 


xv. 8 al. 
Rom. x. l4 al. 


aft cuved. ins avtw C Syr. 


only. Judg. 
vy. 11 Symm. 
h ch, xix. 21 

John xx. 9. ch. 
1 ch. viii. 25 reff. 
n = ch. xvii. (26 reff.) 31. @€...€e0v wpice Satuwr, 
James v.9. Ps. vii. 11. p ch. ix. 20 reff. 
rch, y. 31 reff, s = ch, iv. 30 reff. 


XNaXovyvTos Tov 


Luke xvi. 31, xxiv. 46. 


aft ouver. 


avTw ins Kat cuvaveotpapnuev D? syr: cuveorp. D!, conversi D-lat: add further avtw 


nmepas m Syr-w-ast. om avtoy D. 
5: nucpwv Tecoapaxorta HK. 
42. for rapnyy., eveterAato D. 


aft vexpwy add nuepas w D sah eth Cassiod ; 


for avtos, ovtos (corrn, but unnecessary) BC D-gr 


E-gr Lk 13 syrr coptt: txt AHPX p rel vulg D-lat E-lat eth Chr Cosm e Thl 


Tren-int. 


43. rovrov HL: rovto m 19. 662. 78 lect-2. 


make the significant cfries (“people 
who”) ....avr@ very flat and unmean- 
ing, especially after ver. 39: whereas the 
fact of their having eaten and drunk with 
Him after His Resurrection gives most 
important testimony to the reality and 
identity of His risen Body. And there is 
no real difficulty in it: Luke xxiv. 41, 43 
and John xxi. 12 give us instances; and, 
even if cuyvertouey is to be pressed, it is 
no contradiction to Luke xxii. 18, which 
only refers to one particular kind of drink- 
ing. ampoKex. vm. T. Geov| Had not 
Peter in his mind the Lord’s own solemn 
words,—ovs dédwkds por €k TOU KdopMOU, 
John xvii. 6 ? 42. +6 had] Here as 
elsewhere (ver. 2; John xi. 50 al. fr.), the 
Jewish people: that was all which, in the 
apostolic mind, up to this time, the com- 
mand had absolutely enjoined. The further 
unfolding of the Gospel had all been 
brought about over and above this first 
injunction. Ch. i. 8 is no obstacle to this 
interpretation ; for although literally ful- 
filled by the leadings of Providence, as 
related in this book, they did not so un- 
derstand it when spoken. Kput. C. k. 
vexp.| So also Paul, ch. xvii. 31, preach- 
ing to Gentiles, brings forward the appoint- 
ment of a Judge over all men as the cen- 
tral point of his teaching. This expression 
gives at once a universality to the office 
and mission of Christ, which prepares the 
way for the great truth declared in the next 
verse. It is impossible that the living 
and dead here can mean (as the Augsburg 
Catechism, and Olshausen) the righteous 
and sinners :—a canon of interpretation 
which should constantly be borne in mind 
is, that a figurative sense of words is never 


admissible, EXCEPT WHEN REQUIRED BY 
THE CONTEXT. Thus, in the passage of 
John v. 25 (where see notes), the sense of 
vexpol is determined to be figurative by 
the addition of kal viv éorw after Spa, no 
such addition occurring in ver. 28, where 
the literally dead, of ev tots uyjpelous, are 
mentioned. 43. mwavtes ot pod. | 
All the prophets, generically: not that 
every one positively asserted this, but that 
the whole bulk of prophetic testimony an- 
nounced it. To press such expressions to 
literal exactness is mere trifling. See ch. 
ili. 21, 24. ag. ap. AaB. «.7.A.] The 
legal sacrifices, as well as the declarations 
of the prophets, all pointed to the remis- 
sion of sins by faith in Him. And the 
universality of this proclamation, mayra 
tov morT., is set forth by the prophets in 
many places, and was recognized even by 
the Jews themselves, in their expositions 
of Scripture, though not in their practice. 

44.| Peter had spoken up to this 
point : and was probably proceeding (ef. év 
TG Gpfacbal we Aadciv, ch. xi. 15) to in- 
clude his present hearers and all nations 
in the number to whom this blessing was 
laid open,—or perhaps beyond this point 
his own mind may as yet have been not 
sufficiently enlightened to set forth the full 
liberty of the Gospel of Christ,—when the 
fire of the Lord fell, approving the sacrifice 
of the Gentiles (see Rom. xv. 16): con- 
ferring on them the substance before the 
symbol,—the baptism with the Holy Ghost 
before the baptisma with water: and teach- 
ing us, that as the Holy Spirit dispensed 
once and for all with the necessity of cir- 
cumcision in the flesh, so can He also, when 
it pleases him, with the necessity of water- 


122 
u ch. viii. 16 
reff. 


w ch. xi. 2. 
Rom. iv. 12. 
Gal. ii. 12. 
Col. iv. ll. 
Tit. i. 10 only. 
= eh. 2¥iy Le 
2 Cor. vi. 15. 
Eph. i. 1. 
Col. i. 2 al. 


¥ 


* €xxéyuTat. 


y ver. 23. 
z = ch. ii. 38 
reff. 
a -Xelv, ch. ii. a Y Y \ 
17 reff. Tia Onvat TOUTOUS, OLTLVES TO 
b ch. ii. 4 reff. 
c = Luke i. 46. 
ch, vy. 13. 
xix, 17. A , E aA 
Phil-i-20. TOD KUpLOU K Barria Ohvat. 
(L.P., exc. 
is oes fal c a / 
MS Kins Metvat * nwepas © TLVvas. 
vil. 26. 
d Matt. vii. 16. Johnivy. 29. Mal. iii.8 B. e = Luke vi. 29. 
x. 13 reff. h ch. viii. 15, 19 reff. 


k see ch. viii. 16 reff. 
al. L.P. [exc. John viii. 7.] 


44. aft er: ins de P? bef g osyr sah. 


Exod. xii. 39 B. 


IIPABEI® ATIOSTOAON. 


\ ¢ / \ , 
Kal °peyaduvovtav Tov Oeor. 
474 Myre To Vowp dvvatar * kwrdaai Tis % Tod pon Bar- 


as kai nueis ; 41 Tposéragév te adtovs * év To 


1 constr., ch. xvi. 39 reff. 


X. 45—48. 


, \ Roe a u2 f \u Le \. oe, 
Iletpov Ta pnuata Tavta “ eréTrecev TO“ TVEVMA TO AYLOV 
/ \ / \ , 
éml TavTas TOUS akovoyTas TOV NOYov. 


45 Kat Y é&eoTnoav 


e a fol - A ia lal a / 
ol “ex “ repitouns *mictot door Y cuvndOov To LléTpo, 
eo \ \ \ wv e fal 
OTL Kal émt Ta EOvn 7) *Swpea Tod ayiov TvevpaTos 
i lal 
46 jKovov yap avTav AaXrovyTMOV » yAwOooals 


tote amrexpi0n Ilétpos 
fo \ 
Larvetpa TO » dryvov » éXaBov 
7 a 
K ovopate 
/ ] > , > Xv m > 
tote !npwTtnocav avTov ™ émt- 


f Gen. xxiii. 6. g1Cor. 

i constr., here only. (see ver. 33 reff.) Isa. xxxvi. 21. 
m ch. xxi. 4, 10. xxviii. 12, 14. 1 Cor. xvi. 7,8 

n ch. ix. 19. xv. 36. xvi, 12. xxiv. 24. xxv. 13 only. 


emecev (mistake? or simple word for 


compound) AD 13. 36: txt BEHLPN 0 p rel Chr. 
45. for ooo, oc B vulg D-lat Syr coptt Vig: txt A D-gr EHLN 13. 36 rel Chr 


Rebapt. cuvndOay BR. 
ey. D!: txt AEHLPN p 13. 36 rel Chr. 


Tov Ty. T. ay. B(sic: see table) D3 40 vss: tov my. 


46. from AaAovytwy to. .v Tov Geor is obliterated in D! (seeing (1) that D# fills up the 
space with txt written “laxius,” (2) that Wetstein reports D! to have read weyaduvey 
(omg cat ?), and (3) that D-lat has prevaricatis linguis: we may conjecture that D! 


possibly may have read yAwoous SiauepiCopevais). 


for Tote amexp., evmev de D, 


rec ins o bef 7etp., with DEHLP rel Ge Thl: om ABN p Chr. 
47. rec cwA. bef duv., with D-corr HLP 13 rel Chr: skwAa(corrd by D5) 7. Suv. D!: 


Suv. r. kwA. E 40: txt ABN p. 


for tovtovs, avtouvs D-gr. 


rec KaQws (corrn 


to more usual expr: or to suit ch xv. 8), with EHLP rel Chr He Thl: wsrep D: txt 


ABN a chk p 13.40 Epiph Chr-comm. 


48. for re, 5¢ BEN d p 18 syr coptt: txt AHLP rel vulg eth Chr Ge Th! Rebapt.— 


Tote mposeT. D Syyr. 


avtous AX 33 Syr sah. 
with DEHLP rel vss Chr Rebapt: txt ABN p 40 am demid Cyr-jer. 


rec Bamtiod. bef ev Tw ov. T. K., 
for Tov Kup., 


ioou xpiorou (corrn, as giving more precision to the baptismal formula) ABER c dk 
p? 13. 36 am syr coptt «eth Cyr-jer Chr Thl-fin Jer Rebapt: 7. kup. mo. xp. D p} fuld: 


T. kup. ing. ah 38. 42. 57 Thi-sif: txt HLP rel. 


for npwt., mapexadreoay D. 


ins mpos avtous bef emmewar D-corr vulg-ed Syr sah eth, so but diaper. D!. 


baptism: and warning the Christian church 
not to put baptism itself in the place which 
cireumcision once held. See further in note 
on Peter’s important words, ch. xi. 16. 

The outpouring of the Spirit on the Gen- 
tiles was strictly analogous to that in the 
day of Pentecost ; Peter himself describes it 
by adding (ch. xi. 15), @smep kal éd’ Hpas 
év apxq- Whether there was any visible 
appearance in this case, cannot be deter- 
mined: perhaps from ver. 46 it would ap- 
pear not. 45.) We do not read that 
Peter himself was astonished. He had been 
specially prepared by the vision: they had 
not. ‘The AaXety yAwooats here is iden- 
tified with the A. érépats yA. of ch. ii. 4, by 
the assertion of ch. xi. 15, just cited; —and 
this again with the eAdAouy yAdoous of 
ch. xix. 6:—so that the gift was one and 
the same throughout. On the whole sub- 
ject, see note, ch. ii. 4. 47.| One great 
end of the unexpected effusion of the Holy 


Spirit was entirely to preclude the question 
which otherwise could not but have arisen, 
‘Must not these men be ctreumcised before 
baptism ?? To Vdwp ... TO Tvetpa | 
The Two great Parts of full and complete 
baptism: the latter infinitely greater than, 
but not superseding the necessity of, the 
former. The article should here certainly 
be expressed: Can any forbid THE WATER 
to these who have received THE SPIRIT ? 

The expression ck@Adca, used with 
7) 08., is interesting, as shewing that 
the practice was to bring the water to 
the candidates, not the candidates to 
the water. This, which would be implied 
by the word under any circumstances, 
is rendered certain, when we remember 
that they were assembled in the house. 

48. mposératev| As the Lord Him- 
self when on earth did not baptize (John 
iv. 2), so did not ordinarily the Apostles 
(see 1 Cor. i. 13—17, and note.) Perhaps 


eee TLO7 
m. 


ABD 


HLPs 
bedf 


hkl 
p 1s 


XI. 1—6. 


IIPAREIS, ATLOSTOAON. 


123 


XI. 1”"Heoveay S€ of atroarorot Kal of adEAPOL OF o= ch. iiss. 


SUL es 


\ \ ? / iA \ lj 9 9 ~ 
dvtes ° Kata THY ‘lovdaiay Ott Kat Ta EOvn ? edéEavTO Tov *, ? ** 


pe fal a 
IXoyov tov Geod. 


oc / / 

2 OTe S€*avéBn Ilétpos eis ‘lepovca- 
€ a 

Ane, Sdvexpivovto mpcs avTov ‘oi tex *aepitouhs > ré- 


i. 1, 

p ch. viii. 14 
reff. 

q ch. vi. 7. viii. 
14. xiii. 44, 


an \ v iv. 36 al. 
ryovTes OTL Elsi AOes " pos avdpas Y* axpoBvatiay ¥ EyovTas x Matt. xx. 17, 


Kat *auvédayes avtois. 


4 ¥ ap&duevos dé Ilétpos 7 éé- 


18. ch. xv. 2. 
xxv. 1,9 al. 
Ezra ii. 1. 


lal lal / ’ str. 
etiOeto avtois *kabeENs A€yov © ’Eyo PHunv ev corer sO Pee 


is f c , \ io b] a2 / es 
O77?) Ti POSEVVOMEVOS, KQAL €LOOV EV EKOTACEL opapa, 


xx. 35, 36. 


a al »Q/ Sh ae 
£ kataBaivov * oxedos Te ws * OOovny meyddnv Téccapow *\%)” 


f > nr / > lal > lal \ i } ” 
apxats & xabieuévnv €K TOU ovpavov, Kal AOEV ‘axpt 


(reff.). 
u ch. x. 3. xvi. 





40. xvii. 2. 
> a Fy 9A ; 2 / k , 2 NT ’ puke 1. fy 
é€u“ov. 8 tes Hv 'atevicas * KaTevoouY Kal €looV Ta TETPQ- aie HO 
a a \ \ fa) 1 \ ES \ \ \ v here only. 
qTrooa TS ys Kab Ta npla Kat Ta EPTTETA KQt TQ Gen. xxxiv. 
14. 
Paul (Rom. iii, 30 all8.) only. x ch. x. 41 reff. y ver. 15. ry ee ik 
(vii. 21.) xviii. 26. xxviii. 23 only. (Job xxxvi. 15.) Aoyor exOnoomat, Jos. Antt. i. 12.2. ach. 
iii. 24 reff. + b constr., ch. x. 30. xxii. 19,20 (Paul). Mark xiv. 49. Gal. i. 22. see ch. ii. 5 reff. 
e absol., ch. x. 9 reff. d ch. x. 10 reff. e ch. vii. 31 reff. f ch. x. 11 (reff.). g ch. 
ix. 25 reff. h = ch. xiii. 6. xx. 4. xxviii. 15. 2 Cor. x.13,14. Rey. xiv. 20. xviii. 5 bd 
i ch. i. 10 reff. k ch. vii. 31, 32 reff. 1 ch. x. 12 (reff.). : 


Cuap. XI. 1. axovoroyv de eyeveto Tos am. k. Tos ad. or Ev TH Lovd. D Syr (audito 


vero apostoli &e D-lat, tots ev Tt. tovd. Dr). 


edetato D!(txt DS). 


2. rec xa ore (alteration because the fact related seems a consequence of, rather 
than opposed to, ver 1?), with HLP 13 syrr eth Chr: txt ABEN p 36 vulg coptt 


Jer Cassiod. 


rec tegoooAuua, with (D)EHLP 13. 36 rel Chr: txt ABN p. 


D reads the verse thus: o wey ovy meTpos dia wkavou xpovou nOeAnoa(-cev D>) ropev- 
Onvat els LepoooAvma Kat mposhwynoas Tous adeAdous Kat emtaTnpiéas avtous (thus far 
also syr-w-ast, prefixing e¢ benedicebant Deo, and adding eziit et docuit eos, kat ote 
aveBn K.T.A., AS in rec) ToAVY Aovyor ToLoumeEvos dia, TwY Xwpwr (civitates D-lat) Sidackwy 
autous* os kat (quia et) KaTHYTHTEY aVvTOLS KaL amnyyiAEy avToLs THY Xapiy TOV Deu" 


ot Se (quia erant) ex mepitouns adeApor dtekpivoyto mpos avrov (judicantes ad eum). 
3. rec mp. av. ax. ex. bef essnAdes, with KHLP 13 rel syrr Chr Thl-sif: txt ABDN 


ah p vulg coptt eth arm Thl-fin. 
13. 36 Syr syr-mg. 


va bef radeins D. 
5. com. bef oA. D copt. 
D-corr!) 96. 


6. om ra (1st and 3rd) D'(ins D’). 
aft epreta H Syr. 


the same reason may have operated in 
both cases,—lest those baptized by our 
Lord, or by the chief Apostles, should 
arrogate to themselves pre-eminence on 
that account. Also, which is implied 
in 1 Cor, i. 17, as compared with Acts 
vi. 2, the ministry of the Word was 
esteemed by them their higher and para- 
mount duty and office, whereas the sub- 
ordinate ministration of the ordinances 
was committed to those who dmkdvovy 
TpameCais. év TO ov.|] = em) TG dv., 
ch. ii. 38, where see note. Wahl com- 
pares amoxreivew ev TH mpopdce tavrn, 
Lysias, p. 452. 

Cuap. XI. 1—18.] PETER JUSTIFIES 
BEFORE THE CHURCH IN JERUSALEM, HIS 
HAVING CONSORTED WITH MEN UNCIR- 


in epeta, ep is written above the line by NX}. 


ersnAfev and cuvepayev B(sic: see table) Le p 
ins guy bef avtas D!. 


4. rec ins o bef werpos, with HLP rel Ke Thl: om ABDEN p 13. 40 Chr. 
om KafeEns H! 41 copt. 

om mposevxomevos XN}. 
kataBaveyv (error?) A ap. 
axpis, with B2HHP 13. 36 rel: ews D: txt AB!L. 


ins 


om 2nd ev D}-gr(ins 
Tetpacw D Epiph. rec 


om tys yas P 3. 73. 80: ins aft Onpia d g, 
om 4th ra D. 


CUMCISED. 1. kata rt. *Iovd.] in 
Judea, or perhaps more strictly, through- 
out Judza. (See reff.) Stu Kk. T. Ov. | 
They seem to have heard the fact, without 
any circumstantial detail (but see on roy 
&yyedov below, ver. 13); and, from the 
charge in ver. 3,—from some reporter who 
gave the objectionable part of it, as is not 
uncommon in such cases, all prominence. 
' 2. | ot é« weptrow.zs must have come 
into use later as designating the circum- 
cised generally: in this case all those 
spoken of would belong to the cireum- 
cision. Luke uses it in the sense of the 
time when he wrote the account. 

4.| ‘Having begun, set forth to them :’ 
i.e. began and set forth: not for jptaro 
ext eva, as Kuinoel. 5.] 7A0. &xpe 


124 


m ch. x. 13, 14 I 
reff. 

n Matt. xv. 11 
only. Dan. 
x. 3. 

och. x. 15 
(reff.). 

p ch, x.16 only. 

q Luke xiy. 5 
only. Isa. 
xxi. 5 Ald. 
Amos ix. 2. 
Hab. i. 15 
only. Bel 
and Dr. 42 
Theod. 

r ch. x. 33 reff. 

sch. x. 17 reff. 

t ch. x. 19 reff. 

u = ch.i. 21 
reff. 

v Matt. viii. 5 
al. fr. 3 Kings 
xiii. 7. 

w Matt. viii. 33. 
Luke viii. 20. 
ch. xy. 27. 
Gen. xiv. 13. 

X orabets, 
Luke xviii. 


TeTEWa TOU ovpavod. 


€K TOU ovpavou 


pou auveNOety avTois. 


oik@ avTov 


11,40. xix. 
8. ch. i. 14. 
v. 20. xvii. 
22. xxv. 18. 1 a , 
21. L.+ 14 Z 
Bee Lletpov, 0s oe: 
z Luke ii. 17, \ \ a Surra 
ztnke ws OU Kab Tas oO °OlLKOS COU. 
3A. ch. vi. 


11,13. Deut. Lane ! émrémreaev TO als TO aylov €m avTous, 


xviii. 20. 
a ch, iv. 9, 12. 
d ch. ix. 3 reff. 


Rom. v.10 only. Hos. i. 7. 
e ver. 4. ch. i. 1 reff. 


IIPAREIS ATIOZTOAON. 


pot ™’ Avaotas Iétpe ™ Odcov Kat pare. 
dapas ee OTe ™ KoWwoY 1) 
ev ™ els TO" oTOMA Hov. 9 atrexplOn 6é 
“Ao Oeds 
10 rotTo Oé éyéveTo Pémi Tpis, Kai YaveoTdcOn Tadw 
amavtTa €is TOV ovpavor. 
avopes S éréotnoay émt THY oikiav év 7 *hunv, aTectad- 
pévor aro Katcapelas mpos pe. 


Poh, viii. 16 reff. 


pi 


7 HKovca S€ Kal hwvis Neyovons 


8 eizroy dé ™ Mn- 
m 2 10 OE n >? 
aKa wage ovdérroTe ™ €ls- 
E peov7 ° €x SeuTépou 
°é€xabdpisev ov pun) ° Kolvov. 


11 nai idod *éE adtis Tpeis 


12 oe be \ £ ce , 
2 eirev 5€ TO rvedpa 
AAOov OE adv ewol Kal of EE aded- 


\ a ne eee ae fa) > \ 3 a> ae 5 , 
dhol obtor, Kal Y eisp\Oopev eis TOY oiKoy TOU avdpos, 
‘4 a lal 3 \ ” a 
13 W aarnyyerkev * TE Hulv Tas Eldev TOV ayyéXov ev TO 
a Del , ’ an? 
*grtabévta Kai elrovta avT@ AmroaTeiXor eis 
> / >, / / \ > 7, 
lowmnv Kat ¥ petatreurar Liwwva tov Y émiKadovpevov 
' 2 
* pywata mpos ae *év ois 


/ 
owlnon 
lo déy 6€ TO ° apfaoGal pe 
® wsTrep 


Op c= ch. x. 2 reff. 
g ch, iii. 17 only. 


= Matt. i. 21. ch. ii. 40. 


7. rec om Ist xa, with HLP rel syr Chr He Thi-sif: for nk. d¢ kat, kar ne. D 15-8. 36 


Syr eth: txt ABEX o p13 coptt. 
8. ema D. 


only aka, X-corr! supplied -@ap, N* -ror. 


pwrnv Acyovcav D. 
rec ins may bef rowoy (insertion from ch x. 14), with HLP rel: om 
ABDEX c o p 13. 36 vulg syrr sah arm Chr Epiph, Damase. 


avacta D-gr1(txt D®) vss. 


of akaBaprov, &! wrote 


9. rec ins pot bef pwyn (from ch x. 15), with EHLP rel syrr eth (Epiph ?) Chr: om 
ABN p 36. 40 vulg coptt arm.—eyevero (add de D? and lat) pwvn ex Tov oup. mpos me D. 
ex deuvt. bef gw. BE a h syr Chr Epiph: om ex 6. D 4. 
10. ree wadw bef aveom. (see ch x. 16, where madw was introduced in this order), 
with EHLP (13) rel syr Chr: txt ABD p 40 vulg copt «th arm. 


11. *7)uey AB D-gr 8 40: erant D-lat: nuny EHLP p 13. 36 rel vss Chr. 


eue N?. 


12. rec pot bef to my. (corrn of arrangement), with EHLP 13. 36 rel syrr Chr: txt 


ABDX p vulg coptt. 


from memory), with HLP rel Chr; 
pndev Siaxpivovta EX‘ 36: om D syr. 


pndey biaxpwaytra A B(sic: 


rec aft avrois ins undey Siakpivomevov (interpolation from 
ch x. 20, as is shewn by the number of variations : 


some inserting it accurately, some 
see table) N° p13: 
om 2nd de D. 


13. * dé ABDN ah p 36 vulg syr copt (arm) Chr Thl-fin: om sah: re EHLP 13 rel 


Syr wth Ge Thl-sif. 
DEHLP 153 rel vss Chr. 


coptt eth arm. 
15. aft Aad. ins avtots D eth. 


épov is a fresh detail. 12. ovrou| 
They had accompanied him to Jerusalem, 
and were there to substantiate the facts, 
as far as they had witnessed them. 

18. rdv GyyeAov| The art. almost looks as 
if the history of Cornelius’s vision were 
known to the hearers. The difference be- 
tween the vision of Cornelius and that of 
Peteris here againstrikingly marked: while 
the latter is merely ‘praying in the city of 
Joppa,’ no place nor circumstance being 
named, the former sees the angel ‘standing 


om Ist roy D. 
for amoor., meuWov (from ch x. 5) B. 
tomm. ins avbpas (from ch x. 5), with EHLP 13 rel syr Chr: 


emecey Da. 


ins 
rec aft 
om ABDN ah p 36 Syr 


om avrw ABN p copt eth: 


ws D. 


in his house, Notice also that Peter 
never names Cornelius in his speech— 
because he, his character and person, was 
absorbed in the category to which he be- 
longed,—that of men uncircumcised. 
14. év ols ow. «.7.A.] This is implied in 
the angel’s speech: especially if the prayer 
of Cornelius had been for such a boon, of 
which there can be little doubt. 
15. év 8€ tO GptacGat...] See note on 
ch. x. 44, as also for the rest of the verse. 
16.} ch.i.5. This prophecy of the 


ex avtots D1(txt D?). 


ABDI 
HLPx 
bedf 

hklc 

p13 


7—19. 


Sxat ep nuds “év apyy. 


IIPAZEIS AIOSTOAON. 125 


16 guvncOnv Sé TOD PHwaTos » John i. 1. 


Gen. i. 1. 
i = ch. x. 28, 


a / Te 
Tov Kupiov, ‘ws éEXeyev “lwavyns pev éBarticev VOarTe, * is. 


vueis 5€ * BarrticOjoecbe * év trrvevuate aylo. 


1 THY Im 7, 


oO 4 Oo > \ \ / ’ fal / 5 \ \ 
mlaTevoacl °émi Tov KUpLov “Incovdy ypLoTov, éyw [dé] » 
/ la lal 
Pris Hunv Suvatos 4kwAdcar Tov OBeov; 18 "Axovoavtes 
Oe a rf ‘ Ng 286 \ ra) \ , 
€ TavTa *novyacayv Kat Sédogafov tov Oeov RéyorTes «6. 


ionv “dwpeav Edm@Kev avTois 6 Oeds ws Kal Huiv, BPYo ci” 


k ch. i. 5 reff. 
17 ) 1 Cor, xii. 13. 
ceacuy 1 Luke vi. 34 


10). 

as above (1). 
Matt. xx. 12. 
Mark xiv, 56, 
59. Johny. 

18. Phil. ii. 

Rey. xxl. 
16 only. 


/ an Y at 5 
t”Apa [tye] Kal tots eOveow 6 Oeds Tijy * weTavorap ¥ Eig » ch: ii. 38 ref. 


Conv edwxev. 


1 Oc pev ody * Startrapévtes * 


49 || Mk. ch. x. 47. Num, xi. 28. 


o ch. ix. 42 reff. 

p = Rom. xiv. 
4. Exod, iil. 
11. constr., 
see note. 

q Luke ix. 


amo Ths Y OdApews THs 


r Luke xiy. 3. xxiii. 56. ch. xxi. 14. 1 Thess.iv. 11 only. L.P. Neh. 


vy. 8. s ch. xxi. 20 reff. t Matt. vii. 20. xvii. 26. Gen. xxvi. 9. w= ch. 
xx. 21. 2 Tim. ii. 254. (Prov. xiv. 15.) Wisd. xi. 24. xii. 10,19. Sir. xliy. 16 only. v = Rom. 
vi. 22. x. 1. 2 Cor. vii. 10. Jude 21. w ch. viii. 1,4 only. Ezek. xxii. 15. x — Matte 
xxvii, 4. Ezek. xxxi.16. Exod. vi. 9. y = ch. xx. 23. 2 Thess. i.4al. 2 Chron. xx. 9. 


16. cuvnoOnper A. 
ins ABDENX p rel Thl-sif. 
17. Scdwxey No. 


rec om Tou [{ bef xupiov |], with HLP b d g Chr (c Thl-fin: 
aft eAeyev ins oT: RF aeh. 
om o Geos D eth Aug Rebapt. 


om de ABDNahkop 


13. 86 vulg Syr eth arm Chr Did Thl-fin Aug Ambr Jer Rebapt : ins EHLP rel syr 


sah Thl-sif.—om tis p. 


aft tov @eov ins Tov un Sovvat avTois TvEva ayLov 


mioTevoao er avtw D, simly 8 syr-w-ast(em kup. ino. xp.) Aug. 
18. cdofacay BD2N ch p vulg syrr coptt eth Chr Thl-fin: eSo0fav D!: txt AEHL 


138. 36 rel Thl-sif. 


apa (ye omd, its force not being seen: cf note) A B(sic: 


see table) D-gr & k p 40: forsitan D-lat Syr: utique E-lat: apaye E-gr HLP 13. 36 


rel syr-mg-gr Chr. om tyy D. 
Chr: txt ABDX p 40 am demid fuld tol. 


Lord was spoken to his assembled followers, 
and promised to them that baptism which 
yas the completion and aim of the inferior 
baptism by water administered to them by 
John. Now, God had Himself, by pouring 
out on the Gentiles the Holy Spirit, in- 
cluded ¢hem in the number of these dpe?s, 
and pronounced them to be members of the 
church of believers in Christ, and partakers 
of the Holy Ghost, the end of baptism. 
This (in allits blessed consequences, = the 
gift of werdvoia, eis (why, see on ver. 18) 
was (ver. 17) the ton Swpec bestowed on 
them: and, this having been bestowed,— 
to refuse the symbolic and subordinate or- 
dinance,—or to regard them any longer as 
strangers from the covenant of promise, 
would have been, so far as in him lay, 
KwAvoat Toy Bedv. 17.|] muotevoacty 
belongs to both avrots and juty; setting 
forth the strict analogy between the cases, 
and the community of the faith to both. 
[8¢ (omitted in some Mss., the tran- 
scribers perhaps not bemg aware of the 
construction) brings out the contrast after 
ei ovv, as frequently after éemel, e. g. Od. &. 
178, tov ere) Opdyay Geol, Epvei ioov .. . 
Tov 5€ Tis Gbavatrwy BAde ppévas evdoyv 
eicas: Herod. iii. 68, ef wh abt) Suépdw 
. ee. yeones, ol Se mapa ’Atécons 
mov. See more examples in Hartung, 
Partikellehre, i. p. 184. ] Tis HpHV 
Suv.] A junction of two questions: (1) 


ree edwx. bef es ¢, with EHLP 13 rel vss 


Who was I that I should...., as ref. 
Exod.,—and (2) Was [able to... We 
have a similar instance in tls rf &pn, Mark 
xv. 24. See Winer, edn. 6, § 66.5.3. 

18.] [dpa yeismorethanépa. ve has the 
effect of insulating the sentence, q. d. what- 
ever may be the consequences, or however 
mysterious the proceeding to us, this at 
least is plain, that God &ce. Compare 
Matt. vii. 20, ‘therefore, whatever they 
profess, from their fruits,’ &e.: and the 
other reff. : and see Hartung’s chap. on ye 
in his Partikellehre, vol. i. p. 344, ff. ] 

eis Lwyv] to be taken with thy petdvoiay 
Zdwrev, not with thy petavoray alone, 
which would be more probably riy «is 
(whv, hath given unto the G. also re- 
pentance,—that they may attain unto 
life. The involved position of the words 
in the present text is quite in St. Luke’s 
manner. 

19—30.] THE GOSPEL PREACHED ALSO 
IN ANTIOCH TO GENTILES. BARNABAS, 
BEING THEREUPON SENT BY THE APOS- 
TLES FROM JERUSALEM, FETCHES SAUL 
FROM Tarsus TO ANTIOCH. THEY CON- 
TINUE THERE A YEAR, AND, ON OCCASION 
OF A FAMINE, CARRY UP ALMS TO THE 
BRETHREN AT JERUSALEM. Our present 
section takes up the narrative at ch. viii. 
2,4. Invv.19—21 it traverses rapidly the 
time occupied by ch. ix. 1—30, and that 
(undefined) of Saul’s stay at Tarsus, and 


126 TIPAS EIS AMOZTOAON. XI. 


z = ch. iii. 16. 
Vili. 2 al. 
a ch. ix. 38 


yevouevns *érl XTehavw *diArOov *éws Powixns Kat 

Kurpou kat “Avtioyeias, pndevi » XadodvTes Tov ” oyov 

ef pr) povov lovoatos. 29 Aoav dé Twes €E avTav avdpes 
ye jj p 


reff. 
b ch. iv. 29, 31. 
Vili. 25. xiii. 


46. xvi. 6, 

32. Phil. , ‘ 5 Y, j 

Si ™'  Kurrptoe cal Kupnvator, oftwes édOovtes eis “Avteoyevav 
c constr., ace. 9. \ \ \ 7 C2 Lh x 
Lukei1%° €N@NOUV KaL TPOS TOUS EdAnvas ° evayyedtCopevoe TOV 


viii. 35, xvii. 18. Gal. i. 16. 

19. ex: crepavov AE 13. 40 vulg D-lat Thl-sif: ao tov crepavov D-gr: txt BHLPR p 
36 syrr coptt Chr Be Thi-fin. tovAoy.befAaaA.D. —povors Devulg. tovdano01(sic) R. 

20. rec etserd. (perhaps from ver 3), with HP 13 rel vulg Syr Thl: cuvead. a: txt 
ABDELX® o p 36 syr coptt Chr. rec om 2nd ka: (as not being understood, the 
whole sense having been confused by the reading eddknuatas below), with DEHLP 13. 
36 rel fuld coptt Chr: ins ABX(marks for erasure were added, but rubbed out by X%) 
p am demid.—ra: cuve(ytovy 40. rec eAAnuiatas (apparently a correction, 
induced by the difficulty of preaching to Greeks as distinguished from Jews, having 
preceded the conversion of Cornelius: see note), with BDSEHLP p 13. 36 rel (vulg and 
many versions do not seem to observe the distinction) Chr-txt c-txt Thl-txt : evay- 


brings it down to the famine under Clau- 
dius. 19. pév ovv| A resumption of 
what had been dropt before, see ch. Viil. 4, 
continued from ver. 2: not however with- 
out reference to some narrative about to 
follow which is brought out by a 6¢, an- 
swering to the wév,—see ch. vill. 5, also ch. 
ix. 31, 32; xxviii. 5, 6,—and implying, 
whether by way of distinction or exception, 
a contrast to that mév. émt =r.| on 
account of Stephen; seereff. Wolf, Kuin., 
Olsh., &e. render it ‘ after St.? the Vulg. 
sub Stephano, reading ém Srepavov. 
SuAAPov | so ch. viii. 4, 40; ix. 32. 
Powvixys | properly, the strip of coast, about 
120 miles long, extending from the river 
Eleutherus (near Aradus), to a little south 
of Tyre, and belonging at this time to the 
province of Syria: see ch. xv. 3; xxi. 2. 
Its principal cities were Tripolis, Byblos, 
Sidon, Tyre, and Berytos. It is a fertile 
territory, beginning with the uplands at the 
foot of Lebanon, and sloping to the sea, 
and held a distinguished position for com- 
merce from the very earliest times. See 
Winer, Realw. KUmpov | Cyprus was 
intimately connected by commerce with 
Pheenice, and contained many Jews (0% 
pdvov at Hmeipo peotal Tay “lovdaikav 
aroiki@y eiow, GAAG Kal vaowy al SoKiweTa- 
Tat, E¥Bo.a, Kimpos, Kpfitn. Philo, Leg. 
ad Caium, § 36, vol. ii. p. 587. See also 
Jos. Antt. xiii. 10. 4). See on its state 
at this time, note on ch. xiii. 7. 
*Avtioxetas| A city in the history of 
Christianity only second in importance to 
Jerusalem It was situated on the river 
Orontes, in a large, fruitful, and well- 
watered plain, 120 stadia from the sea 
and its port Seleucia. It was founded 
by Seleucus Nicator, who called it after 
his father Antiochus. It soon became a 
great and populous city (Avr. 7 weydAn, 
Philostr. Apoll. i.16), and was the residence 


of the Seleucid kings of Syria (1 Mace. 
iii. 87; vii. 2; xi. 13, 44; 2 Macc. v. 21), 
and (as an ‘urbs libera,’ Pliny, v. 18) of 
the Roman proconsuls of Syria. Josephus 
(B. J. iii. 2. 4) calls it weyeOous Te Evera 
Kal THs BAAnS evdamovias Tpitov adnpl- 
tws emt ths bro “Pwuators oikovmevns 
éxovoa témoy. Seleucus the founder had 
settled theremany Jews (Jos. Antt. xii. 3. 1. 
See also xiv. 12.6; B. J. 1.18.5; vii.3.3 
—and contra Apion. ii. 4, a’r@v yap judy 
of Thy ?Avtidxelay KaToiKovyTes, “AvTi- 
oxets bvomdCovTar’ Thy yap moAiTElay adTots 
Zdwxev 6 KTLoTHNS SéAevKos), who had their 
own Ethnarch. The intimate connexion 
of Antioch with the history of the church 
will be seen as we proceed. A reference to 
the principal passages will here be enough : 
see vv. 22, 26, 27; ch. xni. 1; xv. 23, 
35 ff. ; xvili. 22. It became afterwards one 
of the five great centres of the Christian 
church, with Jerusalem, Rome, Alexan- 
dria, and Constantinople. Of its present 
state (Antakia, a town not one-third of 
its ancient size) a view is given in C. and 
H., where also, edn. 2, vol. i. pp. 149 if, is 
a minute and interesting description of the 
city and its history, ancient and modern. 
See also Mr. Lewin’s Life and Epistles of 
St. Paul, vol.i. p. 108 ff. (Principally from 
Winer, Realw.) 20. e€attav] not, of 
these, last mentioned Jews : but, of the Sia- 
omapevtes. This both the sense and the 
form of the sentence (uév ofy . . . . dé) re- 
quire. Kvupynvator| of whom Lucius 
mentioned ch. xiii. 1, as being in the 
church at Antioch, must have been one. 
Symeon called Niger, also mentioned 
there, may have been a Cyrenean prose- 
lyte. “EdAnvas] The retaining and 
advocacy of the reading ‘EAAnvoras has 
mainly arisen from a mistaken view that 
the baptism of Cornelius must necessarily 
have preceded the conversion of all other 


ABDE 
HLPs | 
bedf; 
hklo 
p 13 


20—23. 


7 >] aA 
Kupiov ‘Inaodv. 


KUpLOoV. 


TIPASEIS AITOSTOAON. 

kal mv yelp I xupiov pet avTor, 
e 4 e > @ \ ig / f ’ / ’ \ NN 
modus Te °aplOuos o Tiotevoas ‘éréotpepey emi TOV 
22 8 HKovTOn S€ 6 Noyos ‘eis TA WTA THs) ExKAN- 


127 


d Luke i. 66. 
ch, xiii. 11 
only. (ch. iv. 
28, 30. vii. 
50. Heb. i. 
10. x. 31. 

1 Pet. v. 6.) 
Num. xi. 23. 


, an > a \ h \ teat Nok 3 / 
aias THs év lepovoadnp ™ rept avtTov, Kat * €EarréotetXay e here only. 


BapvaBav * duedOetvy * ws ’AvTioyelas: 2 O¢ 


Job xxxviii. 


Tapayevo- , 3! 


h. xxvi. 20 


1 


Qe I \ , \ an a / reff. 
Mevos Kat Loov THY ™yaply THY TOD DEod EXAPN, Kab ¢ pass, Matt. 


XXVill. 


14. Mark ii. 1. 2 John ix. 32. 1Cor.v.1. 2 Chron. xxvi. 15. h Luke v. 15. vii. 17 only. 2 Chron. 
ix.5. OA. wept Nue@rV, Xen. Anab. vi. 6. 13. i Matt. x. 27. Luke i. 44. ix. 44. Isa. v. 9. 

jch. viii. 1. Rom. xvi. 1 al. k ch. vii. 12 reff. 1 absol., ch. xvii. 10 reff. m = John 
i. 14,&c. 1Cor.i.4. 2Cor.ix.8. Col. i. 6. 


yeAtoras Nt: txt AD'X? ec Eus Chr-comm Mc-comm, Thl-fin-ms; gentiles Cassiod. 


aft io. ins xpiotov D 96 eth-pl. 
21. nv de D-gr. 
DEHLP 18 rel Chr: ins ABN p 36. 


22. aft 2nd rns ins ovans BEX c k p 13 Chr. 
2), with EHLP rel Chr: txt ABDX p 36 sah. (13 def.) 
om dreAdew (as unnecessary; to simplify the constr: d1edO. ews is in 


k Chr. 


rec om 6 (as unnecessary, not perceiving its force), with 


rec repotoAvmors (corn: cf ver 
ins Ta bef reps autwy EH 


Inke’s manner) ABN p vulg Syr copt eth arm: ins DEHLP 13. 36 rel syr Chr; eaé@ew 


sah. ins tns bef avr. D!. 
23. ins ka bef mapay. I-gr. 


rec [aft tyy xapiv] om Tyy (as unnecessary: no 


reason can be given for its insertion in so unusual a connexion. It has peculiar force, 


Gentiles. But that reading gives, in this 
place, no assignable sense whatever: for (1) 
the Hellenists were long ago a recognized 
part of the Christian church,—(2) among 
these diacmapévtes themselves in all pro- 
bability there were many Hellenists,—and 
(3) the term *Iovdato: includes the Hel- 
lenists,—the distinctive appellation of pure 
Jews being not “Iovdato, but “ESpatoz, 
ch. vi. 1. Nothing to my mind can be 
plainer, from what follows respecting Bar- 
nabas, than that these “EAAnves were GEN- 
TILES, uncircumcised; and that their con- 
version took place before any tidings had 
reached Jerusalem of the divine sanction 
given in the case of Cornelius. See below: 
and Excursus ii. at the end of Prolegg. 
to Acts. 21. Hv xelp Kup. p. a. | 
By visible manifestations not to be 
doubted, the Lord shewed it to be His 
pleasure that they should go on with such 
preaching; avtay being, the preachers 
to the Gentiles, whose work the nar- 
rative now follows. 22.) HK. eis 
7a Ota, a Hebraism, see reff. Bap- 
vaBav| himself a Cyprian, ch. iv. 36. 

His mission does not seem exactly to 
have been correspondent to that of Peter 
and John to Samaria (nor can he in any 
distinctive sense, be said to have been an 
Apostle, as they were: see ch. xiv. 4, and 
note): but more probably, from what fol- 
lows, the intention was to ascertain the 
fact, and to deter these persons from the 
admission of the uncircumcised into the 
church: or, at all events, to use his discre- 
tion ina matter on which they were as yet 
doubtful. The choice of such a man, one 
by birth with the agents, and of a liberal 





spirit, shews sufficiently that they wished 
to deal, not harshly, but gently and cau- 
tiously,— whatever their reason was. 

23, 24.| It is on these verses principally 
that I depend as determining the character 
of the whole narrative. It certainly is im- 
plied in them that the effect produced on 
Barnabas was something different from 
what might have been expected: that to 
sympathize with the work was not the 
intent of his mission, but a result brought 
about in the heart of a good man, full of 
the Holy Ghost and of faith, by witnessing 
the effects of Divine grace (tT. xdp. Thy Tov 
@eov, not merely, ‘the grace of God, but 
the grace which [evidently | was that of 
God: the expression is deliberately used). 
And this is further confirmed to my mind by 
finding that he immediately went and sought 
Saul. He had been Saul’s friend at Jeru- 
salem: he had doubtless heard of the com- 
mission which had been given to him to 
preach to the Gentiles: but the church was 
waiting the will of God, to know how this 
was to be accomplished. Here was an 
evident door open for the ministry of Saul, 
and, in consequence, as soon as Barnabas 
perceives it, he goes to fetch him to begin 
his work in Antioch. And it was here, 
more properly, and not in Cesarea, that 
the real commencement of the Gentile 
church took place,—although simulta- 
neously, for the convincing of the Jewish 
believers at Jerusalem, and of Peter, and 
for the more solemn and authorized stand- 
ing of the Gentile church, the important 
events at Czesarea and Joppa were brought 
about. Wordsw.’s argument, that, as even 
“EAAnvas may include Jews, we need not 


128 TIPABEI> ATOZTOAON. XI. 


nehix.98  naranexdrer TavTas TH °Tpobécer THs Kapdlas ? Tpospéevery ABDE 
2 Tim. iii ‘ p ae HLPR a 
o= sts . = a / 94. a i > \ ] \ A / , 

10. (ch. xxvii. T@ KUPLO, OTL VY aVvnp ayalos Kal YmANPHNS TVEVLATOS pate 


“ee Tisd. ili. c / \ / A 
ro Nii dylou Kal misTews. Kab * aposeTéOn Sdxdos * ixavos pl3 


43. (ch. xviii. a / 
18 reff.) TW KUPL@. 
q ch. vii. 55 c © 
reff. 
rch. ii. 41 reff. 
s here bis. 
Mark x, 46. 


Luke vii. 12. 
ch. xix. 26. 
(1 Mace. xiii. 


lal \ e \ >) 
Sadr0ov, cai evpov iyyayev eis “AvTwyevav. 
86“ avrois Kal éviavtov Odov “* cuvayOhvar ev TH €K- 
/ \ / / © / : 
Krycia Kai vabar *oxAov “ ucavor, Y ypnuaticat TE 


25 u €EArOev dé “els Tapoov * avalnthcat 


26 W éyéveTo 


, b) > / \ 
t=asabove (s). Ze TPOTMS eV A VTLONELA TOUS padnras = Xpioriavovs. 


11.) 

ch. xx. 37. : 
xxii. 6. u John i. 44. Mutt. x1. 7. 
iii. 4. x. 6. 2 Macc. xiii. 21 only. 


y = Rom. vii. 3 only (ch. x. 22 reff.) t. 
mss. x. ll. 6. a ch. xxvi. 28. 
see note), with DEHLP 18 rel Chr: 
24. avnp bef ny &. 


25. for ver, axovoas 


ch, xiv. 20. xvi. 10. 

w constr., here only. see ch. xxii. 6, 17. 
xpnwatioas PiAeAAnY, Jos. Antt. xiii. 11.3 al. 
1 Pet. iv. 16 only. 


ins ABN. 
om Tw kvpiw B'(ins B?-marg [see table }). 
de ort cavdos eoTw ets Oaporov(raps. D8) c&nA@ev avatnTtwy 


2 Cor. ii. 13. v Luke ii. 44,45 only. Job 
x ch. iv. 5 reff. 


Polyb. 


z here only t. 


ins ev bef tw kup. B 40 vulg coptt. 


avtov: Kat ws(om ws D-corr) cuvtuxwy wapekadevev (add avroy D®) eAdew ets avtioxeray 


D syr-mg. 


B}, 
h p 86 Chr Chron. 


ree aft Tapa. ins o BapvaBas, with EHL p 13 rel vulg-ed(and am?) 
syr Chr: om AB(D)X am! fuld Syr (syr-mg) coptt arm. 
rec aft evp. ins avTor, with HLP rel vss(most, but syr-w-ob) : om ABEN ac 
ree aft nyay. ins avtov (supplementary), with EHLP rel coptt 


for ava(yT., avacrncat 


Chr Thi-fin: om ABN ad fhk o p 36 arm Chron Thl-sif. 
26. for ver, olTwes Tapayevowevor eviavToy oAoy auvexvencav (cuvavaxvOnva TH 
exxAnowa kat d1dafar D>, which conforms the follg to txt) oxAov tkavov" Kat TOTE TpwToy 


expnuatioey ev avT. ot mad. xp. D: 


E sah Chr. 
ADIEHLP rel: txt BD°X 36. 


suppose this to have been a preaching 
to Gentiles, is best answered by the con- 
text, in which the pydev) ef mi) wdvov “lov- 
Batois is clearly contrasted with Roa de 
.. kal mpos Tovs “EAAnvas, which con- 
trast cannot be maintained without ex- 
cluding Jews from this latter term. 
23. wapexdder| in accordance with his 
name, which (ch. iv.36) was interpreted vids 
TAPAKANTEWS. 25.| This therefore 
took place after ch. ix. 80: how long after, 
we have no hint in the narrative, and the 
question will be determined by various 
persons according to the requirements of 
their chronological system. Wieseler and 
Schrader make it not more than from half 
a year toa year: Dr. Burton, who places 
the conversion of Saul in a.p. 31,—nine 
years. Speaking @ priori, it seems very 
improbable that any considerable portion of 
time should have been spent by him before 
the great work of his ministry began. Even 
supposing him during this retirement to 
have preached in Syria and Cilicia,—judg- 
ing by the analogy of his subsequent 
journeys, a few months at the most would 
have sufficed for this. For my own view, 
see Prolegg. to Acts, § vi. 26.| The 
unusual word mpoétws seems to imply 
priority not only in time, but also in usage: 


syr-mg has the former part. 
of constr), with HLP Did Chr: txt ABEN c p 13. 36. 40. 

unnecessary), With EHLP rel 36 vss Did Chr: ins ABN syr Ath Vig. 
om Ist xy HLPabedegh!1 Thi sif. 


eis ayt. A. 


rec avtovs (corrn 
rec om Ist kar (as 
om oAov 
rec Tpwtov, with 
xpnotiavovs X}(but corrd) p. 


at Antioch first and principally. So we 
have in Aristot. Eth. Nic. viii. 5, mpatws 
kal xuplos. Xprotiavods | This name 
is never used by Christians of themselves 
in the N. T. (but of wabyral, of moot, 
or of morevortes, of adeApol, of &yt01, of 
tijs 5800), only (see reff.) as spoken by, or 
coming from, those without the church. 
And of those, it cannot have arisen with 
the Jews, who would never have given a 
name derived from the Messiah to a hated 
and despised sect. By the Jews they were 
called Na(wpator, ch. xxiv. 5, and Gali- 
leans : and Julian, who wished to deprive 
them of a name in which they gloried (see 
below), and to favour the Jews, ordered 
that they should not be called Christiani ; 
but Galilei, Greg. Naz. Orat. iv. (in Jul. 
i.) 86, vol. i. p. 114. That it has a Latin 
form is no decided proof of a Latin ori- 
gin: Latin forms had become naturalized 
among the Greeks, and in this case there 
would be no Greek adjective so ready to 
hand as the Latin possessive, sanctioned 
as it was by such forms as Pompeiani, 
Cesariani, Herodiani (Christus being re- 
garded as a proper name, see Tacit. Ann. 
xv. 44,...quos vulgus... Christianos 
appellabat. Auctor ejus nominis Christus, 
Tiberio imperitante, per procuratorem Pon- 


24— 29. 


TIPAEEI> ATOSTOAQN. 


129 


’ / s \ Cal nr 
*7°Ev tavrais 5€ tals épats KatirOov aro “Tepo- » ch. viii. 5 


, na > ’ ¢ 
gTodvpwv © TpopHtat eis "Avtioxevav. 8 4avartas 8é eis éF 
an as 1A ene, iS. nfo , 

av ovopate”AyaBos ° éonwavev ‘did 8 rod % rvevpatos 

"ipov weyarnv | wédrew | EcecOau * ef’ * OXnv Thy | oiKov- 
/ 

pévny, HTus [Kat] éyéveto ™ él KXavdiov. 


i. 15. vi. 9 al. Ezra x. 5. 
ii. 22. constr., here only. 
g abs., ch. x. 19 reff. 


Acts only.) Eccl.i.9Symm. Xen. Anab. iii. 1. 2. 
1 = Luke ii. 1. xxi. 26. 


xv. 33 || L. ch. v. 11. vii. 11 only. 
ii. 26. Luke iii. 2. iv. 27. Isa. liv. 9. 


27. avras Be. 


e John xii. 33, xviii. 32. xxi. 19. ch. xxv. 27. 
fch. i. 2. xxi. 4. 
h fem., Luke xv. 14. 


ce = ch. xiii. 1, 
XV. 32. xxi. 
10. 1 Cor. 
xii. 28, 29. 
xiv. 29, &c. 
Eph. ii. 20. 
iii. 5. iv. 11 

9 = \ only. L.P. 

29 rey O€ mad a= Mark xiv. 

57, 60. ch. 

Rey. i. Lonly. Esth. 

Rom. vy. 5. Eph. iii. 16. 2 Thess. ii. 2 al. L.P.H. 

1 Mace. ix. 24 A. ich. xxiv. 15. xxvii. 10. (fut., 

See Winer, edn. 6, $ 44. 7. k Mark 

i Isa. xxiv. 4 al. fr. m = Mark 


28. for avaot. de eis, nv de MOAAN ayyaddAtacis* cuverTpaumevwy Se nuwv ep eis D 


Aug 


eonuatvey B vulg D-lat Chron Aug: onuevwy D-gr. 


rec peyay (see 


note), with D'EHLP rel 36 Chr Chron: om e: txt ABD3N p 40 Epiph Euthal Chron. 


(18 def.) 
Euthal Chron. 
Chr. 


rec oats (see above), with HLP rel 36 Chr: txt ABDEN p 13. 40 Epiph 
om kat ABDN p 13. 40 vss Epiph Chron: ins EHLP rel 36 Syr 
rec aft kAavdov ins karoapos, with EHLP rel 36 syrr Epiph Chr Cassiod : 


om ABDN p 13. 40 vulg coptt eth arm Chron. 


tium Pilatum supplicio affectus erat’). 
The name soon became matter of glorying 
among its bearers: ref. 1 Pet., Eus. H. E.v. 
1, in the epistle of the churches of Lyons 
and Vienne, tod 7yeudvos . .. . pdvoy 
TOUTO TUOOMEVOU ci Kal avTOS ein XpioTia- 
vos, Tov de (Epagathus) Aaumpotarn parh 
éuoroynjoaytos,...and again, mpds mavta 
Ta ernpwTnucva amexplvaro (Sanctus) 77 
‘Pouakh pwvy, Xpiotiavds eiut. And in 
the Clementine Liturgy (Humphry, Comm. 
on Acts, p. 84),—evxapiotovmev cot, bTt Td 
dvoua Tod xXpioTOU cov emiKeKANTA ep’ 
nuas, Kal col mpotmKerducba. Before 
this, while the believers had been included 
among Jews, no distinctive name for them 
was needed: but now that a body of men, 
compounded of Jews and Gentiles, arose, 
distinct in belief and habits from both, 
some new appellation was required. 

It may be observed, that the inhabitants 
of Antioch were famous for their propen- 
sity to jeer and call names ; see instances 
in C. and H. i. p. 148, note 2. See seve- 
ral interesting particulars respecting the 
name collected in Wordsw.’s note: who 
however maintains that it was given by 
the Church herself. 27. év v. 7. Hp. | 
It was during this year, ver. 26. 

apopytat| Inspired teachers in the early 
Christian church, referred to in the Acts, 
and in the Epistles of Paul (see reff. and 
Cheexixs Os Exo Ole) Romaexiie Os be Cor: 
xii. 10; xiii. 2, 8; xiv. 6; 1 Thess. v. 20). 
They might be of either sex (ch. xxi. 
9). The foretelling of future events was 
not the usual form which their inspiration 
took, but that of an exalted and super- 
human teaching, ranked by St. Paul above 
‘speaking with tongues,’ in being the 
utterance of their own conscious intelli- 
gence informed by the Holy Spirit. This 

Vo. II. 


inspiration was however, occasionally, as 
here, and ch. xxi. 10, made the vehicle of 
prophecy, properly so called. 28. 
*AyaBos] The same who prophesied Paul’s 
imprisonment in Jerusalem, ch. xxi. 10, 
ff. From the form of his announcement 
there, we may infer the manner in which 
he éofjmavey bia Tov mveduaros here. It 
was Tade dyer TO Tv. TO Gytov. 
The fem. usage of Ausds prevailed among 
the Dorians (cf. Aristoph. Acharn. 708) 
and later Greeks: see Meyer, edn. 2, and 
Lobeck on Phryn. p. 188. We find it 
sometimes also in Ionic poets, e. g. in 
Hom. Hymn to Demeter, 311, Aquod br 
Gpyakéns: see other examples in Palm 
and Rost, sub voce. SAnv T. ot- 
koupevnv] not, ‘all Judea, though in 
fact it was so: the expression is a hyper- 
bolical one in ordinary use, and not to be 
pressed as strictly implying that to which 
its literal meaning wouldextend. That it 
occurs in a prophecy (Meyer) is no objec- 
tion to this: the scope and not the wording 
of the prophecy is given. But see below. 
émt KXavdiov] In the fourth year 
of Claudius, 4.p. 44, there was a famine 
in Judea and the neighbouring countries 
(Jos. Antt. xx. 2.5). And three others are 
mentioned during his reign : one in Greece 
(Eus. Chron. i.79), and two in Rome (Dio 
Cassius, lx. 11. Tacitus, Ann. xii. 48), so 
that searcity émt KaAavotov did extend 
through the greater part of the‘ orbis ter- 
rarum, if it be thought necessary to press 
the words of the prophecy. The queen 
Helena of Adiabene and her son Izates 
helped the Jews with subsidies on the occa- 
sion (Jos. ibid., see also xx. 5. 2, where he 
calls it Toby weyav Amdv), both of corn and 
money. I do not believe that the words 
én) KA. imply that the events just related 
K 


130 TIPAZEIS ATIOZTOAQON. xt. * 
n=chiit ray "xabas °evTopeiTd Tis, ? Opicav ExacToS avTOV ae 
N > vi. a rn an? 
a -€US A OvaKoviay * méurpat Tois § katouotow * ev TH lovdaig be 4: 
o here only. a 
Levu Gded pois, 398 Kal éroinoay arooteihavtes Tpos Tos 13 
Wisd. x. 10 , \ 
onl. Ef tarpecButépous * bia yeipds BapvaBa Kat Lavrov. 
pta. ch. n 
xix 26), XII. 1 Kar’ ¥ éxeivov 6€ Tov * atpov ™ éréBarev “Hpa- 
P ( ane Lal lel “ 
face ony. Sys 6 Pacireds Tas yelpas *KaK@oal TWas TOV Yao 
3 = chee r = Phil. iv. 16. sch. i. 20 al. t = here for first time. ch. xiv. 23. xv. 2, 


&c. 1 Tim. v. 17,19. James v. 14 al. 
11, 2 Chron. xxxiv. 14. 

50, Luke xx. 19. ch. iv. 3. v. 18 al. 
xv. 5 (xxvii. 44). 


Acts, past. and cath. epp. only. 
v ch. xix. 23 only. 
Gen. xxii. 12. constr., here only. 


Num. xxii. 4. 


u ch. ii. 28. vii. 25. xiv. 3. xix. 
see Rom. ix. 9. w Matt. xxvi. 
x ch. vii. 6 reff. = ch. 


29. [evmopeito, so AB(D)EHP}(but altered eadem manu)® 1l3abegkl Thi-sif.] 


ot de wad. Ka0ws evropouyto D. 


80. for 0, o L. 
Cuar. XII. 1. o Bac. bef np. & c} p. 


were not also in the reign of Claudius : 
but they are inserted to particularize the 
famine as being that well-known one, and 
only imply that the author was not writing 
under Claudius. 29.| There is no 
need to suppose that the prophecy of 
Agabus preceded by any long time the 
outbreak of the famine: nor would it be 
any derogation from its prophetic cha- 
racter to suppose it even coincident with 
its first beginnings; it was the greatness 
and extent of the famine which was par- 
ticularly revealed, and which determined 
the Christians of Antioch to send the relief. 
Baumgarten (vol. ii. p. 5), in tracing the 
gradual transition of the apostolic narra- 
tive from Jewish to Gentile Christianity, 
calls this contribution, sent from Antioch 
to Jerusalem, the first stretching out of 
the hand by the Gentile world across 
the ancient gulf which separated it from 
Israel. Tov 82 pad. «.7.A. is a Mix- 
ture of two constructions, of d€ wabnral 
Kaas evmopeiré Tis avTav. The 
church at Jerusalem was poor, probably in 
connexion with the community of goods, 
which -would soon have this effect; see 
ch. ii, 44, note. 30. mpeoPutepous | 
These were the overseers or presidents 
of the congregation,—an office borrowed 
from the synagogues, and established by 
the Apostles in the churches generally, 
see ch. xiv. 23. They are in the N. T. 
ide) tical with émiokozo:, see ch. xx. 17, 
G6, Titus i. 5,°7; 1 Pet: v.41, 2. So 
Theodoret on Phil. i. 1, éerioxdmrous tods 
mpeaButTepous Kadi’ aupdtepa yap elxov 
Kat’ éxeivov Toy Kaipby 7a ovduata. The 
title éricxomos, as applied to one person 
superior to the mpeg Bvrepot, and answering 
to our ‘ bishop,’ appears to bave been un- 
known in the apostolic times. Respect- 
ing the chronology of this journey to 
Jerusalem, see note on ch. xii. 25, and the 
table in the Prolegomena. 


wpicev A 95!. : 
aft ka: ins o X!(marked for erasure by X-corr’). 


Tas x. bef np. o B. D. 


Crap. XII. 1—25.] PERSECUTION OF 
THE CHURCH AT JERUSALEM BY HEROD 
Agrippa. MARTYRDOM OF JAMES THE 
BROTHER OF JOHN. IMPRISONMENT AND 
MIRACULOUS DELIVERANCE OF PETER. 
DEATH OF HEROD ATCHSAREA. RETURN 
oF BARNABAS AND SAUL FROM JERU- 
SALEM TO ANTIOCH. 1. Kat’ éx. T. 
katp. | Before the arrival of Barnabas and 
Saulin Jerusalem. The famine in Judea 
broke out under Cuspius Fadus, and con- 
tinued under Tiberius Alexander, procu- 
rators of Judea. Now Cuspius Faaus was 
sent to Judea by Claudius on the death of 
Agrippa (i.e. after Aug. 6, A.D. 44). The 
visit of Barnabas and Saul must have taken 
place about the time of, or shortly after, 
Agrippa’s death. ‘“Hpw&ns 6 Bactdevs | 
Herop Acrippa I., grandson of Herod the 
Great,—son of Aristobulus and Berenice 
(Jos. Antt. xvii. 1.2; B.J.i.28.1). Hav- 
ing gone to Rome, to accuse Herod the 
Tetrarch (Antipas), and fallen under the 
displeasure of Tiberius for paying open 
court to Caius Cesar (Caligula), he was im- 
prisoned and cruelly treated; but, on the 
accession of Caligula, released, and at once 
presented with the tetrarchy of Philip (‘Tra- 
chonitis),—who had lately died,—and the 
title of king. On this, Antipas, by persua- 
sion of his wife Herodias, went to Rome, 
to try to obtain the royal title also, but 
was followed by his enemy Agrippa, who 
managed to get Antipas banished to Spain, 
and to obtain his tetrarchy (Galilee and 
Pera) for himself. (Jos. Antt. xix. 8. 2.) 
Finally, Claudius, in return for services 
rendered to him by Agrippa, at the time of 
Caligula’s death, presented him with Sa- 
maria and Judea (about 41 a.D., Jos. Antt. 
xix. 5. 1), so that he now ruled (Jos. ibid.) 
all the kingdom of Herod the Great. His 
character, as given by Josephus, Antt. xix. 
7. 3, is important as illustrating the pre- 
sent chapter: éwrepvcer 5€ 6 BaotAeds ovTOS 


XII. 1—4. 


a / la 
THS *éxKAnoias. 2 aveinev Oé 


‘lwdvvou » wayalpn. 


[at] &Apépar tov & aliuov. 


xy. 9. c ch. vi. 2 reff. 
iv. 2. viii. 12. xviii. 29. 
xxvi. 17) only +. 

vii. 30 al7. ch. iii. 7. 


h as above (g). 
2 Cor. xi. 32. 


aft exxaA. add ev tn tovdaa D syr-w-ast. 


2. om de 96 sah: kat averAev D Syr wth: aveid. de kar g 76. 1772. 


so AB!D4(?) & p.] 


TIPAREIS, ATIOSTOAQN. 


8 Poa 6e av c > , d ’ rn 
lo@y O€ OTL °apeotov TéoTW Tors a 

+) a , > 
Tovdaious, * mposéBeto f cvNNaBeiv Kal Iérpov foav 86” 


d pres., ch. xvi. 38 reff. 
f ch. i. 16 reff. 
Mark xiv. 1|| L. 
Rev. xix. 20 only. 
k = ch. iv. 3. xiii. 29. Jer. xxxix. (xxxii.) 14. see ch. v. 18, 25. 


131 


>] / \ b] \ 

IaxwBov tov adeddov * cl Matt. 
Judg. xxi. 5. 
al vy. 33 
e 


reff, 
Matt. xxvi. 
47, &c. ch. 


A v4 / Xvi. 27. 
4 Ov kat‘ qrudcas * €BeTo K els Rom. vii, 35 
al. Exod. 


e = Luke xix. 11. xx. 11, 12only. Gen. 

Mark xiv. 12. Luke xxii. 7. ch. xx. 6 (Matt. 

1 Cor. v.7,8 only. Lev. xxiii. 6. i John 

Cant. ii. 15. Sir. xxiii. 2l(mot A) only. 
Gen. xli. 10. 


[uaxatpy, 


8. rec kar 18. (appy corrn to avoid recurrence of Se: or perhaps as agreeing better 
with the continuation of the same line of conduct), with DHLP rel vss Chr-txt: txt 


ABER® p 13. 36 vulg coptt Chr-comm. 


EMLXELIPHTELS AUTOV ETL TOUS TLioTOUS D syr-me. 


rec om at, with BHLPR b! cl! o Chr, Ge: 


evepyeTixos elvat év Swpeats, rad peyado- 
ppovnga €0vn iddstimos, al moddots 
G0pdws Saravhpacw avictas abtby eis ém- 
paverav, Hdduevos TH xapiCetOa, kal Ta 
Buotv ev eipnuia xalpwv .... (see ver. 3) 
.... pais d¢ 6 Tpdmos ’Aypinma, kal mpds 
mavras TO evepyeTiKdy Gmoloy. Ola your 
avT@ Siata Kal cuvexijs ev Tots ‘lepoooAv- 
Hos Hv, Kal Ta waTpia Kabapa@s éeThper. dia 
maons your abroy ayer ayveias, ovde Huepa 
Ts map@Ocvey avTe Tis vomiuns Xnpevovca 
@voias. ‘This character will abundantly 
account for his persecuting the Christians, 
who were so odious to the Jews, and for 
his vain-glorious acceptance of the impious 
homage of the people, ver. 23. éreép. 
7. xetp.] A pregnant construction. In 
full, it would be ewéB. tas x. emi Tivas 
TOV amd T. eKK., TOD Kak@oat avTovs. Some 
expositors (Heinr., Kuin.), not seeing this, 
have endeavoured to give to éméf. T. x. 
the unexampled meaning, not justified by 
Deut. xii. 7, xv. 10, of ‘took in hand,’ 
‘attempted. The H, V. ‘stretched forth 
his hands’ (or, marg. ‘ began’) is equally 
inadmissible. It should be, H. the K. laid 
his hands on certain of the church, to vex 
them. Tov amd | See reff., and com- 
pare ch. vi. 9. 2. *IdxwBov | Of him 
we know nothing besides what is related in 
the Gospels. He was the son of Zebedee, 
called (Matt. iv. 21) together with John 
his brother: was one of the favoured Three 
admitted to the death-chamber of Jairus’s 
daughter (Mark v. 37), to the mount of 
transfiguration (Matt. xvii. 1), and to the 
agony in the garden (Matt. xxvi. 37). He, 
together with John his brother (named by 
our Lord ‘ Boanerges,’ ‘sons of thunder’), 
wished to call down fire on the inhospitable 
Samaritans (Luke ix.54),—and prayed that 
his brother and himself might sit, one on 
the right hand and the other on the left, 
in the Lord’s kingdom (Matt. xx. a 


om eoti NI. aft covdaros ins 7 
ins tov bef ovAdA. E. 
ins ADE p rel 36 Chr, Thl. 


It was then that He foretold to them their 
drinking of the cup of suffering and being 
baptized with the baptism which He was 
baptized with: a prophecy which James 
was the first to fulfil. This is the only 
Apostle of whose death we have any cer- 
tain record. With regard to all the rest, 
tradition varies, more or less, as to the 
place, or the manner, or the time of their 
deaths. Eusebius, H. E. ii. 9, relates, 
from the Hypotyposes of Clemens, who had 
received it é« mapaddcews TOY mpd adTod, 
that the accuser of James, struck by his 
confession, became a Christian, and was led 
away with him to martyrdom, cvvam}x6n- 
cay ovv &udw, pyot, Kal Kata Thy dddv 
Hkiwoev apeOjva avtTg brd Tov "laKaBov. 
6 5€ GAlyov cKepduevos, eiphyn cot, elre, 
kal katedlAnceyv avtév. Kalovtws auddte- 
pot duovd exaparounencar. paxatpy | 
Probably according to the Roman method 
of beheading, which became common 
among the later Jews. It was a punish- 
ment accounted extremely disgraceful by 
the Jews: see Lightf. in loc. 

See the character of Agrippa above. 
apos. ovA\.| A Hebraism: see reff. 

ait mp. t. af.| Wieseler (Chronol. der 
Apost. Zeit. pp. 215—220) regards the 
whole of the following narrative as having 
happened on one and the same day and 
night, viz. that of the 14th of Nisan (April 
1), a.D. 44. He takes 7d ma&oxa in the 
strict meaning, ‘the passover,’ i. e. the eat- 
ing of the passover on the evening of the 
14th of Nisan, and thinks that Herod was 
intending to bring Peter forth on the next 
morning. He finds support for this in the 
four quaternions of soldiers, the guard for 
one night (see below), and maintains that 
the expression 7d mécya cannot apply tothe 
whole festal period, which would have been 
Thy éopthy, or TavTas Tas Hucpas. But 


Bleek (Beitrage zur Ey.-kritilk, p. 144) calls 
2 


132 TIPAS EIS AIOZTOAON. 


or , o 
=Matt.2. dudaxny, |qwapadovs Téccapaw ™TeTpadlols TTPATLWT@V 


Luke xii. 58. / t \ x / > 
seech xvi. "QudAdToEW auTov, Bovdopevos peTa TO °Taaya » av- 
ayayeiy avTov TO aM. 


XII. 


m here only t. 
TWa TOV EV 
Tots TETPa- 
Sious puAa- 


5 a 3: 
5 6 wev ovv Ilétpos 4 érnpetto ev 
rn nr -& cal / ec XN 
Th pvdrakh ™mposevx7 dé Sip ‘éexTevas “ yuvopevn “ UTTO 
KV, Philo in 


a \ e \ > lal ev \ 
Kor» Philoin rg éxkAnalas *Tpos Tov Oeov * VmEp avTov. 6 dre dé 
rol. ii. _ 533, a \ Cae, , A Ac 9 , 
wr uke sai. MEANEV “ Trpoayayery avTov 0 ‘Hpwdns, TH vuKTi exeivy 


iw 6 lérpos * kouopevos ¥ wetakd S00 oTpatiwTev dede- 


n = Luke yiil. 
29. ch. xxiil. 
35. xxviii. 16. 8 
Matt. xxvi. 2, 
&c. ||. 4 Kings 
XXill. 22. 

p here (Luke 


° 


a if 3 a 
pévos * ddvaeow Suaiv, * PvdaKés TE TPO THs Ovpas 4 eTHpouv 


xii. 66 v.r.) only. 2 Macc. vi.10 A. q = Matt. xxvii. 36. ch. xvi. 23. xxv. 4,21. Prov. xix. 16. 

z Se xy. 30. 2 Chron. xxxiii. 18. see Luke vi. 12. s constr., ch. ii. 5 reff, t1 Pet.i.22 only. Jonah 

iii. 8. (-véorepov mposnvxXeETO, Luke xxii. 44 only. -veta, ch. xxvi. 7. “VS, 1 Pet. iv. 8.) u Luke 

ix. 7. xiii. 17. xxiii. 8. Eph. v. 12. v = Matt. v.44. arept, Col. i. 9. Luke vi. 28. xxii. 32. P Col. 

i. 3 al. w = ch. (xvi. 30.) xvii. 5. xxv. 26+. 2Mace.y. 18. Jos. Antt. xvi. 11. 6, mpoayayav (0 

“Hpwéys) eis exkAnolay Tplakoolous THY NyEHOVWY. x = Matt. xxviii. 13. Luke xxii. 45. (1 Cor. 

vii. 39 reff.) Prov. iv. 16. y = Luke xi. 51 |j. xvi. 26+. (ch. xv. 9 reff.) _zhere bis. Mark 

v. 3, &e. ||. ch. xxi. 33. xxviii. 20. Eph. vi. 20. 2 Tim. i. 16. Rev. xx. 1 onlyt. Wisd. xvii. 17 only. Exod. 
xxviii. 22 Aq. Symm. Theod. see LXX ib. ach. y. 23. ver. 19 only. Cant. v. 7. 


4. for ov kat, rovtoy D copt. 
vulg E-lat. om tecoapow H. 
ayayew Ae. 
5. ree exteyns, with A?EHLP p rel 36 Chr Sev-c Gc Thi: txt Al(appy) BX 18. 40 
vulg E-lat Lucif Cassiod.—7oAAn de mposevxn ny EV EkTEVELa TEP aVTOV aTO TNS EKKA. 
mp. T. 0. wept avt.(sic) D(om Ist wep: avtov D-corr). yevouevn Pep 61. 
om mp. Tov Oeov B. *qrept A-corr BDX 0 p 13. 40 (probably a corrn, see ch. 
viii. 15: the two are indifferently used in this connexion, see Lexx and reff: but wept 


ev pudakn E-gr. mapadioous A, tradens 
om 1st avrov D vulg (not am). 


is the more usual): vrep (A1?)EHLP rel 36 Chr Sev-c. 


6. [queda., so BELPR 1 p 13.] 


pevos D1(txt D§). 


this view most arbitrary and even un- 
natural; and I own, with all respect for 
Wieseler’s general acumen, I am disposed 
to agree with this criticism. The whole 
cast of the narrative,—the joav at juepat, 
not jv h Nucpa Tov a¢., Luke’s own expres- 
sion in his Gospel, xxii. 7,—the intimation 
of enduring custody in the mapadovs.... 
gudAdococew avt.,—the delay implied in the 
BovAduevos,—in the imperfects érnpetro,— 
hv ywouern (not eyévero),—the specifica- 
tion of Ti vuKTl éxelvn as presupposing 
(notwithstanding what Wieseler saystothe 
contrary) more nights preceding,—all this 
would be unaccountable in the precise his- 
torical diction of Luke, unless he had in- 
tended to convey an impression that some 
days elapsed. But still more decisive is 
his own definition of maoyxa, Luke xxii. 1, 
H Eopty Tav alipwv, 7 Aeyopevn acyxa. 
So that wera 7d maoxXa may well = pera Thy 
éopthy Tay aCvuwv. The argument from 
the four quaternions of soldiers proves no- 
thing : the same sixteen (see below) may 
have had him in permanent charge, that 
number being appointed as adequate to the 
duties required. 4. téxoapo.y TeTpa- 
Siots] In military arrangements, Herod 
seems to have retained the Roman habits, 
according to which the night was divided 


for te, 5¢ D E-lat copt: om e 133. 


rec mpoaryewv (corrn), with DEHLP rel Chr : 
mposayew & o: txt Aa p36, mposayayew B 13. 
(Ec Thl: txt ABDEN a hk 0 p 13. 36 Chr. 


rec aut. bef mpo., with HLP rel 
om Isto D lect-12. KOLMOU- 
mpos Tn Bupa A. 


into four watches, and each committed to 
four soldiers (d:ddac1 pudAdkera Svo" Tb BE 
puaddkerdy €otw ex Teaodpwy avdparv, Polyb. 
vi. 33. 7), to two of whom the prisoner was 
chained, the other two keeping watch be- 
fore the doors of the prison, forming the 
first and second guards of ver. 10. It is 
plain that this number being mentioned is 
no sign that the custody was only for one 
night. peTa TO Taoxa] (see above) 
after the days of the feast, i.e. after the 
21st of Nisan. Herod, who (ver. 1, note) 
observed rigorously the Jewish customs, 
would not execute a prisoner during the 
feast: ‘Non judicant die festo’ (Moed 
Katon v. 2, Meyer). avay. avT. TO 
Aad] See ref.: to bring him out and sen- 
tence him in sight of the people. 

5.| On the duration implied by this 
verse, see above. 6. éxetvy] em- 
phatie: that very night, viz. which pre- 
ceded the day of trial. The practice 
of attaching a prisoner to one keeper 
or more by a chain is alluded to by seve- 
ral ancient authors: e.g. Seneca, de 
Tranquill. 10, ‘Eadem custodia universos 
circumdedit, alligatique sunt etiam qui 
alligaverunt, nisi tu forte leviorem in 
sinistra catenam putas: and Epist. 
5: ‘Quemadmodum eadem catena et 


ABDE 
HLPRa 
bedfg 
hklop 

13 


» AEYov 
ava d. 
ABDE 
HLPNa 
befgh 
klop 
13 


5—10. IIPABETS ATIOSTOAON. 133 


os) \ ” / ee We Nite . 
7 Kal toov ayyeXos KUplou b €TTEOT?), Kab a cates ive 
\ ce Matt. v. 16. 


THY pudaKnv. 


c A d b] al > / 

Pas ““ ehaprev €v TH ° oixnuater § matd~as Sé Thy “20:6 
\ a , Z only. (Prov. 

g vy I h BA > \ , ’ ee . 

mevpav tov llétpov "yewpev avdtov NéEywv 1 Avdata *%- 18) see, 


sg , \ Sei y 2 > a ¢ / a d b Wy 
i ép Taxe. Ka Kkefémecav avtov al *advces ex TOV Mane IS 
ey. aya \ oN l pa \,  Xvii.2. Luke 
YELPOV. eLmev TE O ayyedos Tpos avTov |ZLacat Kal ace 
™yTooncat Ta "oavdddid cov. érroincey Sé obTwS. Kal oo smys. 
P = Wisd. xiii. 
reyes adT@ °IlepyBarovd To iudtuv cov Kal axorovber 1. Thweyd. 
x 2 5 = , ; lv. init. 
Hot. 9 cab e€eMMav HeorovOer, Kal ovK Ade Stu aGdANOes \Brk-*™- 
3 \ 4 \ an , an ly. 
PéoTw TO Yyiwouevov 161a Tod ayyédov, eddKer dé * papa.’ (ee ver 23) 
, , \ , = nWaro, 
Brerew. 10 SdvehOovtes 5& mpwtny * durakijy Kal Sev- 3 Kings xix. 
L 5 you \ , \ A We art Gitte ee 
Tépay Gav eri THY TUAHY THY % oldnpav Ti * hépovaav ©3353; * 
> \ aN wo 5) / > r 9) | len cy 27 only. 
€lS TV TONAL, TLS re ae sl dpe QuUTOLS* Kab efed- Nunes See 
7 a . 2 Kings 
Govres YapondOov 7 puynv pilav, Kat ev0éws *améotn 6,282... 
27. Luke 
viii. 24al. Gen. xli. 4. i ch. ix. 6 reff. j Rom. xvi. 20 reff. k ch. xxvii. 
32. Jamesi.llal. Isa. xxviii. 1, 4. 1 John xxi. 18 tis only. Neh. iv. 18. m Mark 
vi. 9. Eph. vi. 15 only, 2 Chron. xxviii. 15. Ezek. xvi. 10. only. n Mark vi. 6 only. Isa. 
xx.2. Judith x. 4. xvi. 9 only. o Acts, here only. Luke xii. 27 ||. Rey. iii.5 al. Esth 
-v.1. Ezek. xviii. 7, 16. P_pres., ch. xvi. 38 reff. * q ch. ii. 43. iv. 16 al. rch 
vii. 31 reff. s constr., ch. xii. 6 reff. t=here only. Xen. Cyr. i 6. 43. u Rey 
Mi. 2%< 1X. 9. XU. 9. Xix.15 only. Deut. iii. 11. v = here only. Xen. Cyr. vy. 4. 41. wech 
xi. 28 al. fr. x Mark iy. 28 only. Ley. xxv.5,11. 4 Kings xix. 29. Wisd. xvii. 6 only. = Jos. 
B. J. vi. 5. 3,7 TUAN . - . WHO avTOMaATWS fiveqrywern. y constr., here only. Xen. 
Cyr. ii. 4.18. (Matt. xxvi. 39 ||. Gen. xxxiii. 14.) z ch. ix. 11 reff. a= ch. xv. 38 
reff. 1 Kings xyi. 14. 


emcAauer, omg ev follg, D. 


7. aft emeorn ins Tw metpw D syr-w-ast sah wth. 
[etewecay, so ABDEN p. 


for matatas, vutas D syrr, compungens Lucif. 
aft xep. ins avtov D-gr vulg sah arm. 

8. for te, de (alteration, as often, to more usual copula, but te is characteristic 
of the Acts) BDEH ac 36 sah Thl-sif: txt ALPX p 13 rel Syr wth Chr Gc Thl-fin. 

mp. avt. bef o ay. Lb. rec mwepti(waoat (alteration for more precision, 
and perhaps, as Meyer, to agree better with vrodnca, also a compound), with EHLP 
rel He Thi: txt ABDN a p 13. 36 sah(add tyyv oggpuy cov) Bas Chr-comm,. 
umoduca B!. 

9. om rat ekeAOwy nKodovber (Kat to kat) P. rec aft KoA. ins avtw (supplemen- 

tary, to corresp to wot above), with EHLN? rel am Chr: txt ABDN? p 13. 40 tol arm. 

yevon. Lb ce p 180. for 51a, vmo (corrn, not observing the peculiar force 
of d:a here, said of the secondary agent. This is much more probable than the converse. 
Both exprr are used by Luke: cf for 61a, reff: for vro, Luke ix. 7; xiii- 17; xxiii. 8. 
But this latter he uses always of our Lord, the prime Agent in the miracle. See also 
Eph v.12) AH e1 syr-mg Chr, Thl-fin : wapa c: txt BDELPN 13. 36 rel vss Chr, He 
Thi-sif. for de, ye D 3. 15-8. 36. 95. 180 tol Syr sah arm: om N}, 

10. x. Sevt. bef dva. D vulg Lucif. [nAéay, so ABN 13.] om Ty 
pep. eis tT. 7. Li Syr: em p 13. 96. 142. ree nvorx@y, with EHLP Chr: txt 
ABDX® p 138. 36. (qvuvyn BIDN: nvorye 13.) aft efeA@. ins KateBnoay tous ¢’ 
Baduous ca D. mposnd0. D 25. 95! Gic: mss of Chr Thl-sif vary. 
amnAGev A. 


not, kept the watch (Raphel, Wolf, al.),— 
but guarded the prison. 7.] oikypartt, 
the chamber. It is in St. Luke’s manner 
to relate simultaneously the angelic ap- 
pearance and the shining of a light around: 
ef. Luke ii. 9; xxiv. 4; ch. x. 30. The 


militem et custodiam copulat.? In the 
account of the imprisonment of Herod 
Agrippa himself by Tiberius, Jos. Antt. 
xviill. 6. 7, we read of the cuvdedeuevos 
avT@ otpatiétns. And we have an edict 
of Constantius, commanding, for binding 


prisoners, ‘ prolixiores catenas, si criminis 
qualitas etiam catenarum acerbitatem pos- 
tulaverit, ut et cruciatio desit, et perma- 
neat sub fida custodia.’ (Wieseler, p. 414.) 
See note on ch. xxiv. 28; see also ch. 
xxviii. 16, 20. érypouv THY oun. | 


light accompanied, or perhaps, as suggested 
here in syr-marg, shone from, the angel. 
.| e&eNov, viz. from the ofknua. 

10.| The first and second watch or 
guard cannot mean the two soldiers to 
whom he was chained, on account of 


134 TIPABEI® ATOZPTOAON. XII. 


a > r r a 
phere only: ayyeros am avtov. 11 Kal 6 Ilérpos » év éEaut@ » yevomevos ABDE 
17.) Xen A = e a 
Ana. elev Nov oida °adrnOads bru 1éEaréoreihev KUpLoS TOV d efen 
: zk ri a c , op 
cot airyryehov avTov Kal © é&eiNaTo pe ex fyexpos “Hp@dov Kat 13 
only. Exod. s rae (3 5 t a a ent go) § t 12h 
amu” Taons THs ® mposdoKias TOD Naod THY lovdatov. oup- 
ch. Vil. 


reff. 
e ch. vii. 10 


, , rn 
lwavvev tov * 


reff. 
f (ch. xxiv. 7.] 


(v. 2. 
iv. 4) only. 
(Lev. v. 1.) 
1 Mace, iy. 
21 al. 

i = Matt. xxi. 
19. Luke 
xxiv. 1 al. 
Gen. xxii. 9. 

k ch. i. 23 reff. 

1 ch. xiv. 21. 

xix. 19 al. 


TOU I TUABVOS. 


1 Mace. xiii. 49. 
16. Matt. vii. 7,8. Luke xi. 9, 10. xii. 36 only. 
al. Ley. xxi. 21. s = Matt. xxvi. 69 al. 
uhere only. 1 Kings xxvi. 17. 

only+. 2 Mace. v. 26 only. 


vii. 1 reff. b = Matt. xviii. 10. 


bl / as ae io 
emuxanoupevou Mapkov, ov noav 
, \ , 
™ guvnOpoicevor Kal ™ TpOsEVYXO{LEVOL. 
lal \ s ral lal nr 
avtov tiv °Ovpayv Tov YmuABVOS * rposHAGev * mawdioky 
t e nr > , ce 48 14 \ u , nr \ u \ 
uTakovaat, ovopate Podn: 1 Kat " éruyvotca Thy * dwovnv 
rn / v2 \ a a > a \ q lal 
tov Ilétpov Yatro tis yapas ovK ivorEev Tov “Tuva, 
Ww ’ P) r be x ’ / x e / \ iB vA \ 
elsdpapovoa b€ Xamnyyerev *éotavar Tov Llétpov mpo 
15 e be \ > \ S y Uj 
ot de Tpos avTnv eirrav ¥Y Man. 
Z / a ey a ” 
dusyupifeto *ovUTwS * exeL. 


m ch. xix. 25 only. 
o and constr., Luke xiii. 25 (Rev. iii. 20). Judg. xix. 22 A (Cant. y. 2). Judith xiv. 14 only. 


Gen. xx. 17. 
v = Matt. xiii. 44. xviii. 7. 

J x constr., here only (ch. xxvi. 20). 
25. 1 Cor. xiv. 23 only. Jer. xxxvi. (xxix.) 26. Wisd. xiy. 28 only. 


wav te HAGev ‘ert THY oikiay THs Mapias Ths pyTpos 


lf \ 
tKaAVOL 


13 P kpovcavtos Oé 


¢ \ 
1 O€ 
e \ »- ¢€ v / 

of 6€ éXeyov “O ” dyyeXos 
Deut. i. 41. n absol., ch. x. 9 reff. 
p as above (0). ver. 

r constr., ch. vii. 31 

t = here only. Xen. Symp. i. 11. 
2 Chron. v. 6. w here 
y John x. 20. ch. xxvi. 24, 

z Luke xxii. 59 only +. ach. 


q ch. x. 17 reff. 


John xxi. 6 al. 


ll. ree yevou. bef ev eavtw, with EHLP rel Chr: txt ABDN ac p 13 vulg Lucif.— 


avtw B}, 
o Ocos a 27-9. 36. 105-63. 
bef raons E 73 vulg Lucif. 


ott bef aAn@ws DE eth Chr Lucif. 
[eferAato, so ABDEHN p 13. 36. | 
om Tov Aaov A Syr. 


ins o bef kuptos B c 180: 
ims ex 


12. ovv. 8 Aak o p18. 86 (Syr?) coptt: om re 59!: kar ovy. D: txt BEHLPR rel 


vss Chr. add o merpos P f. 
EHLP rel 36(sic) Chr: ins ABDX p. 


rec om Ist trys (as unnecessary ?), with 


(13 def.) 


13. rec for avtov, tov metpouv (explanatory, ocuvidwv beginning an ecclesiastical 
portion), with EHL rel 36 syr Chr: txt ABDPN p 18 vulg Syr coptt arm Thl-fin. 
mudwvos is written by D®(?), the former reading which occupied more space 


having been obliterated: foris D-lat. 
B?,” Tischdf) & 3. 


ins rat bef ersdp. 5¢ D!(and lat). 
15. o(sic) 


13 [eiray, so ABN. ] 


éfeAOdv above: but are probably the other 
two, one at the door of the chamber, the 
other at the outer door of the building. 
Then ‘the iron gate leading into the city’ 
was that outside the prison buildings, 
forming the exit from the premises. The 
situation of the prison is uncertain, but 
seems to have been in thecity. The addi- 
tional clause in D (see var. readd.) is 
remarkable, and can hardly be other than 
genuine. 11.] év €aut@ y., as E. V. 
coming to himself: having recovered his 
self-consciousness. He was before in the 
half consciousness of one who is dreaming 
and knows that it isa dream: except that 
in his case the dream was the truth, and his 
supposition the unreality. 12. ovv- 
dv] Not, considerans (as Vulg., Beza, 
Grot.): nor, ‘being aware of the place of 
meeting, with reference to what follows 
(Meyer), against which the aorist is de- 


umakovovoa N}(txt N-corr?). 
14. aft nvoctevy ins avtw E ec Syr syr-w-ast. 


mpondée B?(Mai: “ B3 et fortasse jam 
ov. pod. bef vmak. D. 
for tov mvAwva, Thv Bupay EH. 


om 2nd roy D¥(ins D%). 


Be [Ac ]yor avtn D!: of Se mpos avrny (without em.) D3.—ecr. bef mp. avr. 
for cAeyor, erray B lect-12. 


aft eAeyor add 


cisive, importing some single act and not a 
state: but, as reff., referring to what went 
before (oi5a GAn@as x.7.A.), having be- 
come aware of it. *Iwavvov | It is 
uncertain whether this John Mark was the 
same as the Evangelist Mark: but they 
have been generally believed to be the same. 
For a full account of him, see Prolegomena 
to Mark (Vol. I. § i.). His mother Mary 
was not sister, but aunt of Barnabas: see 
Col. iv. 10, note. 15. ayyehds éor. 
avtov| No other rendering but his angel 
will suit the sense: and with a few excep- 
tions(Camero, Basnage, Hammond, and one 
or two more) all Commentators, ancient and 
modern, have recognized this meaning. 
Our Lord plainly asserts the doctrine of 
guardian angels in ref. Matt. (see note 
there): and from this we further learn in 
what sense His words were understood by 
the early church. From His words taken 





11—19. 


€oTLV aUTOU. 


ITIPAE ERIS AIOSTOAON. 


135 


166 6é Ilétpos c émréwevev d Kpov@v’ © ayoi- c] constr., John 
: 6e io Same N NO Pees 
Eavtes 6€ eidav adtov Kat ' é&éotnoav. 


viii. 7.] 
ame.Oav 
ETULEVEL, 
Philo de 


17 & katracelcas 6€ 


autots TH xeupt »ovydv, ‘ dunyjcato av’tois imas 6 KUpLoS Agricult. 


avrov * éEnyayev * éx tis |hudaxhs. elmrév te Atrayyeinate 


? an ad nr 
lax®Bo@ Kai Tots adeXpots TadTa. 
els " €repov ToTov. 


5 2. 2 
EYEVETO. 


38 only.) 


34only. L.P. Eccl. iii. 7. Sir. xiii. 23. 


18 Oo / be oO e / i p / 
ryevomévns O€ ° nuepas tv P Tapayos 
1ov« 40Xriryos ‘ev Tois oTpatidtais Sti dpa o Ilétpos 

€ , ‘ 

19 “Hpwdns o€ *emriCntjcas abtov Kai pn evpov, 
u > / \ Vv / b] y Ww ’ rn \ 
avaxpivas Ttovs * pUNaKas éxédevcev “ aTrayOivar Kat 
*xaTteMOav amo THs ‘lovdatas eis Kaicdpevay ¥ Suétpeev. 
h Luke ix. 36. xvili. 39. xx. 26. ch. xv. 12, 13. 


$ 15, vol. i. 
p. 271. 

d ver. 13. 

e absol., Matt. 
xxv. ll. 
Luke xiii. 25. 
ch. v. 23 al. 
Isa. xxii. 22. 

f = 2 Cor. v. 13 
reff. 

g w. dat., ch. 
xili. 16. xxi. 
40 only. 

Jos. Antt. 
viii. 11. 2. 
w. acc., ch. 
xix. 33 T. 

(1 Mace. vi. 

1 Cor. xiv. 28, 30, 

k ch. vii. 40. xiii. 17. Heb. 


kat ™ €€ehOav étropevOn 


Rom. xvi. 25. 
i ch, ix. 27 reff. 


Vili. 9. Exod. xx. 2. 1= ver. 5 al. m absol., vv. 9,10. ch. xvi. 86. Exod. xvi 4. 
n= ch, xvii. 7 reff. o = Luke iy, 42. vi. 13. ch. xvi. 35 al. L. p ch. xix. 23 only. 1 Kings 
y.9. Wisd. xiv. 25 ABCN only. |-x7, Mark xiii. 8.] q ch. xiv. 28 al6. Acts only. Isa. x. 7. 
r = Mark vi. 4 al. shere only. see John xxi. 21. Luke i. 66. t Luke iv. 42. 1 Kings 
xx. 1. u ch. iv. 9 reff. y ver. 6. w = absol., here only. (see Gen. xlii. 16.) Matt. 
xxvii. 31 ||. Ep. Jer. 18. constr., ch. xxi. 33. x ch. viii. 5 reff. y ch. xv. 35 al6. Acts 


only, exc. John iii. 22. Jer. xlil. (xxxy.) 7. 


mpos avTny Tuxov D Syr. om 6 NI. 
13 rel Orig: txt ABN. 
16. om erp. D. 
17. katacicaytos Se avtov ovy. A. 
esnadev kat bef diny. D Syr syr-w-ast. 


lect-12 vulg arm: ins BDEHLP rel 36 Chr. 


avtov p 13. 40. 73. 
copt Chr: txt ABEN p vulg Syr sah eth. 


efavort. Se kar wWovTes avt. kat €é. D}. 


ree autov bef ecr., with DEHLPS? 


[eSav, so AB. | 
for o1yav, wa cerya.. ow D!', ins 
om 2nd avrois AN a p 13.33. 69. 100-5 
avtov bef o kup. A: e&nyaryev bef 


rec for te, Se (see above, ver 3), with DHLP rel 36 syr 


18. om ove oAry. D 76 Lucif: weyas 15-8. 386. 180 Syr sah arm Cassiod. 


19. for de, re Aa eth. 


amoxtavOnvat D1-gr(txt D-corr!:?) Syr copt. 


rec ins tnv bef rac. (insertion to answer to rns 10v5.), with HLP rel Chr We Thi: om 


ABDERN ae p 13. 40. 


with the context (u) karappovhonte evds 
TY uiKp@y ToUTwY) we infer that each one 
has his guardian angel: from this passage 
we find not only that such was believed 
to be the case, but that it was supposed 
that such angel occasionally appeared 
in the semblance (seeing that he spoke 
with the voice) of the person himself. We 
do not, it is true, know who the speakers 
were: nor is the peculiar form in which 
they viewed the doctrine binding upon us: 
it may have been erroneous, and savoring 
of superstition. But of the doctrine itself 
this may not be said, as the Lord Him- 
self has asserted it. See Wordsw.’s in- 
teresting note here. For what pwr- 
pose they supposed this angel to have 
come, does not appear in the narrative. 
17. kataceioas | see reff. His mo- 
tive was haste: he tells briefly the par- 
ticulars of his deliverance, and, while it 
was yet night, hastily departs. 
*IaxaBw | James, the brother of the Lord, 
whom we find presiding over the church 
at Jerusalem, ch. xv. 18; xxi. 18; Gal. ii. 
12. See Gal. i. 19; ii. 9. He appears 
also to be mentioned in 1 Cor. xy. 7. I 
believe him to have been one of those 


Sterpupev A. 


&5eApol Tod Kuplov mentioned Matt. xiii. 
55; John vii. 5; ch.i. 14; 1 Cor. ix. 5, of 
whom I have in the note on the first of 
these passages maintained, that they were 
His real maternal brethren, sons of Joseph 
and Mary :—to have been an Apostle, as 
Paul and Barnabas, but not of the number 
of the twelve (see note on ch. xiv. 4) :— 
and to have been therefore of course dis- 
tinct from James the son of Alpheus, 
enumerated (Matt. x. 3 ||) among the 
twelve. The reasons for this belief I re- 
serve for the Prolegomena to the Epistle 
of James. eis Etepov téaov] I see 
in these words a minute mark of truth in 
our narrative. Under the circumstances, 
the place of Peter’s retreat would very 
naturally at the time be kept secret. It 
probably was unknown to the person from 
whom the narrative came, or designedly left 
indefinite. And so it has remained, the 
narrative not following Peter’s history any 
longer. We find him again at Jerusalem 
in ch. xv. Whether he left it or not on 
this occasion is uncertain. It is not asserted 
in efeA0év,—which only implies that he 
left the house. 18. yevopevys Hpépas | 
Wieseler argues from this, and I think 


136 


z here only +. 
Polyb. ix. 40. 
4. EXPL TNS 
eoxaTns 
avarvo7s 
Oupopa- 
XOUVTES; 
Diod. Sic. 
xvii. 33 end. 

a ch. i. 14 reff. 

b 2 Cor. xi. 8. 
Gal. iv. 18, 
20 only. 

c = Matt. : 
xxviii. 14. Gal.i.10. 2 Mace. iv. 45. ; 

f = ch. xvi. 29 reff. g = Matt. vi. 26 al. 
bis. John iv. 46,49. James ii.8 only. Num. xx. 17. 
Matt. vi. 25 al. Gen. xxxviii. 19. 
xxvii. 19 || J. ch. (vii. 5.) xviii. 12, 16,17. xxv. 6, 10, 17. 
xiii. 26. 

Jos. Antt, ix. 13.1. 


20. for de, yap D wth. 


TIPABEIS ATIOZTOAQON. 


m ch. x. 30 reff. 


XII. 


20 Fv dé *Avpopayav Tupiois Kat Liwviors * duoOvpadov 
Sé ’aphcav ’mpds avtov, Kal °eicavtes BXdotov Tov 
Alea ne ~ an , f.2 a sar 5 \ 
emt ToD © KolT@Ves ToD Bacidéws ‘ HTOvYTO eipHYNY, OLA 
\ g , > lod \ , h ? \ fal i rn 
To &tpépecOar aitav THY x@pav “aro Tis * PacwdsKis, 
21k caxth 6€ nuépa 6 ‘Hpwdns | évdvadmevos ™ éo Ora * Ba- 
‘ \ n / b \ “Oo / o / \ 
oink Kal ® KaBicas ert TOD ° PHwatos P ednunyoper pos 


d ch. viii. 27 reff. e here only. Exod. viii. 3. 

3 Kings xviii. 13. h = Jude 23 al. i here 
k here only. Job xii. 5 only. l constr., 

n constr., ch. xxv. 6 reff. o = Matt. 

Rom. xiv. 10. 2Cor.v.10only. Neh. viii. 4. 2 Macc. 


p here only. Proy. xxx. (see xxiv.) 31. (Neh. viii. 4 (6) Ald.) only. ednenyoper €v avrots, 


ree aft 5€ ins o npwdns (as being the commencement 


of a new history,—that of the death of Herod), with HLP rel 36 syr Chr, npwdns E a 


bl k o Thi-sif: om ABD® p 13. 40 vulg Syr coptt eth Euthal Lucif. 
ot de omod. ck aupoTEepwy TwY TOAEwY Tapnoay Tpos Tov Bacirea. 

ntnoavto A sah. 
autovs a: aut. THY woAw H-gr 13. 33-4: civitates E-lat. 


avtov D-gr(om D-lat) o. 


21. omo Ba. om ka BX p 40. 


rightly, that the deliverance of Peter must 
have taken place in the Jast watch of the 
night (3—6 A.M. in April), for otherwise 
his escape would have been perceived before 
the break of day, viz. at the next change 
of the watch. al... .éyéveto] So 
Theocr. Id. xiv. 51, adloTa Topyot, tt 
vyevolueba ; 19. kat. ... eis Kato. | 
These words are to be taken together, and 
éxet or ev K. to be supplied with d:érpiBev. 
Kuin. takes eis K. as = ev K. with d:ezp., 
and kateA@dév alone, which is not so 
natural on account of the position of the 
words. 20. 6vpopaxov] It is im- 
possible that Herod should have been at 
war with the Tyrians and Sidonians, be- 
longing as they did to a Roman province, 
and he himself being in high favour at 
Rome :—nor is this implied in our text. 
The quarrel, however it originated, appears 
to have been carried out on Herod’s part 
by some commercial regulation opposed to 
their interest, dependent as they were on 
supplies from his territory. jv Ouu. is 
therefore best rendered as in E. V., was 


highly displeased. op. Tapa. viz. by 
adeputation. Blastus is a Roman name 


(Wetst. from an inscription), and, from 
Herod’s frequent visits to Rome, it is likely 
that he would have Romans as his con- 
fidential servants. Blastus was his eubicu- 
larius, or prefectus cubiculo (Suet. Dom. 
16): see ch. viii. 27. eipyvny | not 
(see above) peace, in its strict sense, but 
reconciliation. 81a To TpédecOar | 
We Jearn from 1 Kings v. 11 that Solomon 
made presents of wheat and oil to Hiram 
in return for the cedar and fir-trees for the 
Lord’s house: and from Ezek. xxvii. 17, 
that Judah and Israel exported wheat, 
honey, oil, and balm (or resin) to Tyre. In 


D reads 
for tov Bas., 
Tas xwpas avtwyv D yulg Lucif: 


for amo, ex D 40. 105. 


Ezra iii. 7 also, we find Zerubbabel giving 
meat, drink, and oil to them of Sidon and 
Tyre, to bring cedar-trees to Joppa. Mr. 
Humphry quotes from Bede, ‘ Tyrii neces- 
sariam habebant vicini regis amicitiam, eo 
quod eorum regio valde angusta et Galilee 
Damascique pressa finibus esset.’ An 
additional reason for their request at this 
particular time may have been, the preva- 
lence of famine. 21.) The account in 
Josephus is remarkably illustrative of the 
sacred text: tpitov 5€ ros avt@ Bast- 
AevovtTt THs BAns “lovdalas memANpwTo, Kab 
maphy eis méAw Kaiodpeiay .... cuveTeret 
de evravoa Oewpias cis THv Kaloapos Tiny, 
bmep THs ekelvov owrnplas éopThy Tiva 
TavTnv emiotapuevos (probably the ‘ quin- 
quennalia,’ B. J. i. 21. 8. Wieseler, p. 
133). Kal map aithy HOpoioto TaY KaTa 
Thy emapxlay ev TédAet Kal mpoBeBnkdTwv 
eis GElay TA7O0s. Sevtépa 5 Tav Dewpi@y 
heepa oaTodAy evdvoduevos e& aprytpou 
TeTonucvny macav, @s Oavudocioyv sphy 
eivat, mapjAGev eis Td O€aTtpov apxouerns 
huépas. ev0a rais mpdétais Tay jAtaKoy 
axtivwy emiBodrais 6 &pyupos Katavyac%els 
Oavpaclws amreotiABe, wapualpwy Tt poBepdy 
kal tots eis avtoy areviCovor ppik@bdes. 
evO0s 5 of KdAaKEs TUS OVdE exelyw mpds 
Gyabod %AAos AAobeyv hwvas aveBdwy Bedy 
mposaryopevovtes, Evers te elns, emidre- 
yovres, ei kal wéexpt viv ws KvOpwrov epoB7- 
Onuev, GAAG TovVTEDOEr KpeiTTOVa TE OvNTIS 
pucews Suoroyodmev. ovk erémAnte TovTots 
6 BactAeds ovdé THY KoAakelay aoeBovoay 
ametpiyato. avakiwas 8 ody met OAlyov 
tov BovBdva THs EavTod Kepadts brepkabe- 
(éuevoy eldev emt cxowlov tivds: &yyeAov 
5 rovTov edbds evdnoev kak@y elvat,.... 
kal diakdpdiov exxev ddivnv. (This owl, 
Eusebius, H. E. ii. 10, professing to quote 


ABDE 
HLPS 
befg 

klop 
13 


20—25. 


£. hy c \ 
autovs. 0 6€ 
3} 0 , oO s 
avOpwrov. * 


IIPAZEI® AITOSTOAON. 


137 


An , cal \ 
1Sjuos * érepwver Oeod dwviy Kat ovK 4 Acts only. 


. Xvii. 5. 
xix. 30, 334. 


3 fl BY: t > / > bs ” r 2 » 
Tapayphua oe ‘ématagev avtov ayyedos Num. 1.20 


al. fi 


> e \ lal an eee 
Kupiou “av? ay ovx * &dwxev thy Y SoEav TO Oe@, Kab * Luke xxiii 


yevomevos “ oxwAnKoBpatos * é&eyvéev. 
Tov Oeod Y nvEavey Kal Y érdnOuvero. 


s ch. iii. 7 reff. 
3. xix. 44. 


Mark ix. 44, &c. (from Isa. Ixvi. 24) only. 


t = Rev. xi. 6. xix. 15. Gen. viii. 21. 
2 Thess. ii. 10 only. L.P. Deut. viii. 20. 


iv. 20. Rey. iv. 9. xi. 13. xiv. 7. xvi. 9. xix. 7 only. 


21. ch. xxi, 


Airs s f 34, xxii. 
240g. Oe. ¥ NOYOS 24 only +. 
5 / , 2 Macc. i. 23. 
25 BapvaBas 6€ Kat Badr. ix. 


2 Mace. ix. 5. u Luke i. 20. xii. 
v = Luke xvii. 18. John ix. 24. Rom. 
where only+. okWAné, 

y ch. vi. 7 (reff.). 


Josh. vii. 19. 
x ch. vy. 5 reff. 


22. at beg, ins karaAAayevtos d€ avtov Tos Tupiois D: reconciliatus est tis autem 


syr-w-ast. 


23. avr. bef erat. D ce 180 Thl-fin. 
DEHLP rel: ins ABN dhk p 18. 36. 


gwrvn bef Geov HLP?(P! has erepwvn 60 Ka [sic]) bef glo vss: 
gwvyn kuptove: dwvat D}(txt D8) vulg Syr Lucif. 


avOpwrev NX}. 
om tv (alteration to more usual expr) 
kat KatTaBas amo Tov Bymatos yevou. 


KwAnkoBpwros(sic D1: cxwA. D2) ets (wy kat ovtws efeputey D. 


24. for @eov, kupiov B vulg. 


Josephus, makes into an angel. Having 
prefaced his quotation, aitots ypduuaow 
dé Tws TO Oadua Sinyeirat, he cites thus: 
. avakdpas 5€ wet OAlyov, THs EavToOU 
Kepadjs dmeprade(ducvoy cidey &yyedor. 
TovTov evbvs évdnoe Kkak@yv eivor attiov 
«.T.A. On the impossibility of acquitting 
the ecclesiastical historian of the charge 
of wilful fraud, see Heinichen’s second 
Excursus in his edition of Eusebius. It 
may be a caution to us as to how much 
we may believe of his quotations of authors 
which do not remain to us.) GOpdov BE 
aUTG THs KotAlas mposépucey BAYHMA METH 
cpodpétntos apiduevoyv. avabewpay ovy 
mpos Tovs plAous ‘O Oebs tui eyd, pnoty, 
Hon KaTaotpepew emitdttoua Toy Blov, 
Tapaxphua THIS eluapuevns Tas &pTL mov 
KaTeWevopevas pwvas eAeyxovons’ Kal 6 
KAnOels abavatos bp -tuay dn Cavey 
amdyouat. ... . cuvex@s be ep Tuepas 
TEVTE TH THS YaoTpos GAyhuatt Srepyac- 
Gels Thy Blov katéotpevey. Antt. xix. 8. 2. 

The circumstance related in our 
text, of the answer to the Sidonian em- 
bassy, of which Josephus seems not to 
have been aware, having been one object of 
Herod on the occasion, shews an accuracy 
of detail which well accords with the view 
of the material of this part of the Acts 
having been collected at Caesarea, where 
the event happened (see Prolegg. to Acts, 
Sore TD) 23.] The fact may be cor- 
rectly related by Josephus (see above): 
but our narrative alleges the cause of what 
happened to have been the displeasure 
of God. and the stroke to have been in- 
flicted by His angel. Compare 2 Kings 
SiEeeoo ys: Chron; xxrelonkl ose bub) no 
appearance of an angel is implied: nor 
was I aware that such had ever been in- 
ferred; but I see in Valesius’s note on 
Euseb. ii. 10, “ Quasi vero non utrumque 
fieri potuerit, ut et bubo supra caput 
Agrippe, et ex alia parte angelus eidem 


nuéavero A: evtave D1(txt D8): néaver (sic) P. 


appareret.” ckwdynkéBpwros| An- 
other additional particular: and one to be 
expected from a physician. In several 
cases of deaths by divine judgment we 
have accounts of this loathsome termina- 
tion of the disease. So Herodotus, iv. 
205, 7 Pepetiun .... (oa cbrAéwy ebeCeve : 
which he alleges as an instance that 
excessive indulgence of revenge, such as 
Pheretima had shewn against the Bar- 
ceeans, is looked on with anger by the gods. 
See too the very similar account of the 
death of Antiochus Epiphanes, 2 Mace. ix. 
5—9. So also Jos. Antt. xvii. 6. 5, de- 
scribing the disease of which Herod the 
Great died, mentions oj Wis oKdAnKas 
éumoiovoa. So also Euseb. (viii. 16) of 
the death of Galerius. So also Tertullian, 
ad Scapulam, ec. 3, vol. i. p. 702, Migne, 
“Claudius Lucius Herminianus in Cap- 
padocia, cum indigne ferens uxorem suam 
ad hane sectam transiisse, solusque in 
preetorio suo vastatus peste vivus ver- 
mibus ebullisset, Nemo sciat, aiebat, ne 
gaudeant Christiani. Postea cognito er- 
rore suo, quod tormentis quosdam a pro- 
posito suo excidere fecisset, pzene Chris- 
tianus decessit.” 24.| Similarly, 
ch. v. 12 ff.; vi. 7; ix. 31, a general state- 
ment of the progress and prosperity of the 
church of God forms the transition from 
one portion of the history to another. 

25.] The journey (ch. xi. 30) took place 
after the death, or about the time of the 
death, of Herod; see on ver. 1. The pur- 
pose of the mission would be very soon 
accomplished: Saul would naturally not 
remain longer in Jerusalem than was un- 
avoidable, and would court no publicity : 
and hence there seems an additional reason 
for placing the visit after Herod’s death : 
for, of all the persons whose execution 
would be pleasing to the Jews, Saul would 
hold the foremost place. Our verse is pro- 
bably inserted as a note of passage from 


138 


Z €k, here only. 
Ruth i. 6 Ald. 
amo, Luke 
iv. 1. xxiv. 9. 

a = Matt. iii. 
15. ch. xiii. 
25. xiv. 26 
al. Ps. xix. 


kdnbévta Mapxovr. 


4. 
b Col. iv. 17. 


. Gen. 
7. Job 


e ver. 12. f ch. xi. 1 reff. 

i 1 Cor. xii. 28,29. Eph.iv. 11. k Rom. ii. 20. 
iii. 19. ix. 7|| Mt. only. (-yetv, Luke iii. 1.) 
diseases). Xen. Mem. ii. 3, 4. 


25. amectpewey D!(txt D8). 


IIPABEIS AIOZTOAON. 


g ellips. of ket, Mark viii. 1. ch. xxii. 12. 
1 Tim. ii. 7. 


XI 


LadNros * vréotpewav ” €& ‘lepovoadnp *” tANpwGaVTES THY 
be § “ d tl lwd peer 
taxoviav, ‘ovprapadraPovtes [xai| “lwavyny tov ° émi- 


XIII. 1}’Hoav 8€ év “Avtwyeia txata thy 8 ovcav 
éxxdyotiavy “apodpntar Kat *didadcKxado, 6 Te BapvaBas 
\ \ ¢ / Vy \ f c lal 
Kal Xupewv 0 Kadovmevos Niyep cai Aov«ios 6 Kupnvaios, 
Mavanv te “Apadov tov 


l / m f X 
TETpapyxoU cuvTpopos Kat 


h ch, xi. 27 reff. 
Luke 
Thue, ii. 50 (of 


2 Tim.i.11+. 2 Macc. i. 10 only. 
m here only t+. = 2 Macc. ix. 29 only. 


for «ft, aro B'(appy, Tischdf) D(E) b ¢ o 36 


vulg Chr-mss: e:s B!-corr HLPX k 1 p vss(including syr-mg) Chr-mss Ge Thl: txt A 
13(sic) rel copt Chr.—aft rep. add es avrioxercay H a b e o Syr sah Cassiod. (The 


variations have apparently arisen from a confusion of marginal glosses. 


€LS QVT. 


may have been an explanatory gloss, afterwards substituted for e& tep.; then avr. 


may have again been corrected to tep., leaving the es standing.) 


for 2nd ka, 


tov D!: om ABN 386 vulg Syr: txt D?9EHLP p rel syr coptt Chr We Thl. (13 def.) 
emicadovnevoy AX k p 13. 36 Thl-fin. 
Cap. XIII. 1. rec aft noay Se ins tTwes (see note), with EHLP 13. 36 rel syr Chr: 


om ABDN a p 40 vulg Syr sah eth Vig. 
kat D3-gr Vig. ¢ 
np. kau TeTp. D'(and lat: txt DS). 


the last recorded fact of Barnabas and 
Saul (ch. xi. 30), to their being found at 
Antioch (xiii. 1), *Iwavv. | See above 
on ver. 12. 

Cuap. XIII. 1—XIV. 28.] First mis- 
SIONARY JOURNEY OF PAUL AND BARNA- 
BAS. Henceforward the history follows 
Saul (or Paul, as he is now [ver. 9] and 
from this time denominated), his ministry, 
and the events of his life, to the exclusion 
(with the sole exception of the council in 
ch. xv.) of all the other Apostles. 

XIII. 1.| The tives of the rec. has been 
interpolated, to make it appear that the 
persons mentioned were not the only pro- 
phets and teachers at Antioch. The enu- 
meratior is probably inserted on account of 
the solemnity of the incident about to be 
related, that it might be known who they 
were, to whom the Holy Spirit entrusted so 
weighty a commission. That those enu- 
merated were a// then present, is implied 
by the te... kal: see ch. i. 13. ™po- 
qrat| See on ch. xi. 27. S.8d0x. | 
Those who had the ydpioua didacKaAlas, 
see 1 Cor. xii. 28; Eph.iv.11. They were 
probably less immediately the organs of the 
Holy Spirit than the tpopjta, but under 
His continual guidance in the gradual and 
progressive work of teaching the Word 
(see Neander, Pil. u. L. p. 58). 
peav 6 kad. Niyep| Nothing is known of 
him. From his appellation of Niger, he 
may have been an African proselyte. 

Aovkios] A Lucius, probably the same 
person, is mentioned Rom. xvi. 21 as a 


emixadouvn. D o 180 lect-12. 


=vu- ~ 


for o te, ev ots D! vulg Vig: add nv 
om o bef kupnyaos D. 
TeTpaapx.(but a erased) &, tpapx. B!. 


ovyyevns of Paul. There is no reason to 
suppose him the same with Aoukds (Lu- 
canus),—but the contrary ; for why should 
Paul in this case use two different names ? 
See Col. iv.14; 2 Tim. iv.11; Philem. 24, 
Wetstein, believing them to be the same, 
quotes Herodotus, iii. 131, mp@ror peéev 
Kpotwvijra: intpol éAéyovto ava thy 
‘EAAdSa elvat, devTepor 5& Kvpyvator, 
which certainly is curious enough. 
Mavarv] The same name with Menahem 
(Mavaiu or -nvy LXX) the king of Israel, 
2 Kings xv. 14. A certain Essene, of this 
name, foretold to Herod the Great, when a 
boy going to school, that he should be king 
of the Jews (Jos. Antt.xv. 10.5). And in 
consequence, when he came to the throne, he 
honoured Manaen, and waytas am’ éxelvov 
Tous Eoonvovs tipay SteréAct. It is then 
not improbable that this Manaen may 
have been a son of that one: but see below. 
The Herod here meant was Antipas, who 
with his brother Archelaus (both sons of 
Herod the Great by Malthace a Samaritan 
woman, see Matt. xiv. 1, note) mapa Tim 
idiirn Tpopas elxov em) ‘Pouns, Antt. xvii. 
1. 3. Both were at this time exiles, 
Antipas at Lyons, Archelaus at Vienne. 
avvtpodos | Probably ‘collactaneus’ 
(Vulg.), foster-brother; not, ‘brought up 
with, for, if he had been brought up 
with Antipas, he would also have been 
with Archelaus: see above. In 
this case, his mother may have called 
her infant by the name of the person 
who had brought the Essenes into favour 


d mapa- 
AafBov- 
TES ove 


C os 
Mavanv 


ABCDE 

HLPNa 

bedfg 

hklop 
13 


feat 
LavAos. 


STrpOSKEKANMAL AUTOUS. 


A A u b 0é \ nr ’ n Vv > ht 
evéapevot Kat “erriPévtes Tas Yelpas avTois Y atrédvaar. 


20. Gen. xviii. 4. 


10. Joel ii. 32. so ch. xxv. 12. 
u ch. yiii. 17 reff. 


2. aft evr. ins avtos EK vulg Syr sah eth. 
Thl-fin: om ABCDEHLPX rel vss Ath Cyr-jer Bas, Chr. 


IIPAZEIS ATMOSTOAON. 


/ / 
3 roTe °vnaTevoarTes Kal ' TT pos- 


139 


D} n s \ > n n / \ =) lyt. 
NetToupyovvTwy Sé avT@Y TO Kupl~ Kal ™= here only 
ca \ la) ? UG 
°ynotevovT@y eimey TO TEMA TO ayLov P’Adopicate 
/ ss , nr 
9167 por tov BapvaBav cal Yadrov eis Td epyov 


Rom. xv. 27 
only. Num. 
a Xvi. 2 al. fr.) 
I 6 och. x. 30 reff. 
p = Rom.i. 1. 
Gal. i. 15. 
Lev. xx. 26. 
q = ch. xv. 36. 
Luke ii. 15. 
1 Cor. vi. 


f r constr., ver. 39 (Luke i. 25?) only. mapa méAecuy, ats (i.e. map’ als) 
audorepor EvuBoov, Thuc. i. 28. see Matthie, 595. 4. 

(John ix. 22.) 1 Pet. iv. 3. 
v = Matt. xiv. 15. xy. 23, 32. ch. xy. 30, 33 al. 


Sich oge 
4 Kings v. 25 al. 
1 Mace. x. 43. 


perf. pass., ch. xvi. 
tabsol., ch. x. 9 reff. 
(Gen. xy. 2.) 


ree aft Toy ins Te, with a k 0 p13 
rec ins Tov bef cava., 


with HLPN' rel Thdrt @e Thl: om ABCDER-corr! p 13 Epiph Cyr-jer Bas Chr. 


3. aft mposevé. ins mavtes D. 


aut. bef tas xe—p. E b k o 88. 


om 


ameAvoay D: add avtovs E vulg syr-w-ob eth Lucif Vig Jer. 


with Herod, and no relationship with that 
person need have existed. Lavdos | 
mentioned last, perhaps because the pro- 
phets are placed first, and he was not one, 
but ateacher: or it may be, that he him- 
self furnished the account. This circum- 
stance, which has been objected to by some 
as invalidating the accuracy of the account, 
is in fact an interesting confirmation of it, 
as being eminently characteristic of him 
who spoke, as in 1 Cor. xv. 9; 2 Cor. xii. 6 ; 
Eph. iii. 8. See Baumgarten’s striking 
remarks on this, vol. ii. p. 7 ff. From the 
arrangement of the copule, it would seem 
as if Barnabas, Symeon, and Lucius were 
prophets,—Manaen and Saul, teachers. 
2. Aecrovpyovvrwv | The general word 

for the priestly service among the Jews, to 
which now had succeeded that of mpopjra 
and 6:8déo0xKado: in the Christian church: 
ministering is therefore the only word ade- 
quate to render it, as E.V. after the Vulg. 
‘ ministrantibus Domino : —more closely to 
define it is not only impracticable, but is 
narrowing an expression purposely lett ge- 
neral. Chrys. explains it by «nputtdévtwyr, 
—alii aliter: and the Romuanist expositors 
understand the sacrifice of the mass to be 
meant; but in early times the word had no 
such reference (see reff., and Suicer sub 
voce). eimev TO Tv. TO Gy.]| viz. by 
one of the prophets present, probably Sy- 
meon or Lucius: see above. The announce- 
ment being to the church, and several 
persons being mentioned, we can hardly, 
with Meyer, suppose it to have beenan inner 
command merely to some one person, as 
in the ease of Philip, ch. viii. 29. 84 
gives precision and force to the command, 
implying that it was for a special purpose, 
and to be obeyed at the time: see retf. 
76 €pyov] Certainly, by ver. 4, we 

may infer that there had been, or was 
simultaneously with this command, a divine 
intimation made to Barnabas and Saul of 
the nature and direction of this work. 


In general, it had already been pointed 
out in the case of Saul, ch. ix. 15; xxii. 21; 
xxvi. 17. It consisted in preaching to the 
Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ, 
Eph. iii. 8. In virtue of the foundation of 
the Gentile churches being entrusted to 
them, Saul and Barnabas become after 
this Apostles, not vice versa ; nor is there 
the least ground for the inference that this 
was a formal extension of the apostolic 
office, the pledge of its continuance through 
the episcopacy to the end of time. The 
apostolic office terminated with the apos- 
tolic times, and by its very nature, ad- 
mitted not of continuance: the episcopal 
office, in its ordinary sense, sprung up 
after the apostolic times (see the remark- 
able testimonies cited by Gieseler, I. i. 
p. 115 f. note, from Jerome on Tit. i. 5, 
vol. vii. p. 694 f., and Ang. Epist. Ixxxii. ad 
Hieron. 33, vol. ii. p. 290): and the two 
are entirely distinct. The confusion of the 
two belongs to that unsafe and slippery 
ground in church matters, the only logical 
refuge from which is in the traditional 
system of Rome. See the curious and 
characteristic note in Wordsw., in which 
he attempts to prove the identity of 
the two offices: and compare with it the 
words of Jerome, on Tit. i. 5, p. 695 f., 
«« Hpiscopi noverint se magis consuetudine 
quam dispositionis dominic veritate pres- 
byteris esse majores, et in commune debere 
ecclesiam regere.” 3. vy. «. Tposevé. | 
not, “jejunio et precibus (viz. of ver. 2) 
peractis, Kuin.: this was a new fasting 
and special prayer for Barnabas and Saul. 
Fasting and prayer have ever been con- 
nected with the solemn times of ordina- 
tion by the Christian chureh; but the 
‘jejunia quatuor temporum,’ or ‘ember 
days at the four seasons,’ for the special 
purpose of ordinations, were probably 
not introduced till the fourth or even 
fifth century. See Bingham, iv. 6. 6. 

éewi8. +. x. avt.] See on ch. 


140 TIPASETS AITOS>TOAON. XE. 

wen avii0 4 ayrol ev ody  éxrrempOévtes 70 TOU ayiov TVEvpaTos ABCI 
xv. 549% x earArOov els LerevKevav, exelOév te Y avemhevoay eis bea! 
x ch. viii. 5 i E x F : Rata il y no De 
“rei Karpov, > kal yevopevor év Larapive “ Katyyyeddov Tov 33 


1. xi. 26. 


A = \ AX 3 / c e i 
iG ELyvOV O€ Kab Twavynv UTTNPETHV. 


a a a A A > / 
adrdyov Tod »Oeod ev Tais cvvaywyais Tov “lovdalwr” 


6 4 SveXOovTes O€ GANV 


\ A e ” / e ” 5 ‘ if ‘ 
Phili. 17,18 THY vyTOV “ axypel Iladou evpov avopa Twa * mayov 


al. + L.P. 
(-Aevs, ch. xvii. 13.) a ch. xv. 36. xvii. 13. 
16. 1Cor.iv.1. (Prov. xiv. 35.) 


1 Cor. xvi.5. Heb. iv. 14. Deut. ii. 7. 


b ch. xi. 1 reff. c = Lukei. 2. ch. xxvi. 


d constr., Luke ii. 35. ch. xii. 10. xiv. 24. xv. 3, 41 al. L. only, exe. 
ech. xi. 5 reff. 


fhere bis. Matt. ii. 1, &c., only. Dan. ii. 2. 


4. rec ovto (corra to more usual exprn), with E-gr HLP copt(appy) Chr: o: D-gr 
lect-12 Ath: txt ABN a p 36 vulg D-lat E-lat syrr Ambr Vig. (C illegible.) 


[B(Mai Tischdf expr) has exmeupOevres not exmeuaytes as Beh. | 


rec Tov Tv. 


tov wy., with EHLP rel: 7. mv. ay. D!: txt ABC? D-corr X a p 13 Ath. (C! illegible.) 


amnad. A: kataBaytes Se D-gr. 


rec ins tnv bef ced. and bef ku7p., 


with EHLP rel (ec: ins Ist but om 2nd tyy 13 Thl: om ABC?DX a o p Chron. 
for re, 5¢e HLP b df gop D-lat syr-mg sah (ec Thl: om D-gr 64. 


5. yev. de D. 


ev Tn Gaodopenn D-gr: ev cadauwyn A E-gr LN? p: 


eis Gada- 


pwn &1: Salaminam vulg Lucif Cassiod: Salamina am fuld D-lat E-lat Lucif: txt 


BCP rel. 
for Ocov, kupiov I)-gr Syr copt Lucif. 


katnyyeaov Lee gi kp: KatnyyeAay D 73. 96. 142 Chr). 


umnpetovyta avtos D syr-mg sah: in 


ministerio vulg: exovtes med cavTwy Kat ww. 1s Siaxoviay E. (The corrections have 


appy been made for perspicuity.) 


6. Kat [re |pied8. (FteABovTwy, omg xa D8) Se avtwy D. 


rec om oAny (oAny 


and axpt mapov being supposed to be inconsistent ?), with HLP rel Ge Thi: ins 


ABCDEX k p 36 vss Lucif. (13 def.) 


mqupov Ei: evpay A. add exe: C. 


rec om avdpa (as superfluous), with HLP rel Gc: ins ABCDN k op syrr copt 


vi. 6. 4, éxmeud. | Under the guid- 
ance of the Spirit, who directed their 
course. LVedevxerav | A very strong 
fortified city (supposed impregnable, 
Strabo, xvi. p. 751), fifteen ‘miles from 
Antioch,—on the Orontes, and five miles 
from its mouth. It was founded and forti- 
fied by Seleucus Nicator (Strabo, xvi. 749), 
who was buried there (Appian, Syr. 63). It 
was called Seleucia ad mare,—and Pieria, 
or 7 év Tepia, from Mount Pierius, on 
which it was built, to distinguish it from 
other Syrian towns of the same name. This 
mountain is called Corypheens, Polyb. v.59, 
where is a minute description of the town 
and its site. Among other particulars he 
mentions, mpdsBaow Se wlay €xer kata THY 
amd OaddtTns mAcupay KAmakwThY ial 
xeElpomolntrov, eykAiuact Kal ckadepare 
mukvois Kal guvexéot SietAnumevnyv. ‘This 
excavated way is to this day conspicuous 
amongst the ruins of the city. It was 
under the Seleucid kings the capital of 
a district Seleucis,—and, since Pompey’s 
time, a free city. Strabo, xvi.751. Plin. 
v. 21(Winer, Realw. ; and Mr. Lewin, Life 
of St. Paul, from an art. by Col. Chesney in 
the Geogr. Society’s Transactions.) 

eis KUmpov] The lofty outline of Cyprus 
is visible from the mouth of the Orontes 
(C. and H., edn. 2, i. p.164). See below, 
ver. 7. It was the native country of Bar- 
nabas,—and, as John Mark was his kins- 
man, they were likely to find more accept- 


ance there than in other parts. 5.] 
Salamis was the nearest port to Seleucia on 
the eastern side of the island. It had a 
good harbour (Améva €xovca kAavordv 
Xewepwvdv, Scylax, Peripl. p. 41). It was 
the residence of a king anciently (Herod. 
iv. 162), and always one of the chief cities 
of the island. There were very many Jews 
there, as appears by there being more than 
one synagogue. ‘Their numbers may have 
been increased by the farming of the 
copper-mines by Augustus to Herod. On 
the insurrection of the Jews in the reign of 
Trajan, Salamis was nearly destroyed, and 
they were expelled from the island. Its 
demolition was completed by an earthquake 
in the reign of Constantine, who (or his 
immediate successors) rebuilt it and gave it 
the name of Constantia. The ruins of this 
latter place are visible near the modern Fa- 
magosta, the Venetian capital of the island 
(Winer, Realw., and C.and H. pp. 171, f.). 

tmnpetyv | Probably for the admi- 
nistration of baptism: see also 1 Cor. i. 
14—17. 6.| Paphos is on the west- 
ern shore, with the length of the island 
between it and Salamis. It is Nea Paphos 
which is meant, about eight miles north of 
the Paphos more celebrated in classic poets 
for the temple and worship of Venus. It 
was destroyed by an earthquake in Augus- 
tus’s reign, but rebuilt by him, Dio Cass. liv. 
23. It is now called Baffa, and contains 
some important ruins. (Winer, Realw.) 


4—9, 


ITPAR EIS ATIOZTOAON. 


14] 


Sarevdotpopytny “lovdaiov, © dvoya Bapinaods, 7 ds Hy g Matt. vii... 


xxiv. ll. 


\ n > i e4 2P. 
ow 76 avOuTatm Lepyip UavrAy, avdpl ‘ovveT@. serviris. 
a ~ Zech, xiii. 
obtos Kmposkadecdpevos BapvdBav Kal Ladrov ! és- where ee. dee 
; ; Q r ‘ ; ch, xviii. 12. 
e(nTnoEv akovoat Tov »doyov Tod »Oeod. 8S ™avOlaTaTo ** coe 
de > ab) s ef / n,27 \ 0 , i Matt. xi. 25. 
€ avtots ‘Edvpas 0 !udyos (ovTws yap ° weOeppnveverar Luke x. 21. 
\ ” > a a , \ h 2 s f vite i 
TO dvou“a avTov), P fnTa@v Vdvactpéas Tov © avOvTatov mie 1) 
>? \ nr , lal \ id \ wn . . 
amo THS ™rloTtews. % Savdros 6€ o Kat Tladnos, *aA1- ce - 
= ch. v. 40 


al, Gen. xxviii. 1. 

only. Ps. lxxy. 7. (ch. vi. 10 reff.) 
p = Luke vi. 19. ix. 9. xix. 47 al. fr. 

2, Phil. ii. 15 only. Exod. v. 4. 


1 Rom. xi. 7 reff. constr., here only. 
n = Matt. vi. 9. 

Exod. ii. 15. 
r=ch. vi. 7. xiv. 22. xvi. 5. 


eth Chr Thl; so, but aft twa, E 36 vule sah Lucif. 


m mid., 2 Tim. iii. § 

o ch. iv. 36 reff. 

Luke ix. 41 || Mt. xxiii. 
s ch. il. 4 reff. 


Mark ii. 12 al. 
q here bis. ch. xx. 30. 


ovomaTt KaAoumevoy D. 


Bapinoovaly or -u] D!: Barjesuban Lucif,: Barsuma Syr: Bapincovv ADSHLP 
p rel syr-mg-gr (ce Thl-sif Cassiod: Bapinoov X 40. 96. 105 vulg copt arm: txt BCE 


13 sah Chr Thl-fin. 
ver 8) E demid Lucif. 
7. ouveadecapevos D. 


eme.dn diate nKovey avtwy D'(and lat) : 


Twa payov, K.7T.A.] On the preva- 
lence of such persons at this time, see ch. 
viii. 9, note. The Roman aristocracy were 
peculiarly under the influence of astrologers 
and magicians, some of whom were Jews. 
We read of such in connexion with Marius, 
Pompey, Crassus, Ceesar,—and later with 
Tiberius: and the complaints of Horace 
and Juvenal shew how completely, and for 
how long a time, Rome was inundated with 
Oriental impostors of every description. 
See Hor. Sat.i. 2.1; Juv. Sat. iii. 13—16 ; 
vi. 542—546; x. 93, and C. and H. pp. 
fide tte Bapiyoots| He had given 
himself the Arabic title of Elymas, ‘ the 
wise man’ (from the same root as the 
Turkish ‘Ulemah’), interpreted 6 ud-yos 
in our text. 7. T6 avOuTatw | The 
Greek term for the Latin ‘ proconsul, the 
title of the governor of those provinces 
which were (semblably) left by the empe- 
rors to the government of the senate and 
people. The proconsul was appointed by 
lot, as in the times of the republic; carried 
with him the lictors and fasces asa consul: 
but had no military power, and held office 
only for a year (Dio Cass. liii. 13). This 
last restriction was soon relaxed under the 
emperors, and they were retained five or 
even more years. The imperial provinces, 
on the other hand, were governed by a 
military officer, a Propreetor (aytioTpar- 
nyos) or Legatus (rpeoBeuths) of the Em- 
peror who was girded with the sword, and 
not revocable unless by the pleasure of the 
Emperor. The minor districts of the impe- 
rial provinces were governed by Procurators 
(éritporot). (C. and H. pp. 173 ff.: Dio 
Cassius, lili. 13, 15: Merivale, Hist. of the 
Romans under the Empire, ch. xxxii.) The 
title 7yeudv, used in the N.'T. of the pro- 


add o pebepunveverat eAuuas (paratus, i. e. eTouas, see on 


kat e(ntnoev D!(«a is marked for erasure by D-corr). 
8. for eAuu., et[o or a|tuas D!, etoemas D-lat: 


eAuviuas D4, aft miorews ins 


oTt ndews avTwy ynkovey Ki syr-w-ast. 


curator of Judea, of the legatus of Syria, 
and of the emperor himself, is a general 
term for any governor. But we never find 
the more definite title of av@Umaros as- 
signedin the N. T.toalegatus. | Cyprus, 
as Dio Cassius informs us, lili. 12, was ori- 
ginally an zmperial province, and conse- 
quently was governed by a propretor or 
legatus (so also Strabo, xiv. 685, yéyove 
atparnyikh) emapxla Kal abtyy..... 
eyéveTo erapxia 7 vijcos, Kabdmep Kal 
viv éort, otparnyikn): but immediately 
after he relates that Augustus boTepov hv 
Kimpov x. thy Tadartay thy mep) Ndp-~ 
Bova TO Shpw amrddwxev, avtds 5€ Thy 
Aaduatiay aytéAaBe. And in liv. 4, re- 
peating the same, he adds, ral ottws av0- 
Umaro. Kal és éxewa Ta COvn TéurecOat 
jptavto. The title of Proconsul is found 
on Cyprian coins, both in Greek and Latin. 
(See C. and H. p. 187, who give an in- 
scription [ Boeckh, No. 2632] of the reign 
of Claudius, a.D. 52, mentioning the avé- 
vraro., a former and a present one, Julius 
Cordus and L. Annius Bassus.) No- 
thing more is known of this Sergius Paulus. 
Another person of the same name is men- 
tioned by Galen, more than a century after 
this, as a great proficient in philosophy. 
He was of consular rank, and is probably 
the Sergius Paulus who was consul with 
L. Venuleius Apronianus, A.D. 168, in the 
reign of M. Aurelius. Another S. P. was 
one of the consules suffecti in A.D. 94: but - 
this could hardly have been the same. 
8. °EAvpas | See above on ver. 6. 
Stactpéar . . . . amd] A pregnant con- 
struction, as amréotnoev otiow, ch. v. 37. 
9. 6 kal IIatAos] This notice 
marks the transition from the former part 
of his history, where he is uniformly called 


142 


t ch. i. 10 reff. 
uch. xix. 28 


w Matt. xxvi.4. Rom. i. 29. 1 Thess. ii.3. Job xiii. 7. 


ch. xviii. 14.) 


9. wAnOets DP. 
ABCLX ec f p 18. 36. 40 Chr Lucif. 


10. om 1st zacns D!(ins D?) arm Lucif, Vig Orig-int. 


Saul, to the latter and larger portion, where 
he is without exception known as Paul. I 
do not regard it as indicative of any change 
of name at the time of this incident, or 
from that time: the evidence which I 
deduce from it is of a different kind, and 
not without interest to enquirers into the 
character and authorship of our history. 
Hitherto, our Evangelist has been describ- 
ing events, the truth of which he had ascer- 
tained by research and from the narratives 
of others. But henceforward there is reason 
to think that the jomt memoirs of himself 
and the great Apostle furnish the material 
of the book. Inthose memoirs the Apostle 
is universally known by the name Pavt, 
which superseded the other. If this was 
the first incident at which Luke was pre- 
sent, or the first memoir derived from Paul 
himself, or, which is plain, however doubt- 
ful may be the other alternatives, the com- 
mencement of that part of the history which 
is to narrate the teaching and travels of the 
Apostle Paul,—it would be natural that a 
note should be made, identifying the two 
names as belonging to the same person. 

The «af must not be understood as 
having any reference to Sergius Paulus, 
‘who also (as well as Sergius) was called 
Paul.’ Galen (see above) uses the same ex- 
pression in speaking of his Sergius Paulus: 
Sépyids Te, 6 kal MatdAos...., and then, 
a few lines down, calls him 6 TladaAos. It 
signifies that Paulus was a second name 
borne by Saul, in conformity with a Jewish 
practice as old as the captivity (or even as 
Joseph, see Gen. xli. 45), of adopting a Gen- 
tile name. Mr. Howson traces it through 
the Persian period (see Dan. i. 7; Esth. 
ii. 7), the Greek (1 Mace. xii.16; xvi. 11; 
2 Mace. iv. 29), and the Roman (ver. 1; 
ch. i. 23; xviii. 8, &c.), and the middle ages, 
down to modern times. Jerome has conjec- 
tured that the name was adopted by Saul 7a 
memory of this event : ‘ Diligenter attende, 
quod hie primum Pauli nomen inceperit. 
Ut enim Scipio, subjecta Africa, Africani 
sibi nomen assumpsit, et Metellus, Creta in- 
sula subjugata, insigne Cretici sue familie 
reportavit ;—et imperatores nunc usque 
Romani ex subjectis gentibus Adiabenici, 
Parthici, Sarmatici nuncupantur: ita et 
Saulus ad predicationem gentium missus, 
a primo ecclesia spolio Proconsule Sergio 
Paulo Victorie suz tropea retulit, erexit- 


TIPABEIS ATMOZTOAQN. 


XIII. 


x here only+. Xen. Rep. Lac. xiv. 4. (~ynma, 


ree ins ka: bef arev., with DEHP rel vss Ge Thl: om 


vot D}(txt D?). 


que vexillum ut Paulus diceretur e Saulo.’ 
(In Ep. ad Philem. 1, vol. vii. pp. 746 f.) 
It is strange that any one could be found 
capable of so utterly mistaking the charac- 
ter of St. Paul, or of producing so unfor- 
tunate an analogy to justify the mistake. 
[I may observe that Wordsw.’s apo- 
logy, that Jerome does not say that the 
Apostle gave himself this name on this 
account, is distinctly precluded by Jerome’s 
language, ‘“erexitque vexillum ut Paulus 
diceretur e Saulo.” This Wordsw., trans- 
lating the final words “and instead of 
Saul was called Paul,’ has missed seeing. 
Notice too Augustine’s “amavit, ” below. ] 
It is yet stranger that Augustine should, 
in his Confessions (viii. 4, vol. i. p. 753), 
adopt the same view: ‘Ipse minimus 
Apostolorum tuorum ... . ex priore Saulo 
Paulus vocari amavit, ob tam magne 
insigne victoria. (Elsewhere Augustine 
gives another, but not much better reason: 
‘Paulus Apostolus, cum Saulus prius vo- 
caretur, non ob aliud, quantum mihi 
videtur, hoe nomen elegit, nisi ut se osten- 
deret parvum, tanquam minimum Aposto- 
lorum.’ De Spir. et Lit. c. 7, vol. x. p. 207.) 
So also Olshausen. A more probable way 
of accounting for the additional name is 
pointed out by observing that such names 
were often alliterative of or allusive to the 
original Jewish name :—as Grotius in his 
note: ‘ Saulus qui et Paulus: id est, qui, 
ex quo cum Romanis conversari ccepit, hoc 
nomine, a suo non abludente, ceepit a 
Romanis appellari. Sic qui Jesus Judwzis, 
Grecis Jason (or Justus, Col. iv. 11): 
Hillel, Pollio: Onias, Menelaus (Jos. Antt. 
xii. 5. 1): Jakim (= Eliakim), Aleimus. 
Apud Romanos, Silas, Silvanus, ut notavit 
Hieronymus: Pasides, Pansa, ut Suetonius 
in Crassitio: Diocles, Diocletianus: Bigli- 
nitza, soror Justiniani, Romane Vigilan- 
tia.’ 
probable that Paul never entirely recovered 
his sight as before, after the dda Tod pwrds 
éxelvov. We have several apparent allu- 
sions to weakness in his sight, or to some- 
thing which rendered his bodily presence 
contemptible. In ch. xxiii. 1, the same 
expression, atevioas 7@ cuvedplw, occurs, 
and may have some bearing (see note there) 
on his not recognizing the high priest. See 
also Gal. iv. 13,15; vi. 11, and 2 Cor. xii. 
7,9, and notes. The traditional notices of 


atevioas eis avtov] It seems . 


/ A 
aOeis mvevpatos ayiouv, ‘ atevicas ets avtov 1 eizey 7D avi 
ff. / \ - Or , HL! 
vJer'v.27, “Y arAnpns mavtos \" dodov Kal Taons * padvoupyias, ¥ vie vec 
hk] 


1 


10—13. 
Y Sta Boron, 


hfrvov * aype * cacpod. 
3 ’ 3 \ n > \ \ oO / 
em auTov "aydus Kalb ° OKOTOS, 


4 yelparywryous. 


Sémiatevoey “ exTrANToOmEvos ETL THY Oday Tod Kupiov. 


IIPAREIS AITOZTOAON. 
2éyOpé mdons * diKacocvrys, 
Idvactpépwv Tas °ddovs Kupiov Tas *evelas ; 
© (600 f yetp fxupiou 8 él oé, Kal Eon TUPrds pr ® PrEtrw ew. e 
‘rapayphua O€ ™ émémecev 


12 , Sa. c r2 / \ \ 
TOTE LOMY oO ‘avOUTaTOS TO Yeyovds 


143 
> b / M 
ou maNaT) Te. Toke ei 


"1 John iii. 


thing, Phil. 
iii. 18 only. 
KoLvov 
€xOpov THs 
hvcews 
oAns THS 
avOpwrrivns, 
Demosth. 
kat. Zrepa. 


\ / b) , 
Kat Paeptayov efter 


a e la) Uns 
138 W’AvayGévtes O€ amo THs Tlddou * oi epi Tlatrov a= Matt v.6 
al. 8. 


cxi. 9. 
RXXViii. 20, 

e ch. ii. 7 reff. 
9. 2 Kingsi. 16. 
iii. 7 reff. 
only. 


c = Rom. xi. 33. 
fch. xi. 21 reff. Ezek. xl. 1, 
h Eccl. xi. 7. 
m ch. viii. 16 reff. 


ch. ix. 8.) r ver. 7. 
33. Mark i, 22. xi. 18. Luke iv. 32. 
vii. 12 only. v = ch. ii. 42 reff. 


b constr., Luke v. 4. ch. v. 42. vi. 15. xx. 31. xxi. 32. Eph. i. 16. 
Heb. iii. 10, 


ich. xx. 6 reff. 
nhere onlyt+. Jobiii.6 Symm. Hom. Il. v. 321. 
Deut. xxviii. 29. oKxoTov dedopkes, Eur. Phen. 377. 
Matt. ix. 35. xxiii. 15. Mark vi.6. w. €v, Matt. iv. 23. trans., 1 Cor. ix. Taal 
s absol., John iv. 53. ch. iv. 4 al. fr. 


Heb. x. 2. Isa. 
Rey. xv.3. Ps, xvii. 21. d ch. viii. 21 reff. 
g = Matt. xxvii. 25. ch. xvili.6. Rom. i. 18. ii. 2, 
k Luke iv, 13 only. 1 ch. 
o = here 
intrans, w. acc., 
q here only+. (- vet, 
t Matt. vii. 28. xxii. 
u Mark vi. 2 al. Eccl. vii. 17. Wisd. xiii. 4. 2 Macc. 
w = Luke viii. 22. ch. xvi. ll alll. L.f. 2 Macc. v. 9. 


p absol., here only. 


x = here (John xi. 19 y. r.) only. see Mark iv. 10. Luke xxii. 49. 


ins Tov bef kuvpiov BX1(&3 disapproving). 


11. ins 7 bef xeip. (but marked for erasure) D1. 

att tupAos ins kat P o (syr). 
for Se, re CN p vulg Syr copt «eth Lucif Jer: 
the copulative conj seeming more appropriate). 
see table) DX Thl-sif: txt CEHLP 13. 36 rel Chr 


ABCDEHLPNR rel. 


exprn than emewecev ew) A B(sic: 
(ce Thl-fin. om em avtoy B. 
12. 1dwyv 5¢ D-gr Lucif. 
emit. A: 
Bab? ghk 18. 
18. avex@evres(sic) B. 


his personal appearance (see C. and H. 
p- 181, note) represent him as having con- 
tracted and overhanging eyebrows. 

Whatever the word may imply, it appears 
like the graphic description of an eye-wit- 
ness, who was not Paul himself. So also 
mepidryeov enter XElpaywyovs, below. 

10. vie SaB.] Meyer supposes an indignant 
allusion to the name Bar-jesus. ‘This is 
possible, though hardly probable (see be- 
low). 8ta8., which usually has the article, 
is elsewhere found without it only in (1 Pet. 
v. 8) Rev. xii. 9, 22. See Moulton’s Winer, 
p- 155, note 1. mac. dux., of all that is 
right. Stactp. «.7.A.] The ov taton 
evidently makes this apply, not to Elymas’s 
conduct on this occasion merely, but to 
his whole life of imposture and perversion 
of others. The especial sin was, that of 
laying hold of the nascent enquiry after 
God in the minds of men, and wresting it 
to a wrong direction. kupiov, here 
and ver. 11, is Jehovah. If, as some sup- 
pose, the reading of the name Bar-jesus is 
Bar-jehu, the repetition may be allusive: 
as in the other case might the éx@pé mac. 
dixatoovvns to thename Jesus. But Meyer 
supposes the various readings in the forms 
of the name (Barsuma, Barjesuban) to have 
arisen from a desire to reverence the Name 
Jesus. Tupnos py BA€rwv | so uvhe- 


y 
ins ovoas bef evferas D. 

rec ins tou bef kup. : 
for axpi, ews D. 
for mapaxpnua de, kar evdews D (corrns, 
emecey (corrn to more simple 


om 


ins eOavpacey cat bef eriot. DE eth Lucif: exwa. bef 
aft emiot.ins Tw Oew D; Tw xup., omitting the rest, eth. 


EKTANTTOM. 


for T. kup., T. Qeov C Vig: Tov xpiotou 63: Twy arocToAwy 4. 
rec ins tov bef mavAoy, with HLP rel Ge Thl: om 


Ont en emAd@n, Deut. ix. 7. it 
axpt Karpod | The punishment was only 
temporary, being accompanied with a 
gracious purpose to the man himself, to 
awaken repentance in him. The sense 
given to &ypi x. by Tittmann and Meyer 
here and at ref. Luke, of €ws réAous, is 
one of which it seems to me incapable. 

&xAvs kK. okdTos | In the same pre- 
cise and gradual manner is the healing of 
the lame man, ch. iii. 8, described: éory 
(first), x. mepremdrer. So here, first a dim- 
ness came on him,—then total darkness. 
And we may conceive this to have been 
evinced by his gestures and manner under 
the infliction. 12. emt rq 818. 1. 
kup.| Hesitating as he had been before 
between the teaching of the sorcerer and 
that of the Apostle, he is amazed at the 
divine power accompanying the latter, and 
gives himself up to it. It is not said that 
he was baptized : but the supposition is not 
thereby excluded: see ver. 48; ch. xvii. 
12, 34; xviii. 8, first part. 13. ot 
mepi II.] Is there not a trace of the nar- 
rator being among them, in this expres- 
sion ? Henceforward Paul is the princi- 
pal person, and Barnabas is thrown into 
the background. Ilépynv 7. Ilapd. | 
Perga lies on the Cestrus, which flows into 
the bay of Attaleia. It is sixty stadia from 


144 


y Matt, vii. 23. 


Luke ix. 39 
only. Jer. , Sane, 3 er , 
xxi (xl) YOPHTAS aT avtav ” b7réaTpewer eis ‘lepotoAupa. | adtoi ve 
Naan Be *3eOdvres dard Hs Lépyns *apeyévorro els ” 
_ iw Sonly. Oe 8 OveAOovTes atro THs Llépyns » wapeyévovto ” eis *Av- 
reff. U4 \ I 5 / \ > 6 , > \ 
a absol., ch. TLOYELAV TV talolaVv, Kal €LSEX OVTES ELS THY GDUPV- 
. wits a a y a Ce , a c BB , d2 10 15 M ‘ 
SET TEAd ee, 7 ; )MEPa TMV che aAT@V EKATLOAaAY. €Ta 
xvi. 35. a \ rn a > 
cet, 6€ THY Savayvoow Tod ‘vopov Kal Tov 1 mpopntav ® atr- 
ch. xvi. 13 , © h? s \ > \ , 
only. Exod. eo TELA ay OL a tovvay@yot ®77po QUTOU 8 
Se et ee inn ie 
eax’ "Avdpes adedpol, et tis eotiv | oyos * ev vuiv | rapakdy- 
7 reff. 
d hae ch. xvi. 13 reff. e 2 Cor. iii. 14. 1 Tim, iv. 13 only. Neh. viii. 8. f Matt. v.17. Luke 
xvi. 16. ch. xxvi. 14. xxviii. 23. Rom. iii. 21. g Matt. xxvii.19. Mark iii. 3l al. 2 Kings xix. 11. 
h = Mark vy. 22, &c. Luke viii. 49. xiii. 14. ch. xviii. 8, 17 only +. i Heb. xiii. 22 only. 1 Macc. x. 24. 
= 2Cor. xi. 10. 1 Cor. viii. 7 al. 
ABCDER ¢ p 13 Dion Eus Chr. avaxwp. E 180. uTetTpevay NR}. 
14. for avro: de, mavdos de kar BapvaBas EH. eyevovto A. rec Ts 


miridias, with DEHLP p 13 rel vss: que est Pisidia tol: txt ABCN. 
tnv(sic D!: rn D-corr) nuetepa tw caBBatrw D. 


eAovtes BCR! p copt. 


‘TIPABEIS ATIOZTOAON. 


XIII. 


for etseA@.> 


15. rec-om tis, with D-corr EHLP rel vss Chr Ge Thl: ins ABCD! a p 13. 36 vulg 


Syr copt Cassiod. 


ev un bef Aoyos (alteration to connect Aoyos with mapakar.) 


ABC(H)Na ec p13 vulg: txt (D)EL(P) rel Chr Ee Thl.—om ev H.—aft Aoy. ins coguas 
D: sermo et intellectus in vobis exhortationis D-lat.—vuw is written above the line 


appy by P?. 
the mouth (c1@ 6 Késtpos morauds, dv 
Gvardevcavtt atadlovs é&hkovra Tlépyn 
méX1s, Strabo, xiv. p. 667), “between and 
upon the sides of two hills, with an exten- 
sive valley in front, watered by the river 
Cestrus, and backed by the mountains of 
the Taurus.” (C. and H. vol. i. p. 195, 
from Sir C. Fellows’s Asia Minor.) The re- 
mains are almost entirely Greek, with few 
traces of later inhabitants (p. 194 and note). 
The inhabitants of Pamphylia were 
nearly allied in character to those of Cilicia 
(of TidupvaAot, moAd Tod KiAiklov pvaov 
metéxovtes, Strabo, xii. § 7): and it may 
have been Paul’s design, having already 
preached in his own province, to extend 
the Gospel of Christ to this neighbouring 
people. John probably took the oppor- 
tunity of some ship sailing from Perga. 
His reason for returning does not appear, 
but may be presumed from ch. xv. 38 to 
have been, unsteadiness of character, and 
unwillingness to face the dangers abound- 
ing in this rough district (see below). He 
afterwards, having been the subject of dis- 
sension between Paul and Barnabas, ch. 
xv.387—40, accompanied the latter again to 
Cyprus ; and we find him at a much later 
“period spoken of by Paul, together with 
Aristarchus and Jesus called Justus, as 
having been a comfort to him (Col. iv. 10, 
11): and again in 2 Tim. iv. 11, as pro- 
Jitable to him for the ministry. 14. 
SeAOdvres} It is not improbable that 
during this journey Paul may have en- 
countered some of the ‘ perils by robbers’ 
of which he speaks, 2 Cor. xi. 26. The 
tribes inhabiting the mountains which se- 
paratethe table-land of Asia Minor from the 


coast, were notorious for their lawless and 
marauding habits. Strabo says of Isauria, 
Anota@v G&racat Karola (xii. 6), and of 
the Pisidians, ca@dmep of KiAuces, Anorpt- 
ks HoKnvTa, xii. 7. He gives a similar 
character of the Pamphylians. > Av- 
TidxeLa 7H [IvotSia or pds Miodla, Strabo, 
xii. 8, was founded originally (Strabo, ib.) 
by the Magnetes on the Meander, and 
subsequently by Seleucus Nicator, and be- 
came, under Augustus, a Roman colony 
(€xovoa erotklay ‘Pwualwy, Strabo, ib. :— 
*Pisidarum colonia Czesarea, eadem An- 
tiocheia.’ Plin. v. 24. ‘In Pisidia juris 
Italici est colonia Antiochensium,’ Paulus, 
Digest. i. 15). 
Strabo as being ona hill, and was unknown 
or wrongly placed till Mr. Arundell found 
its ruins at a place now called Yalobatch, 
answering to Strabo’s description: where 
since an inscription has been found with 
the letters ANTIOCHEAE CAESARE (C. and 
H. pp. 205, 207 note). 15.| The divi- 
sions of the law and prophets at present 
in use among the Jews were probably not 
yet arranged. Before the time of An- 
tiochus Epiphanes, the Law only was read 
in the synagogues: but, this having been 
forbidden by him, the Prophets were sub- 
stituted:—and, when the Maccabees re- 
stored the reading of the Law, that of the 
prophets continued as well. arr- 
éotetdav | Then they were notsitting in the 
mpwroxadedplar, Matt. xxiii. 6, but some- 
where among the congregation. The mes- 
sage was probably sent to them as having 
previously to this taught in the city, and 
thus being known to have come for that 
purpose. See, as illustrating our narrative, 


Its position is described by - 


mrOov eis Ilépynv tris Tlauwdurcas: "Iwavyns 8 Y dtro- AB 


hk 


14—19. 


S \ / / 
gEwsS TpOS Tov Naov, EyETE. 


IIPAEEIZ ATIOSTOAON. 


16 lqyvactas 5€ IladXos Kal 


145 


1=ch. vi.9 reff. 
m ch. xii. 17 


m ‘) a \ > ” 8 ? a \ «reff. 
KaTaceioas TH xerpt etrrev “Avdpes “lopanditat Kal ot n= ch. x. 2 


, 
" doBovpmevor Tov ™Oedv, axovoare. 
toutouv ‘IopairX °é&edXéEato Tovs Prratépas PHuav, Kal 


2 . 2 a ret eae 
176 Beds Tod Naod ois.3-7. 
16, 19. 


Deut. iv. 37. 
\ \ A a Neh. ix. 7. 
Tov Naov Yinpwoev ev TH 'Trapotkia ev yn AiyiTT@, Kal » ch. ¥. i ref. 
\ fs ¢ na 2~/ \ A etme creat 
Seta “ Bpaytovos “ innrov % éEjryayev avtovs é& abtis. POI, 


18 + ae X = 2 ae , > \ 
Kal ws * TecoEpakovTaeTh ypovoy Y etpopodopycev avtovs 1%. 
19 kal *xabeXwv EOvn éwta ev yn XKavaav 


> “~ Z > /, 
ev TH ” Epnucey 


viii. 35. 


s= ch. v. 26. xxiv. 7. 


Gen. xviii. 


1 Chron. 
xvii. 17. 
Sir. 1, 22. 
ri Pet. i. 17 
only. Ezra 


there only. Exod. vi. 1,6 al. (but w. €v). 


u Lukei. 51. John xii. 38 (from Isa. liii. 1) only. vy = here only. (Rom. xii. 16 al.) w ch. 
xii. 17 reff. x ch. vii. 23 only. y here only. Deut. i. 31 bis (tpo7. compl. Orig. in ~ 
Caten.). 2 Mace. vii. 27 only. z = Matt. iv.1 ||. ch. vii. 30, &c. Deut. i. 31. ole 
xix. 27. 2Cor.x.5. Ps. li.5 (7). 


16. ins o bef mavaos D. 
17. for tovrov, Tov B: om 40 vulg eth. 


aft ot ins ev vuw H lect-11 Chr. 


om (as unnecessary) tapand EHLUP rel 


syrr Chr ec Thi Lucif: ins ABCDX a g p 18 vulg copt sah(omg Aaov Tour.). 


for Ist kat, 1a D'(txt D®). 
vss: txt CDEHLP rel 36 Chr Cc Thl. 
18. om ws DE vulg Syr sah eth. 


ins Ty bef yn D. 


ern “(omg xpovov) D. 


avyurtov ABN ab c2 d p13 


rec eTpotropopyncev 


(alteration to what seemed a more appropriate word; see notes), with BC2DHLPR® p 
rel 36 vulg(mores eorum sustinuit) syr-mg-gr Orig Chr Ge Thl-fin (etpogomop. Thl- 
sif): txt ACE 13 syrr copt 2th arm Constt(see Tischdf) Cyr Hesych. 


19. om xa B p sah. 


Luke iy. 17 ff. and notes. 16. kata- 
ceicas T. xetpt| As was his practice; see 
ch. xxi.40. See also exteivas thy xetpa, ch. 
Xxvi. 1. On the character, &c. of Paul’s 
speeches reported in the Acts, see Prolegg. 
Sees i. 17. The contents of this 
speech (vy. 16—41) may be thus arranged : 


1. Recapitulation of God’s ancient deliver- - 


ances of His people and mercies towards 
them, ending with His crowning mercy, 
the sending of the Deliverer and promised 
Son of David (vv. 16—25). IL. The his- 
tory of the rejection of Jesus by the Jews, 
and of God’s fulfilment of His promise by 
raising Him from the dead (vv. 26—37). 
Ill. The personal application of this to 
all present,—the announcement to them 
of justification by faith in Jesus, and 
solemn warning against the rejection of 
Him (vv. 38—41). It is in the last de- 
gree unsafe to argue, as Wordsworth has 
done, that, because Strabo asserts the 
language of the Pisidians to have been 
neither Greek nor Lydian, St. Paul must 
have spoken to them by virtue of his 
miraculous gift of tongues. To the ques- 
tion put by Wordsw., “ In what language 
did St. Paul preach in Pisidia?” we may 
reply, seeing that he preached in the syna- 
gogue after the reading of the law and 
prophets, ‘‘ In the same language as that 
in which the law and prophets had just 
been read.” ot dof. r. 8.] The (un- 
circumcised) proselytes of the gate; not 
excluding even such pious Gentiles, nor 
proselytes in any sense, who might be 
present. The speech, from the beginning 
Vou. II. 


ev yn xavaav bef erra E: om ev y. x. 13. 


and throughout, is wniversal in its applica- 
tion, embracing Jews and Gentiles. 

17. tod Aaod TovTov] ‘ Hoc dicit Pisidis, 
Judzos digito monstrans’ (Grot.). Or 
rather, perhaps by the rovvov indicating, 
without gesture, tle people zn whose syn- 
agogue they were assembled. T. Tar. 
jpev| It is evident that the doctrine so 
much insisted on afterwards by Paul, that 
all believers in Christ were the true chil- 
dren of Abraham, was fully matured al- 
ready: by the tod Aaod TovTov he alludes 
to the time when God was the God of the 
Jews only: by this jay he unites all 
present in the now extended inheritance of 
the promises made to the fathers. 

twwoev | Evidently an allusion to Isa. i. 2, 
where the word is also used in the sense 
of ‘ bringing up,’ nourishing to manhood. 
This was done by increasing them in Egypt 
so that they became a great nation: see ref. 
Gen. There is noreference to any eralta- 
tion of the people during their stay in 
Egypt: whether by their deliverance (Calv., 
Heinr., Elsner), or by the miracles of Moses 
(Meyer), or by Joseph’s preferment to ho- 
nour (Beza, Grot.). 18. érpodo- 
odpycev) That this is the right reading, 
is rendered highly probable by manuscript 
authority here and still more in the LX X of 
ref. Deut., and, I conceive, decided by the 
Heb. of that passage, and by the expansion 
of the same image in Num. xi.12. The com- 
pound verb (from 6, not 7, tpopds, as the 
similitude is that of a man [wx] bearing 
his son) implies carrying and caring for, as 
a nurse: see ref. Macc. a énta | See 


146 ITPAZEIS AIIOZTOAQN. XIII. 


b here only. ( 


, ’ a \ a x A \ 4 
rere 7 on,  KATEKANPOVOUNTEY [avTots] THY yHY avTov. *9 Kal peTa ABI 
jii. 28. i. 38, nr c u / , 

xxi 10,3. T@UT@ @S ETETW TETpaKOTiols Kal TeEVTHKOVTA © €dwxen Pe 


xxi. 16, 


1 Mace. iii. 
1 


36 A.) ec constr., Eph. iv. 11. 3 Kings ii. 35. 


ree KatekAnpudotncer (corrn to fi 


reff), with aho: txt ABCDEHLPX rel 36 Chr ec Thi. 


p 13. 40 coptt: ins ACD°EHLP rel. 
adAop. D® syr-w-ast. 


aw the active sense on the verb: as also in LXX, see 


om avrus BD! 
for avtwy, Twy adrcAopvAwy D!: avtray 


20. ws er. Ter. x. wmevt. bef cat weta Tavta (see notes) ABCK p 13. 36. 40 vulg coptt 
arm: om uw. T. D! syr: txt D4EHLP rel Syr wth Chr ce Thl.—for ws, ews D}-gr: 
om AC: ef quasi annis D-lat: quasi post annos vulg: et post annos xth-rom. 


aft edwx. ins avtots E sah Chr. 


Deut. vii. 1; Josh. iii. 10; xxiv. 11. 

The unusual transitive sense of kaTeKAn- 
povéunoerv, justified by reff. LXX, has not 
been understood by the copyists, and has 
led to the rec. reading. From the 
occurrence of manifest references, in these 
opening verses of the speech, to Deut. i. 
and Isa. i., combined with the fact that 
these two chapters form the present lessons 
in the synagogues on one and the same 
sabbath, Bengel and Stier conclude that 
they had been then read. It may have 
been so: but see on ver. 15. 20. | 
Treating the reading of ABCX (see var. 
readd.) as an attempt at correcting the dif- 
ficult chronology of our verse, and taking 
the words as they stand, no other sense can 
be given to them, than that the time of the 
judges lasted 450 years. The dative éreow 
(see ch. viii. 11) implies the duration of the 


period between tavra (the division of the | 


land), and Samuel the prophet, inclusive. 
And we have exactly the same chronologi- 
cal arrangement in Josephus; who reckons 
(Antt. viii. 3. 1) 592 years from the Exodus 
to the building of Solomon’s temple,— 
arranging the period thus: (1) forty years 
in the wilderness: (2) twenty-five years 
under Joshua (orparnyds 5€ pera Ti 
Mavoéws teAevtiy mévte Kk. etxoot, Antt. 
v. 1. 29): (3) Judges (below): (4) forty 
years under Saul, see on ver. 21: (5) forty 
years under David, 1 Kingsii. 11: (6) four 
years of Solomon’s own reign. This gives 
592 — 149 = 443 years (about, ds, 450) for 
the Judges, including Samuel. That this 
chronology differs widely from 1 Kings 
vi. 1, is most evident,—where we read 
that Solomon began his temple in the 
four hundred and eightieth (LXX, four 
hundred and fortieth) year after the 
Exodus. All attempts to reconcile the 
two are arbitrary and forced. I sub- 
join the principal. (1) Perizonius and 
others assume that the years during 
which the Israelites were subject to 
foreign tyrants in the time of the Judges 
are not reckoned in 1 Kings vi. 1, and 
attempt, by adding them, to make out 
the period—in direct contradiction to 


the account there, which is, not that the 
Judges lasted a certain number of years, 
but that Solomon began to build his temple 
in the four hundred and eightieth year 
after the Exodus. (2) Calovius, Mill, &e. 
supply yevdueva after mevtHKovTa, and con- 
strue, these things ‘which happened in 
the space of 450 years,’ viz. from the birth 
of Isaac to the division of the land. But 
why the lirth of Isaac? The words too 
will not bear this construction. (3) Ols- 
hausen conceives the 450 years may in- 
clude all from the Exodus, as far as the 
building of the temple. But to this the 
objection which he himself mentions is 
fatal, viz. that meta ratra and exeiOey 
must beyond dispute give the termini @ 
quo and ad quem of the period. (4) Others 
suppose various corruptions, here or at 
1 Kings vi. 1, and by arbitrary conjecture 
emend so as to produce accordance. 
It seems then that Paul followed a chrono- 
logy current among the Jews, and agree- 
ing with the book of Judges itself (the 
spaces of time in which, added together = 
exactly 450), and that adopted by Jose- 
phus, but not with that of our present 
Hebrew text of 1 Kings vi. 1. The objec- 
tion to this view, that Josephus is not con- 
sistent with himself (Olsh.),—but in Antt. 
xx. 10. 1, contra Apion. ii. 2 gives another 
chronology, has arisen from not observing 
that in the latter places, where he states 
612 years to have elapsed from the Exodus 
to Solomon’s temple, he reckons in the 
twenty years occupied in building the tem- 
ple and the king’s house, 1 Kings vi. 38 ; 
vii. 1. His words are, Antt. xx. 10. 1, 
ap hs tucpas of marepes judy e&éAumov 
Alyurrovy Mwvoéws tyovtTos, méxpt THs 
Tod vaovd KaTacKev7s, dv ZodAouay 6 
Baoivels ev ‘IepoooAdmots avtyeipev, E77 
dvoraiderxa mpds Tots Ekaxoolos. ‘To reckon 
in the thirteen years during which he was 
building his own house may be an in- 
accuracy, but there is no inconsistency. 
Wordsworth, contrary to his usual 
practice, takes refuge in the amended text 
of ABC, and then characterizes in the 
severest language those who have had the 


20—24. 


4 Kpitas éws ZapouHyr [rod | mpogrjrou" 21 & KaKxetOev ! yrn- 
aavTo Baciéa, Kal 8 édwxev avtois 0 Beds Tov Laovr 


IIPABEI> ATIOSTOAQON. 


147 


d = here only. 
June. ii. 16. 

e of ae here 
only. 

f ch. xvi. 29 


viov ag dvbpa eK hs Bevopely, ern Tego epaKovTa: reff URaaps 


22 Kai Ywetactnocas avTov 


‘ iyepev tov Aaveld avtois 


g Enike vii. 15 
1 KInGs 
"2 13. 


K eis Bacidéa, © Kal citrev | waptupnaas Kdpov Aaveléd Top b= Luke xvi. 


4 (ch. xix. 


a? PAP \ \ , a , 9 
Tov lecoal, dvdpa ™ Kata tiv ™ Kapdiav pov, ds ™ Troijoer 7%; 1°, 
s ’ no 6 , / 93 p s « \ > \ ni. 13) only. 
TAaVTA Ta eANMATA ov. TOUTOU O Oeos ajvro TOU oe xv. 

3. Dan. ii. 
, r > rs 2 s t » oe: \ 2]. 
Tomeppatos * Kat eTrayyehiav ‘nyayev TO repent. beg UE. 
u a ’ a 94 V s > , ‘Jude. li. 18, 
cwoTnpa ‘Incovv, *4 % mpoxnpvéavtos “Iwdvyvov po x = muke i 
3 if 
21. ver. 47. 1 Kings xy. 11. = ch. x. 43 reff. m= here only. 1 Kinoa. ue 14. 
n Isa. xliv. 28 (of Cy rus). Matt. vii. 21. xii. 50. John vii. 17 al. o plur., Eph. ii. 3 only. Jer. 
XXiii. 26. p ch. ix. 20 reff. q Rom. i. 3 reff. r Gal. iii. 29. 2 Tim. i. 1 only. 
s ch. i. 4 reff, = ZECH. iii. 9 (8). Isa. xlviii. 15. uch. y. 31. Isa. xlv. 15. v here 
only +. w Matt. xi. 10, from Mat, iii. 1. 
om tov A(appy) BX p. 
21. [Ke1s, so ABCDN. | [Beviaperv, so ABCN: -pecp p. | 


22. rec avros bef tov 5. (alteration of arrangement, to connect avrots with the verb), 


with CEHLP 138. 36 rel vss Chr: 
for tov, vou D 34. 


23. 0 8. ovv aro T. on. avtov D: om amo T. orepuatos RN}. 


txt ABDN coptt.—om tov D. 
om avdpa BE: om also kat. T. k. wou os EK. 


nupov KE. 


rec for nyay., nyeipev 


(explanatory alteration, see ver 22), with CD 18. 36 rel tol syrr sah Thdrt Tbl-fin: 


txt ABEHLPR b g1 p vulg copt «th Ath Chr-comm (c Thl-sif Aug. 


for cwT. 


ing., cwTnpiay (see note) H(op: av) Lbdfgh113 eth Chr, Thl-sif: o. roy inv. D: 
om ing. o 47. 141-6. 23. 37. 46. 56. 66. 76: txt ABCEN rel 36 vulg Syr copt arm (ec 


Aug. 


moral courage to abide by the more difficult 
reading, charging them with “arbitrary 
caprice,” “ gratifying a sceptical appetite,” 
&e. I cite this as an example of that 
elastic criticism, which by any means within 
reach, and at any price, smooths away every 
difficulty from the sacred text. 
YapovnA] mentioned as the terminus of 
the period of the Judges, also as having 
been so nearly concerned in the setting 
up over them of Saul and David. 

21. Saoddr avdpa ék >. B.| It may 
be not altogether irrelevant to notice that 
a Saul, a man of the tribe of Benjamin, 
was speaking ; and to trace in this minute 
specification something characteristic and 
natural. étn TegoepaKovta | So also 
Josephus: eBacidevse SaovA SamoutdAov 
(@vros rn OKT mpds Tots Séxa TeAcv- 
thoavtos 5€ dvo kal etkoor, Antt. vi. 14. 9. 
In the O. T. the length of Saul’s reign is 
not specified ; 1 Sam. vii. 2 gives no reason, 
as Bengel thinks, why Saul’s reign should 
have been less than twenty years, as the 
twenty years there mentioned do not ex- 
tend to the bringing up of the ark by 
David, but only to the circumstances men- 
tioned in the following verses. Biscoe has 
well shewn (p. 399), that as Saul was a 
young man when anointed king, and Ish- 
bosheth his youngest son (1 Chron. viii. 33) 
was forty years old at his death (2 Sam. 
ii. 10), his reign cannot have been much 


eee ee 


short of that period. It is clearly against 
the construction to suppose Samuel’s time 
as well as Saul’s included in the forty years, 
following as they do upon the dwxey. 
Yet this has been done by the majority of 
Commentators. 22. petaoticas | 
having deposed him (reff.): in this case, 
by his death, for David was not made king 
till then. Or perhaps pertaor. may refer 
to the sentence pronounced against Saul, 
1 Sam. xiii. 14, or xv. 23, 28, and Heyeipey 
to the whole process of the exaltation of 
David to be king. But I prefer the former. 
@ «. elwev p.] The two passages, 
Ps. Ixxxix. (sxxvili, LXX) 20, and 1 Sam. 
xili. 14, are interwoven together: both were 
spoken of David, and both by prophetic 
inspiration. They are cited from memory, 
neither roy Tov "Iecoal nor és... . pov 
being found in them. These latter words 
are spoken of Cyrus, see reff. That such 
citations are left in their present shape in 
our text, forms a strong presumption that 
we have the speeches of Paul verbatim as 
delivered by him,and no subsequent general 
statement of what he said, in which case 
the citations would have been corrected by 
the sacred text. 23. Kat’ émayy. 
Hyayev| viz. the promise in ref. Zech. 
(LXX), where the very word &yw is used ; 
not however excluding the many other pro- 
mises to the same effect. The reading 
cwTnptay has probably arisen from the 


L 2 


148 TIPABEIS ATIOZTOAQN. Ai 


x 1 Thess. i. 9. 
ii. 1. Heb. x. 


Tposwmou Ths *eisdSov avtod ¥ Bawticpa ¥ petavoias ABC 


9. 2 Pet. i. \ A a? kK , > ‘ \ 
Hons, «TavTl TO AAW “Iopanr. % ws Oe 7 érArjpou ‘Iwavyns Tov Ue 
MAt. iii. 2. , ov. Fo A e a . > 25 ieee 
; a a b ° c . 
ferro Spopov, acai e Te ewe ? vrrovoeire evar ; ovr és 1 1 
j ’ > > \ , 
his * arr iBod Epyerar * wer? ewe oF ovK emt aktos TO 


z= ch. xii. 25 


, re r cr ee 
reff. °vTobnua Tov Toda °Adcat. %6”Avdpes adedXpot, viol 
24. 2 Tim. ayy ? x \ Ys coa , \ , 
wayons, = yevous “ABpaaw kat ot ev vpiv & doBovpevor Tov Geor, 
pe. Gaye) “Nn is 3 las ‘ravtns *eé in 
-xxv.18. 7){bLY  O oyos TNS “OwWTHNplas *TaUTNS * ECATTETTAAN. 
XXVil. 27 
nly.L.P. 27 of yao | * 17, - + ot ™4 
only. LP. 27 of yap ‘Katoikovuytes ' ev Lepovoadap Kai ot ™ apyovTes 
> Lal fal > / ‘\ Cal 
avT@v TovTOY " ayvoncayTes Kal Tas °pwvas TOV Tpody- 
lal \ rn 
Tov Tas Pata Pray caBBatov 4 avaywwoKopévas * Kpt- 
vaytes SémAjpwoav, 8 Kat pndewiay ‘aitiay Pavarov 
eupovtes “ntncavto Ilinatov ¥ avaipeOjvat avdtov. *9 ws 


Judith xiv. 
14. Sir. xxiii. 
e ch. vii. 33 reff. f = ch. iv. 6 reff. 
1 Cor. xii. 8. 2 Cor. v.19. vi. 7. Eph. 


21 only. Dan. 
k ch. vii. 12 reff. 1 ch. 


vil. 25 Theod. 
(-vota,1 Tim. 
n ch. xvii. 23 


vi. 4.) 

ellips., Matt. 

xiv. 27. John 

iv. 26. viii. 

24. xviii. 5. 

d = w. person, Acts only. ch. xix. 4 (Paul). vy. 37. vii. 5. 

g —ch. x. 2 reff. h constr., ch. xiv. 3 (of Paul). xx. 32 (Paul). 
i. 13. Phil. ii. 16 al2.(Paul). Heb. v.13. James i. 18. i here only. 
xi. 29 reff. m = ch, iii. 17. iv. 5, &c. 1 Cor. ii. 6, 8. 


° 


Josh. ix. 15 al. fr. 


(Paul). Rom. x. 3. xi. 25. 1 Cor.xiv. 38. 2Cor.ii. 11. 1 Kings xxvi. 21. o = ch. xxiv. 21 (Paul). vii. 
31 (Steph.). p ch. xv. 21, 36. xviii. 4 al. q = Luke iv. 16. ch. xv. 21. 2 Cor. iii. 15 al. Neh. 
viii. 8. r =1 Cor. xi. 31. 1 Pet. iv. 6. s = ch. iii. 18 reff. and passim. = John 
xviii. 38, xix. 4,6. ch. xxviii. 18. Proy. xxviii. 17. u constr., ch, iii. 14 reff. y ch. y. 33 reff. 


24. om mayt: HL Thi, tayti and Aaw Pde f gh1lo Chr-comm (c: om Aaw only A 
(Ec : om wap. 68. 104 sah: txt BCDER p 13.36 vss. (The variations have perhaps been 


occasioned by those in ver 17 above.)—} began to write ma. bef Aaw, but marked 
the letters for erasure. 

25. rec ins o bef twavvys, with LP 13 rel Chr Thl-fin: om ABCDEHR al p @c Thi- 
sif. ewAnpovv D!}. rec (for Tt ewe) Tiva pre, with CDEHLP 13 rel vss 
Chr: txt ABN sah, re war (= Tt pe) p. aft eyw ins o xpioros E 68 lect-12 tol 
Thl-fin. adAa, and pe? D}(uer D8). 

26. om ka B. ev nuw AD p. aft @eov ins akovoate E. rec 
(for nuv) vai, with CEHLP rel vss: txt A B(sic: see table) DN c p 13 syr-mg sah. 

aft o Aoyos ins outos C d 6. 36. 65. 133-80 syr eth arm. rec amecTaAn, 
with EHLP rel Ge Thl: txt ABCDX a h p 18. 36. 40 Chr. 

27. om ey CEb dhk p 13 vulg Chry. for avr. Trout. wyv., avt . s D!(avrov 
7. ayvourtes DS), for k. 7. pwvas,.... . Tals Tas yp..as (un TUMeEVTES T. 
ypapas?) D}(txt D8): ayy. r. yp. E. ins kat bef xpi. D. 

28. aft evpoyTes ins ev avtw D vulg syr-w-ast coptt zth. for nrno. Ke, kpewayTes 
avTov mapedwkay TiAaTw wa evs avatpeaty I)! (ut interficeretur lat) : D8 reads nrnoavto 
m. aveped., without erasing any portion of D!: for yrncavto, nrnaay Tov(sic) RX’. 


contracted way of writing *"Incovv, thus: 
cwtnpay; and then from ver. 26 cwrnplav 
was adopted. 24. eisd8ov] referring 
to #yayev above—his coming forward 
publicly. 25.| As John was ful- 
filling his course (the expression is pecu- 
liar to Paul, see reff.) he said (not once 
but habitually). vt ewe wr. elv. | Not, 
‘I am not that which ye suppose me to be,’ 
as Vulg. (reading tiva, —quem me arbitra- 
mini esse, non sum ego); Luth., Grot., 
Kuin.,—making r/ (or rfva) relative, which 
it will not bear (see note on 1 Cor. xv. 2); 
but What suppose ye me to be? I am not 
He. See Luke iii. 15 ff. 26. +. cwTy- 
plas tavrys | viz. the salvation implied in 
Jesus being a cwrfjp—salvation by Him. 

27.) The position of juiv at the com- 
mencement of its clause in the last verse 
shews the emphasis to be on it, and now the 


reason is given—for the Jews in Jerusalem 
have rejected it. See ch. xxii. 18—21. 

Tas Pwvas is not governed by ayvojaartes, 
which makes the sentence an unusually 
harsh one in construction, requiring adrdv 
to be supplied after xpw., and adzds after 
erAnpwoav. The kat, as often, merely intro- 
duces, without the emphasis implied by our 
‘even,’ a new element into the sentence. 
It is perhaps hardly possible to find in our 
language or the Latin any one word which 
may give exactly this slight shade of mean- 
ing, and no more: paraphrased, the sense 
might be (but imperfectly and clumsily) 
thus represented: in their ignorance of 
Him (not only rejected His salvation, but) 
by judging Him, fulfilled the voices of 
the prophets, &c. 28.] Not, ‘ though,’ 
but rather because they found no cause: 
when they found no cause of death in 


25—33. 


dé “* éréXecav Tavta Ta Tept avTou X yeypaumeva, Y xao- 


eXovTes amo Tod ” EvNov * 
Beds 


®ardelous Tots f 


= / C7 fa] > 
Iepovoadnm, 2 oiTwes viv eiow 


, 
TOV NaOV. 


TIPAREIS AIMOSTOAON. 


32 Kal Hels Upas ‘ edaryyedilopeban THY Tpos ” 


149 
Le _ phages il. 
Ezra i. 1. 
ae = aake XVili. 
EOnxav * eis punwetov. 806 S€ a1. xxii.m7. 
= Luke Xxill. 
/ > \ Lal aA »” , « i 
Hyecpev adtov éx  vexpa@v, 31 ds © apOn 4 eri nuépas FBIM: 99, 
a > ee) \ n , 9 z:=ch. v.30 
cuvavaBadow avtT@ amo THs VadiXalas els reff, 
ach, 1Vv. 6. Xl. 
Ruth. iv. 


h / > Lol x 4. 
MapTupes QuTOv T pos 16. 
1 ron a 12 
reff. 
Bri 


Krovs ‘matépas 'érayyediav ™yevouevnv, OTe ® TavTNy ©) Cor xv.5, 


0 eds 


°exmreTANPWKEY TOIS TéKVOLS *aUT@V Huy P ava- 


asmaes ch. 
xvi. 18. Xvil. 


, 1 a 33 Nandi ese iA xr aA , n 2% su Se &e. 
= xxvii. 20, 
otncas ‘Inoodv, 3 ws Kal ev * TO Warw@ yeypaTTay TO xxvii. 2 
30. (see Rom. vii. 1 al.) e ch. ii. 40 reff. f Mark xy. 41 only. 2 Chron. xviii. 2. g=ch. 
x. 41 re h ch. i. 8 reff. i double ace., here only. acc., ch. viii. 25 reff, k absol., 


ch. vii. 19 reff. 
o here only. Exod. xxxii. 29 Ald. 
67.1. (-pwots, ch. xxi. 26.) 


lch. i. 4 reff. 


29. ereAnoav A: 


2 Mace. viii. 10 only, but not =. 
p = ch. ii. 24 reff. 


eteAovy D}(txt D-corr’). 
tion for more completeness ?): txt ABCDEHLPN rel. 


m = ch. vii. 31 reff. n ch. ix. 20 reff. 


Tas EeTayyEAlas ExTANPODY, Polyb. i. 


rec amayta (error? or altera- 
veyp. bef wept avrou B. 


aft yeypaumeva add ero nTovyTo Toy TELAQTOV TOUTOV MEV OTAUPWOUL, Kat ETLTU- 
xovres madw nat D!, syr-mg has postquam ecrucifixus est nrovyto tov mAatoy ut de 


ligno detraherent eum: 
for EvAov, cravpov E Syr. 


ouvetuxov et detrahentes eum posuerunt eum in sepulchro. 


ins kat bef e@nxav D}(and lat). 


80. for ver, ov o cos (add vero D-lat) nyewpev D: add tertia die vulg(not tol). 
81. ovtos wb Tois cvvavaBawovsi-avTw am. T. Y. ELS Lep. Eb NuEp. TAELovas D 


(-avaBaow D-corr, wAetous D8). 


rec om vuv (as unnecessary? hardly for Meyer’s 


reason, that they had been now for some time His witnesses), with BEHLP rel eth-pl 


Chr : 
syr. 


om avtov H. 


32. tv mpos Tous is written over an er: asure by. X} or X-corr!. 
yevou. bef emrayy. D Hil. 


nuwv DE vss(not syr). 


eot bef vuy NX: txt ACak p 18. 36 Syr coptt zth-rom.—axp: vuy D c 187 vulg 


aft marepas ins 
* wav (to avoid the 


difficulty of 0: poBovpevor tov Beov being present, ver 16, besides the avdpes tapandtrat) 
ABC!DR vulg(vuwy tol) eth Ambr: om nuv sah Ambr Bede-gr: avtav nuw C3EHLP 
p 18. 36 rel syrr Chr ec Thl-fin. for incouy, Tov Kuptov ino. xp. D sah Ambr; 
so, insg nuwy aft kup. 137 Hil; tov kup. nuwr syr- “w- ast : avToy ek VEKpwy A’. 


83. for ws Kat, ovtws yap D. *ree TO YW. TO OeuvT. yéeypaTTat, 
with ELP rel vulg Chr Thl Ambr: +. mpwrw yp. yey. D (no vss) Orig-scholexpr (ce) 


him, they besought, &c.: see Luke xxiii. 32. pets tpas] He and Barnabas were 


22, 23. 29.| The two verbs éréAcoay 
and €@nxav have still the same subject, viz. 
of katoikovvres k.T.A. De Wette rightly 
remarks, that Paul, inthis compendious nar- 
rative, makes no distinction between friend 
and foe in what was done to our Lord, but 
regards both as fulfilling God’s purpose 
regarding him. I may add, that there is 
also a contrast between what men did to 
Him, and 6 8€ Oeds #yerpev adv. Jo- 
seph and Nicodemus, be it observed, were 
both &pxortes. Paul touches but lightly 
on the cross of Christ, and hastens on to 
the great point, the Resurrection, as the 
fulfilment of prophecy and seal of the Mes- 
siahship of Jesus. 31.] The viv gives 
peculiar force to the sentence. Who are 
at this moment witnesses,—living wit- 
nesses; q. d. ‘I am not telling you a mat- 
ter of the past merely, but one made pre- 
sent to the people of the Jews (7@ Aag) 
by living and autoptic testimony.’ 


not of the number of the cuvavaBavres, 
ver. 31, nor was their mission to the Jewish 
people. ‘ They are at this moment witness- 
ing to the people, we, preaching to you.’ 
Stier observes (Red. d. Apost. p. 367) how 
entirely Paul sinks himself, his history and 
commission from Christ, in the great object 
of his preaching. avaoryoas | The 
meaning having raised Him from the 
dead is absolutely required by the con- 
text: both because the word is repeated 
with ex vexp@v (ver. 34), and because the 
Apostle’s emphasis throughout the passage 
is on the Resurrection (ver. 30) as the final 
Fulfilment (éxrerAnpwxev) of God's pro- 
mises regarding Jesus. ‘This is maintained 
by Luther, Hammond, Le Clerc, Meyer, 
&e.: the other meaning, ‘having raised up,’ 
as in ch. vii. 37, mpopntny buiv avacthoer 
6 «dtpios,—by Calvin, Beza, Calov., Wolf, 
Michaelis, Rosenm., Heinrichs, Kuinoel, 
Olsh., and by Mr. Humphry. Meyer well 


150 


TIPAREIS AIIOZTOAQN. 


XIII. 


qHeb.i.5.v. SeyTéeopw 1T io i av, eya )LLEDOV EVUNKA oe 
Heb i.5. ¥,, épa 0S lov EL av, ey@ onmEepov yeyevyn : 


SA. li 

r trans., ch. 
xvii. 31 only. 

s = ch. xxiii. 3. 
xxvi. 22, 23 
al. 2 Macc. 
iii. 18. 

t of a state, 
here only. 
see ch. viii. 
25 reff. 


sista ii.27 36 Aaveid jev yap idia 


only. 

w = 1 Tim-i. 
15. iii. 1. iv. 
9. Tit. iii. 8. 
Rey. xxi. 5. 
xxii. 6. Ps. 
Ixxxvili. 28. 

x = ch. xvii. 7 reff. 

a ch. xx. 34. xxiv. 23 onlyt. Wisd. xvi, 24 al. 

vii. 39 reff. 3 Kinas ii. 10. 
40 reff. f ch. i. 19 reff. 


34 Ore 5€  avéotnoev avTov *éx vexpOv pnKéTe * wéNdOVTA 

t.< / ? u 8 fal ‘ ef ” e Py z 

vrootpéhew els “SiahOopay, otws elpnKev, OTL Owow 

tpiv ta Y dora Aaveid ta * rota. 

reyes OV YSaoes Tov Yoouv cov Y ideivy ¥ buabBopar. 

“yeved *Um@npeTnaas TH TOU Oeod. 

» Bourn ©éxouunOn Kai “posetéOn mpos Tovs maTtépas 
b U) 

avtov Kat Yeider ¥ diapOopav *7 dv Sé 6 Beds © Hryeupev 
a r 

ovK elev Y StapOopar. 

y Psa. xv. 10. see ch. ii. 27 reff. 

Gen. xlix. 15 Aq. Symm, 


d (ch. ii. 41.) = Gen. xlix. 29. Judg. ii. 10. 
g ch. ii. 14. iv. 10. xxviii. 22, 28. 


35 SuoTe Kal év * ETépw 


38 {Eypwotov ovv éoTw vpiV, 


z=ch. xiv. 16. Eph. iii.5. Judg. ii, 10. 

b ch. ii. 23 reff. c= 2))'Cor; 
e ver. 30. ch. x. 
Ezra iv. 12, 13. 


Tert Cypr-mss Hilexp, Jer Cassiod: tw deur. p. yeyp. H o 4. 68. 76. 100: txt ABCN 


acp 13.40 arm. 


at end, D syr-mg add (from Ps ii. 8) aitnoat map emou Kat 


Swow cot €Ovn THY KANpOVOMLaY Gov kal THY KaTAaTKXEOLV TOU Ta TWEpAaTa TNS Y7S. 


34. ore D 137 Hil. 
ins avrov E k 32.66 Chr. 


aft avroy add o @eos E 68 Syr Thl-fin. 


aft meAA. 


35. rec (for dio7t) 510, with CEHLP p? 13. 36 rel vss Chr He Thi: propter nos E-lat : 


txt ABN p! sah: om D Syr eth. 
86. om ev D 26 vulg. 


remarks, that this meaning would hardly 
in our passage have been thought of or 
defended, had it not been that the sub- 
joined citation from Ps. ii. has been thought 
necessarily to apply to our Lord’s mission 
upon earth. 33.| The reading év r@ 
mpétw Warue is explained thus: “hic 
psalmus qui nobis secundus est olim pri- 
mus fuit, quod is qui preecedit, tanquam 
procemium, numeratus non esset.’’ Rosenm. 
Arg. Ps. ii. St. Paul refers the prophecy 
in its full completion to the Resurrection 
of our Lord: similarly in Rom. i. 4, épic- 
Oevros viod Ocov ev Suvdmer ef 
GvaoTacews VEKp@V. 34. pyKére 
ped. | Compare Rom. vi. 9, xpiorbs eyep- 
Oels ek vexp@y ovKéTe GroOvjoKer Odva- 
Tos avrov ovKeTi kupiever. Itis interesting 
to trace the same shades of thought in the 
speeches and epistles of Paul; and abun- 
dant opportunity of doing so will occur as 
we proceed. But here the troop. eis 
d1a8. does not merely imply death, so that 
Jesus should have once undergone it, and no 
more hereafter, as the E.V. seems to imply: 
but we must supply ‘ to die, and in conse- 
quence to’ before the words, understanding 
them as the result of death, if it had do- 
minion over him: thus the clause answers 
even more remarkably to Rom. vi. 9. 
7a Sora is the LXX rendering of *700, ref. 
Isa., which in 2 Chron. vi. 42, they have 
translated ra éAén. The word ‘holy’ should 
have been preserved in the E. V., as an- 
swering to tiv éa1dv cov below; the mer- 
cies of David, holy and sure: or my holy 
promises which I made sure unto David. 
85. Sid7t kat] wherefore also,—cor- 


6 ee, slhe = 


etepws D: alias vulg: alia D-lat: ev tw et. 13. 
37. for ov, o D!-gr(txt D-corr?). 


respondent to which purpose, of His Christ 
not seeing corruption. étépw | viz. 
Wadug@, referring to ver. 33. Aéye | 
viz. 6 Geds, not David: the subject is con- 
tinued from vy. 32 and 34, and fixed by 
eZpnxev and décw just preceding.  Séceis 
and éc.ov accurately correspond to décw 
and doa before. See on ch. ii. 27. 

36.| The psalm, though spoken by David, 
cannot have its fulfilment iz David. 

idia yeved.| The dative commodi, not ‘sua 
generatione,’ which is flat in the extreme. 
David ministered only to the generation in 
which he lived : but 5:4 TovTov, remission 
of sins is preached dxity, and to all who 
believe on Him. TH TOV 0. BovAyq is 
best taken with banperjoas, not with 
€xoiunn :—as E. V., after he had served 
his own generation by the will (i.e. 
according to the appointment) of God. 
His whole course was marked out and 
fixed by God—he fulfilled it, and fell asleep. 
I prefer this, because joining t7 Tov 6. B. 
with éxoiun@m seems to diminish the im- 
portance of that verb in the sentence. 
(See, on the whole, 2 Sam. vii. 12; 1 Kings 
rves 1NC0s)) amposet. «.T.A.] An expres- 
sion arising from the practice of burying 
families together: see reff. and passim in 
ORT: 38.] Paul speaks here of jus- 
tification only in its /owest sense, as nega- 
tive, and synonymous with remission of 
sins; he does not unfold here that higher 
sense of dixaidw, the accounting righteous, 
which those who have from God are dfcator 
ex micrews. It is the first office of the 
Spirit by which he spoke, édéyxew epl 
Guaptias, before He éAéyxer wept dicaco- 


S 
SDE 
Na 


dfg 
lop Uuads| TO 4 eipnuévov év Tots Tpodprtas *1”ldere of * KaTa- 


/ \ fal 4 x igi ae I 6 x4 t ¥ 
gpovntal, cal Oavwacate Kai SadavicOnte, dtu * épyov 
A f an 
‘épyalomar ey@ €v Tals mépats vuav, Epyov 6 ov 41) 


34—41. 


TIPABEIS AIOZTOAON. 


151 


” a ; j lal F 
avopes aderXpol, dt Sia » rovTOU buiv ‘ apeous i duapTi@v » eh. ix. 2 


KxatayyeArerat, 29 [kal] land mavtov ™ av ovK jOdvV?)- 
~- Ante ™ év vouww Mavaéws |" dexarwOhvar, ” év 


murrevoy |" SixavovTat. 


ich. vy. 31 reff. 
k ver. 5 reff. 

, as « 1 Rom. vi.7 
TOUT@ Tas o only. Sir. 


xxvi. 29. 


h 


, > , J -onstr., ver. 
40 © BNérrere obv wn P eréENOn [ep ™sreg 


n Rom. vy. 9. 
1 Cor. iv. 4, 
vi. 11. Gal. 
ii, 17. iti. 
ll. v. 4. 
more usually 
w. €k. 


o = Matt. xxiv. 

4\|. 1 Cor. viii. 9. x. 12. Gal. v. 15 al.f p ch. viii. 24. Luke xxi. 26. James y.1. Micah 

iii. 11. q pass., Luke ii. 24, iv. 12. ch. ii. 16. Rom. iv. 18. (act., ver. 34. Heb. i. 13. iy, 3, 4, 7.) 

rhere only. Has. i. 5. ii. 5. s = James iv. 14 (Matt. vi. 16, 19, 20) only. Jobiv.9. Hab. 1. c. (not 

in Heb.) t Matt. xxvi. 10||Mk. Johniii. 21. vi. 28. ix.4. 1 Cor. xvi.10. Ps. xliii. 1. Hab. l.c. 

38. vu. bef eo. AN. d: avrov Ed 65-7. 133 eth: d:a tovro B! 15-8. 34. 73. 


101-80. 


39. om cat ACN am(with fuld demid tol) eth-pl: ins BC3DELP rel vss Chr. 


aft ka: add wetavoia D (syr-w-ast has it aft auapriwy ver 38). 
rec ins Tw bef vou. (corrn: but the art is not needed 


A: ndvvnOnuev D-corr?-gr. 


eduynOnrte 


aft a preposition), with ELP rel Gc Thi: om A B(sic: see table) CDN h p 18. 40 
Chr. 


aft ev Toutw ins ovy D syr-mg. 


at end ins mapa @ew D 137 syr-mg. 


for Sicatovra, SixarwOnvar (but corrd) N}. 


40. areAOn NN). 


om ep vuas (as unnecessary? or because a difficulty was 


found in identifying vues with the ratappovnta of the citation ?) BDX 18. 36 am tol: 


ins ACEILP rel vss Chr. 
41. for 18., axovoate HE. 


Katadpovnocate XN}. 


ins Kat em:Brebare (from 


LXX) bef kat Oavuacatre Lo syr Chr Thi-fin; aft «. 0. E(but om xa) k 27-9. 57. 69. 


105-6. Oavpacere N1: -Cerec. 


aft Ist epyoy ins o &). rec eyw 


bef epya¢. (corrn to LXX), with CEILP rel 36 demid Chr: eyw epyaCowe eyo NR: txt 


ABD k p 18 vulg sah arm. 


om 2nd epyov DELP be df ghk1o tolsyrr eth- 
pl Chr Cosm (ce Thl-sif: ins ABCIN p rel vulg coptt eth-rom Thl-fin. 


rec @, 


with ce d h 1 36 Cosm Ce: txt ABCDEILPN® rel Chr Thl. 


ctvns: therefore he dwells on the apeors 
Guaptiay, merely just giving a glimpse of 
the great doctrine of justification, of which 
he had such wonderful things to write and 
to say. 39.] [And] from all things, 
from which ye could not in (under) the 
law of Moses be justified, in Him (as ev 
XpioTG, ev kupiw passim) every believer 
is (habitual pres.) justified. amd wavtev 
(a¢’) Gv, from all things (sins), from 
which . . . . but not implying that in the 
law of Moses there might be justification 
from some sins ;—under the law there is 
no justification (ev vdu@m oddels dixaodrar 
Tapa T@ Ge@, Gal. iii. 11) :—but = Christ 
shall do for you all, that the law could 
not do: leaving it for inference, or for fur- 
ther teaching, that this was absolutely 
ALL: that the law could do nothing. The 
same thought is expanded Rom. viii. 3, 4, 
7) yap advvatov Tov vduov, ev & Hobever 
dia THs capkds, 6 Oeds K.T.A..... tva Td 
Sixalwua 7. vduov wAnpwOH ev juiv. This 
interpretation will be the more clearly 
established, when we remember that &- 
Katovy ard GuwapTias was not in any sense, 
and could not be, the office of the law, by 
which came the knowledge of sin. The 
expression S:xka1odv ard is only once used 
again by Paul (ref.), and that where he is 
arguing against the continuing in sin. 


6 mortevwy is not to be joined with éy 
TovTw, Which (see above) is contrasted with 
ev vouw M. It is quite in Paul’s manner 
to use mas 6 moretbwy thus absolutely : 
see Rom. i. 16; iii. 22; x. 4 (Gal. iii. 22). 
Still less, with Luther, ean we take as far 
as d:xawOjva: with ver. 38, and make ey 
ToUT®.... dikaodTat a separate sentence. 

40.] The object of preaching the 
Gospel to the Jews first was for a testimony 
to them: its reception was almost uniformly 
unfavourable: and against such anticipated 
rejection he now warns them. TOUS 
ampod.| The book of the prophets: see 
ch. iti. 18, note. 41. xatadpovyrat | 
So the LXX for 03a, ‘ among the heathen,’ 
for which they seem to have read p13. So 
the Arabic, ‘videte arrogantes :’ and the 
Syriac, ‘videte transgressores.’ (Kuinoel.) 

The prophecy was spoken of the 
judgment to be inflicted by means of the 
Chaldeans : but neither this nor any other 
prophecy is confined in its application to 
the occasion of which it was once spoken, 
but gathers up under it all analogous pro- 
cedures of God’s providence : such repeated 
fulfilinents increasing in weight, and ap- 
proaching nearer and nearer to that last 
and great fulfilment of all the promises of 
grace and all the threats of wrath, by which 
every prophetic word shall be exhausted. 


152 TIPAREIS ATIOZTOAON. XIII. 


uace.,John xi. Ugregrevaonte eav Tis *exdinyntar vyiv. 42 ¥ E€wovtev 


26. 1 Cor. 


veh. xv, 3 only. XLadnOAvat avTois Ta pyuata Tava. 


w ch. xvii. 15. 
XX. 15 XXVil. 
43 only. 
Exod. xxviii. 


43 aXvOeions Se 
Ths osuvaywyns nKorovOncav Toddol Tov “lovdaiwy Kat 
Exo tov »ceBoudvwv °rposnditav To Ilavdk@ Kai T@ Bap- 
See , d of e D yTots emrevO) TOU 
xeonstt~ 4, vada, *oitwes © mposdadovvTes autos emetGov avTous 


al. see note. a , rn a rn 

y —Lukes.20. F mrposmevery TH ® xapiTe TOD Geod. 4 Th Te ” éyouerm 
C= © Se Y- _ \ A , - 
ister) caBBdatw ‘ayedov raca 1 Tous “ouvynyOn | aKodcar 

‘ A , 4 6 = ‘ id , r 

xai Zoro, Tov ™)oyov Tod ™OGeod. © idovtes 6é of “lovdatos tovs 
&é ie ” no 2 / op / ‘ q > / N r ig \ 
ees oxous éerAncOncav °? &yrNov, Kal YavTereyov Tols VITO 


TovTwy Bagtréwy, Jos. B. J. y. 4.2, also Apion, i. 21. @iAurmov ... Kat wetatv & "Ade~avépov Tov viov..., 
Plutarch. Inst. Lac. 42. a = here only$. Diod. Sic. xix. 25, €Auoe Thy exxAnatav, Polyb. v. 15. 3, 
Ave 7. Tvvovatav, b Acts (ver. 50. ch. xvi. 14. xvii. 4, 17. xviii. 7, 13. xix. 27) only, exc. Matt. 
xv. 9\| Mk. (from Isa. xxix. 13.) Josh. iv. 24. ce ch. ii. 10 reff. d ch. x. 41 reff. ech. 
xxviii. 20 only. Exod. iv. 16 AB2,. Wisd. xiii. 17 only. f = 1 Tim. v. 5 only. see ch. xi. 23 reff. g ch. 
xiv. 3. xv. ll. xviii. 27. xx. 24, 32. h = ch. xx. 15 reff. ich. xix. 26. Heb. ix. 22 only+. 2 Mace. 
y. 2 only. k = ch. iv. 5 reff. 1 constr., ch. xv. 6. xx. 7. see 2 Kings iil. 34. m ch. 
xi. 1 reff. n ch, iii. 10 reff. 7 p = Rom. xiii. 13. 1 Cor, iii. 3. James 


och. v.17. 
iii. 14,16. 1 Mace. viii. 16. q Luke xx. 27. L.P., exc. John xix. 12. Hos. iv. 4. 


exdinyerrac AL: -ynoeta D!. at end ins ka ecevrynoay D, k. eovynoev syr-w-ast. 
42. rec om avrwy, addg instead de ex THs cuvaywyns Twy tovdaiwy (supplementary, 
at beginning of an ecclesiastical portion; 98 has twv aroctohwy ek THS ovr. K.T.A.), 
with P rel: avtwy ex t. ovv. T. ovd. L Thi-fin: txt ABCDEIN a p 13. 36 vulg syrr 
coptt wth arm Chr Cassiod. om tapexadovy E; so B 81, insg nétouy bef AaAnOnvat. 
rec aft mapex. ins ta €6vn (added because it was considered necessary that 
this request should be ascribed to the Gentiles, on acct of the hostility of the Jews, 
ver 45), with LP rel Ee: om ABCDEIX ack o p 13. 36 vulg syrr copt 2th arm Chr 
Thl Cassiod. for wetatu, e&ns D. om ta D'(ins D5). om tavta P el. 
43. aft de ins avros X!(N3 disapproving). aft oeB. ins roy @eov E (syrr ?). 
om tw [bef Bapy.| DL. om autos (as unnecessary ?) ELP rel vulg 
Syr Ce Thl-sif: ins ABCDIN vss Chr Thl-fin a k p 36. (13 def.) emOovT. (emt- 
Bovre or -Oov7o?) I). rec emtuevery (perhaps corrn to avoid mposdadourTes . . 
mposuevev), With LP 13 rel Thl-sif: txt ABCDEN ¢ dk o p 36 Chr Thl-fin. (1?) 
at end ins eyeveto 5e xa oAns THs TOAEwS SLeADeELv TOV Aoyov Tov Beov D, so syr-mg, omg 
7.6. and putting an asterisk at d1eAGew; ey. de kata macay THY ToAL pnuroOnvat Aoy. E. 
44. rec for Te, de, with ACDN a b o p 13: om ewxth-rom: txt BELP rel 36 syrr xth-pl 
Chr Ee Thl: tore for rw re L. 59 Cie. (1?) rec epxouevw (alteration [so D (which 
every where alters exoua: in this sense) AN 69 in Lu xiii. 33}, the sense of exouevw not 
being perceived), with BC!DE2ILPX p rel 36 Chr: erepxouevw 3. 95: txt AC?E? 13. 
40 Syr. for maca, oAn D. for Bcov, kuvpiov AB?X a p 13. 36. 40 am fuld 
tol sah: txt B!CELP rel demid copt Chr. (I def.) —D has akovoa mavAouv modu TE 
Aovyov TOLNTAMEVOU TWEPL TOV KUPLOV. 
45. for iovres de, kat wovres D. 
rom. 


for Tous oxA., To TAnGos D (sah): om eth- 
aft rots ins Aoyors D'(and lat): Aoyots rors D® E Syr: om Ist rors D1, 


42.| The insertions in the rec. have ‘the following week.’ This last rendering 


been made (see var. readd.) partly perhaps 
to remove the ambiguity in adr@y, and to 
supply asubject to mapexddouv. But they 
confuse the sense. éEvovtwv avr., As 
they (the congregation) were going out, 
they (the same) besought. On the 
N.T. construction, rapexddouv AahnOAvat, 
i. e. the passive inf. after verbs of command- 
ing, exhorting, &e., see Buttmann, Gram- 
matik des N. T.-lichen Sprachgebrauchs, 
§ 141. 5, p. 236. He traces it to the in- 
fluence of the Latin jusere and the like. 
See, among his many examples, Mark vy. 
43 ; vi. 27; ch. v. 21; xxii. 24; xxv. 21. 

7d petaty oaB. appears, by the usage 
of Luke, to mean the next sabbath-day, not 


would hardly suit eis, which fixes a definite 
occasion,—nor ver. 44, which gives the 
result. The ref. to Josephus abundantly 
justifies this use of weratv. 43. v8. 
S¢ +. o.| After the breaking up of the 
synagogue. otties | Paul and Barna- 
bas; and adrois, to the Jews and prose- 
lytes : not vice versa, as Calvin inclines to 
believe; see a similar expression ch. xi. 23. 
There too, we have 7 xdpis Tod Beod simi- 
larly used of the work of the Gospel begun 
in the hearls of the converts. See also 
reff, 44.) Whether épy. or éx. be 
read, the sense will be on the following 
sabbath-day: not, as Heinrichs, ‘on the 
following week-day,’ ovvyxOn | ‘Zn 


ABCDE 

ILPNa 
bedfg 
hkloy 


13 


tov IJ. 

.BCDE 

Pa b 

dfgh 

klop 
13 


42—48, TIPABEIS AIIOSTOAQN. 153 
[rod] IlavAov Aeyouevors [IavTinéyovtes Kat] *Bra-* Wer," 

a , ~ 1 Pet. iv. 4. 
opnmovvres. 46 Scrappnovacdpevol te 6 Iladdos Kal 6 2Mae.x. 
BapvaBas cirrav “Tyiv iv tavayxatov mpdtov AadnOjvar * Bye? 

a a - a t = 2 Cor. 
Tov ™ oyov ToD ™ Geod* “ érrevdy SE’ aTwOeicOe adTov Kat 5, Pris. 
- li. 25 
ovx a&lous “ Kpivete EavTods * THS *aiwviou * Cwfs, ¥ Sod Her vii 
yY ° , 1 Cor. xii. 22. 
2oTpepoucla “eis Ta Orn. * obTwS yap * évTéTaATAL Tit ii 1d) 


a c s > a a = only: : 
nuiv o Kuptos » TéOexa ce eis “pas °eOvav, 4 Tod elvai 2Me-ix- 
a , f 2’ f2 , a a 48 2 Y uch. xv. 24 
ae °eis owtnplay ‘éws féayadtou THs yijs. GAKOVOVTG © seit 
x 


vy Rom. xi. 1, 


dé ta Ovn exyaipov Kai ® éddkalov Tov = AOyov ToD Kupiov, 2° 
15. xxvi. 8. 


Kat émiatevoay bao. Hoav © reTaypévot ‘eis Swnv ai@vior 


Rom. xiv. 5. 
Proy. xvii. 15. 


x John xvii. 3. 1 Tim. vi. 12 only. (see 1 John i. 2. ii, 25.) y ch. ii. 7 reff. z= here 
only. see ch. vii. 39. ach.i.2. John xiv. 31. perf., here only. = 1 Kings xxi 2. b Isa. 
xlix.6 AN, 1 Thess. v.9. 1 Tim.i.12. 1 Pet. ii. 8. e Luke ii, 32. d 1 Cor. x. 13 
reff. e = ver. 22 reff. fch. i. 8 reff. g 2 Thess. iii. 1 only. hy—chy 
xy. 2. Rom. xiii.1. 1Cor. xvi. 15. (w. mpds and a dat., 2 Mace. vi. 21.) i= Rey. xiii. 10. 


om tov (as unnecessary: but it has force here) ABN c: ins CDEILP 13. 36 
rel Chr ec Thi. AaAoumevois ABEN p 13: eipnuevors 64. 97 (the varr have 
perhaps been introduced from other similar exprr, such as ch xvi. 14, and ver 40): 
txt CDILP rel 36 Chr Ge Thl. om avTiA. rat ABCLN a de p 13. 36 Syr coptt 
zth arm: ins DIP rel syr Chr He Thl: evaytiomevor kar E (both the omission and the 
clumsy attempt in EK seem to be emendations of the apparent tautology avtedeyor . . 


avTtheyovTes). 
46. rappnoiacapevos D 105. 


vss Chr: om sah: fune vulg: txt ABCDN 0 p 36. 40 eth. 


Thl-sif. [erav, so ABDN p.] 
nv C0177: it is aft mpwr. in D. 


om avayk. D-gr. 


rec Se (as bringing out the contrast), with EILP 


om 2nd o Dc 68 
aft eum. ins mpos autous D. om 
for emetdn, emer C 


Orig,.—om 5e (from the two syll., -dnde, occurring together) BD'&! syr coptt Thl-sif : 


ins ACD?ELPN? p 13 rel vss Orig, Thdrt, Chr, Ge Thi,. 
eavtos B1(Tischdf: txt B-corr!-?). 

; otped. bef nues HE. 

47. evretaAkev D! e 47-marg Cyr Thdrt: evreAAera p. 

om 6 N!. 

gws (omg ets) TEA. oe D! Cypr. 


D? : judicastis D-lat. 
E vulg Thdrt,. 


D4) 57!: nyu. bef evr. 76. 95-7. 137. 

tjov DE Cypr. 

demid Aug. 
48. kot axovoyt. ra D Syr eth. 


exaipev (sic) Pefghlo. 
edetavto (corrn: see ch xi. 1) D Aug: edoéa¢ev P(appy) e g 97. 1772. 


Kpwate D!: kpiverau 
eaut. bef kpiy. 


om nuw D!-gr(txt 
aft o kup. ins (from LXX) 
Tos eOveory D am 


for ed0éa¢., 
for kupiov, 


Geov B D-gr E-gr copt Aug, : om 105 Chr,: 68 syrr eth have tov Oeoy for Tov A. Tov 
kv., and 34, Tov @eov Kat Tov A. Tov xu. (all corrns, or misunderstanding of corrns, 


from ch xi. 1): txt ACLP® p vulg D-lat E-lat. 


the synagogue ;’ it was the sight of the 
Gentile crowds in their house of prayer 
which stirred up the jealousy of the Jews. 

45. avr. kat | These words (see var. 
readd.) form a graphic repetition, passing 
from the particular thing which they did, 
viz. contradict the words spoken by Paul, 
to the spirit in which they did it, viz. a 
contradictious and blaspheming one. It is 
no Hebraism. 46. mpa@tov | See ch. iii. 
26; Rom. i. 16. 47.| Agreeing with 
LXX-AX, B reading d€dwxa for TéGeixa. 
They refer the ce not to themselves 
as teachers (as Meyer seems to think), 
but to Christ. 48. retaypévor| The 
meaning of this word must be determined 
by the context. The Jews had judged 
themselves unworthy of eternal life: the 
Gentiles, as many as were disposed to eter- 
nal life, believed. By whom so disposed, is 


awviayv B. 


not kere declared: nor need the word be 
in this place further particularized. We 
know, that itis Gop who worketh in us 
the will to believe, and that the prepara- 
tion of the heart is of Him: but to find zz 
this text pre-ordination to life asserted, is 
to force both the word and the context to 
a meaning which they do not contain. 
The key to the word here is the com- 
parison of ref. 1 Cor. eis Siakoviay tots 
aytois éragkav €avtovs, with ref. Rom. 
ai ovoa | etoucia:| td Tov Beovd TeTAy- 
pevat eioiv: in both of which places the 
agents are expressed, whereas here the 
word is absolute. See also ch. xx. 13. The 
principal interpretations are: (1) Calvin, 
&e., who find here predestination in the 
strongest sense : ‘ordinatio ista nonnisi ad 
zeternum Dei consilium potest referri’... 
‘ridiculum autem cavillum est referre hoc 


154 


here only. 
Ww isd. xViil. 


50 of 5é “lovdaioe 
Men b 

TAS 

4 émryyeipay © Stwypov 





1 Thess. iv. 
15 al. 
here only +. 
ver. 43 reff. 
b = Mark xy. 
43. ch. xvii. 
1 Cor. vii. > 4 \ 
yoni) TEKTLVAEAWEVOL TOV 
only. Prov. «4 > 9 , 
xi. 25. HAOov eis “LKovtov. 
(-ovws, 


1 Cor. xiv. 40, -oovvn, ch. xii. 23.) 
2, xxviii. 7, 17. d ch. xiv. 2 only. 
g Matt. vii.4. Mark xvi. 9only. 2 Chron. xi. 16 
only. Exod. viii. 
11. ch. xxii. 23 ae 
Rom. xy. 13, 14. 


Exod. ix. 9. 
xy. 11). 


49. ka diem. Da eth. 


13. 36 Syr sah arm Cassiod. 
om toy D. 


for A@., karnvncay D-gr: 
Syr eth. 


ad credentium affectum, quasi Evangelium 
receperint qui animis rite dispositi erant.’ 
So the Vulgate, ‘preordinati? and Aug. 
‘destinati. (2) ‘Qui juxta ordinem a Deo 
institutum dispositi erant’ (Franz, Calov.: 
but not Bengei [as De W.], who explains 
it as I have done above) : (8) Quibus, dum 
fidem doctrine habebant, certa erat vita 
beata’ (Morus, Kuinoel): (4) ‘Qui ad vitam 
zeternam se ordinarant’ (Grot., Limborch, 
Wolf, al.) : (5) ‘ Quotquot erant dispositi, 
applicati, i.e. apti facti oratione Pauli ad 
vitam et. adipiscendain’ (Bretschneider) : 

(6) taking tev. militari sensu, ‘ Qui de ag- 
mine et classe erant sperantium vel conten- 
dentium ad y. «. (Mede, and similarly 
Schéttg.) There are several other ren- 
derings, but so forced as to be mere eari- 
catures of exegesis: see Meyer. It may 
be worth while to protest against all at- 
tempts to join éericrevoay with «is (why 
aidvioy, which usage will not bear. Words- 
worth well observes that it would be in- 
teresting to enquire what influence such 
renderings as this of preordinati in the 
Vulgate version had on the minds of men 
like St. Augustine and his followers in the 
Western Church in treating the great ques- 
tions of free will, election, reprobation, and 
final perseverance: and on some writers in 
the reformed churches who, though re- 
jecting the authority of that version, were 


yet swayed by it away from the sense of 


the original here and in ch. ii. 47. The 
tendency of the Eastern Fathers, who read 
the original Greek, was, he remarks, in a 


IIPABEI> ATODTOAQON. 


evaynmovas Kal TOUS 
ért tov IladAov cai BapvaBav, 
kat § €&éBadov avtovs amo TOV 
K xovioptov Tov Today |ém avTovs 
52 of re waOnrat ™ émAnpodvTO yapas 


c = and constr., Ma si wi. 21. 
1 Kings iii. 12 al. 


i Matt. x. 4 || Mk. ch. xviii. 6 only. 
Luke ix. 5. 
2 Tim.i.4.L.P. Ps. lxxxii. 16. 


kad oAns AN ak 18. 73. 

50. mapwtpuvov D}-gr(txt D5): mapwtvvay p (Cc. 
(attempt at corrn, from misunderstanding), with ELPX? rel vss Chr: 

ins OAenbery weyarny kat bef diwy. D; OA. x. E. 
rec ins tov bef Bapy. (for uniformity), with P rel Ge 
Thl-sif: om ABCDEL® ack p 13 Chr Thl-fin. 

61. ins amo bef twy 70d. Ke d g 133-7 syr Thi-fin. 
with DELP vss Chr: om ABCXN ak p 13. 36 vulg syr arm. 
nrdev 133. 
52. rec for Te, de (corrn), with CDELPN p rel syr coptt Chr: 


XIII. 49—52. 


49 x Sueépeto 5€ 0 ¥ NOos Tod ¥ Kupiov Se’ SANs THS Yopas. 
“Tap@Tpuvay TAS 


4 geBomevas yuvaikas 
°a@pwTous THS Wows, Kal 


h6piwv aitav. *1 ot dé 


Luke xix. 47. ch. (xvii. 4) xxv. 
2 Cor. xii. 10 reff. f ch, viii. 1. 

h a3 Matt. (ii. 16 al5.) and Mark (vy. 17 al4.) 
Neh. y. 13. k Luke ix. 5 || Mt. x. 
m = Luke ii. 40. ch. ii. 28 (from Ps. 


rec ins xa bef tas evox. 
om ABCD? p 


om auvtey B. 

ree aft 7od. ins avtwy, 
for er, es E. 

ins To bef tx. E. 

txt AB 138. 36 vulg 


different direction from that of the Western 
School. 50. tas oeB. yuv. | Women 
had a strong religious influence both for 
and against Chr istianity: see for the former 
ch. xvi. 14; xvii. 4; Phil. iv.3; 1 Cor. vii. 
16: for the latter, compare *Josephus’s 
statement (B. J. ii. 20. 2), that the majority 
of the wives of the Damascenes were prose- 
lytes, with _ ix. 22—25. Strabo (vii. 3: 
C. and H. - p. 219). Says, &mavtes Tis 
Beicteeqeniee apxnyovs otovra TAS ‘yu- 
vaixas’ ovTat 5& Kal Tovs tydpas mpo- 
KkadovvTat mpds Tas el mA€ov Oepamecias 
Tay Gea@y kal Evpras Kal moTviacpous. 

These were proselytes of the gate, or at 
least inclined to Judaism. e&éBaov | 
Though the awp@ro ris méAews, at the 
instigation, probably, of their wives, were 
concerned, this seems to have been no legal 
expulsion : for we find them revisiting An- 
tioch on their return, ch. xiv. 21;—but only 
a compulsory retirement for peace, and 
their own safety’s sake. 51.] As com- 
manded by our Lord, Matt. x. 14, where 
see note. *Ikéviov| A populous city, 
east of Antioch in Pisidia, lying in a fertile 
plain at the foot of, and almost surrounded 
by, Mount Taurus. It is reckoned by 
Xenophon (Anab. i. 2. 19) as belonging 
to Phrygia,—by Strabo (xii. 568) and 
Cicero (ad Famil. xv. 4) to Lycaonia, 
of which it was practically the capital, 
—by Ammianns Marcellinus (xiv. 2) to 
Pisidia. At this time, it was the capital 
of a distinct territory, ruled by a tetrarch 
(Plin. N. H. v. 27), and probably on that 


Wie 1—8. IIPAEEIS ATIOSTOAON, 155 


kal mvevpatos ayiov. XIV. 1’ Eyéveto dé év “Tkovien »2orstt,ch. 


o \ \ aN > 6 a > \ > \ \ n_. ohere only. 

KaT& TO avTo eisehOeiv avrovs eis THY TUVaYywyiY TOV Exod xsi 
n ¢ fa) ’ soe Ings 

"lovdaiwy Kai Nadhoat? ovTws POste TicTEDoaL lovdaiwp | ii. 


p John iii. 16 


a ly. 
te kat “EXAnjvev morAvd TAOS. 2 of SE VarreOnoavTes 4 Joh ii. 36. 


rch. xiii. 50. 

8 ch. vii. 6 reff. 

t ch. viii. 11 
reff. 

u ch, xii. 19 
reff. 

v ch, ix. 27, 28 
reff, 


ch. xix. 9 
? na r2 s ate \ \ a 3 a Sh eae 
Tepeaios emnryetpav Kal cKaKooay Tas puxas Tey eOvav BER 
Kata TOV adedpav. 3*ixavov pev ody typovoy “ bi- , Ru: 


, Vv of la wa nN n , a x 
étpupav Y rappnovalopevos “emt TO Kupiw TO * pwaptv- 
A a , a / > a / lal 
poovts TO Y*oyw THs “xYapiTos avTOD, ” dvdovTe onNpeEta 
Ney =o? ! 3} ag \ a an XA 4e2 y f) 
Kat © Téepata yweolat “ ola THY YELPwWY AUTOV. EoX lOO reir 
: = ~ , aw V= Luke xviii. 
dé To TAHOos THS Todews, Kal ot pev fHoav far Tois % 2Cori 


. 9: ha 13 al. 
> , \ \ = ch. x. 43 
Tovdaiors, dé 5°O>s 8 *=eh 

z constr., ch. xiii. 26 reff, 


y ch. xx. 32. 
vii. 36 reff. 


ech. 
1 Mace. vi. 45, 


fovy Tos £ amooToXots. 


a= ch. xiii. 43 reff. b ch. ii. 4 reff. 
d ch. v. 12. xix. 11,26. Mark vi.2 al. 2 Chron. xxxiv. 14. 
f 1 Cor. xy. 10. see 2 Kings ii. 10. 


e 
ou 


e = ch. 
g = ver. 14. see note. 


xxiii. 7. 
Crap. XIV. 1. for avtous, avtoy (see xiii. 46) D-gr: om a. 
aft ovtws ins mpos avtous I: pref E, simly Syr. 
D: O@avuaca H, addg at end ka morevom. 
2. rec ameiBourtes (appy a corrn to the simpler and more usual pres part. Meyer 
believes that the pres has been altered to the aor to give the plup sense, but this is 
hardly likely), with ELP rel Chr: txt ABCN a o p 13. 36. 40 Thl-fin. for o1 de to 


emnyeipay, or Oe opXicuVaywyol TWY LoUd. Kat OL AaPXOVTES TNS TUVAaywyNS ETNYaYoV avToLs 


om Twy tovdaiwy XN), 
for morevoat, misrevey 


diwymov kata Twy dicaiwy D, simly syr-mg. 


at end ins 0 de Kupios cdwxey Taxu 


ezpnvnv D demid syr-mg Cassiod; 0 Se kup. eipnyny emoinoey E. 


3. dveTpiBoy A. 
pevor D. 


aft dcerp. ins exer H Syr syr-w-ob. 
ins emt bef tw Aoyw A N1(NF disapproving). 


diaTpewWavTes Tapyoiaca- 
rec ins ka: bef 5:8., 


with CLab p eth Thl: om ABDEP(®) 18. 36 rel vulg Syr copt Chr (c.—didovtos &. 


for avtwy, avtov D}(but corrd). 
4. ny Se ecxiopevoy D. 


for ot de, aAAo. Se D. 


at end ins KkvuAA@pevor Sia 


Tov Noyov Tov Geov D syr-mg; KoAA@pevor(alone) Syr. 


account is not reckoned to any of the above- 
mentioned districts. It became famous in 
the middle ages as the capital of the Sel- 
jukian Sultans, and had a great part in 
the growth of the Ottoman empire. 
now Konia, a town of 30,000 inhabitants. 
(Winer, Realw.; C. and H. i. pp. 220, f.) 

32. | See, for similar “joyful per- 
orations,” as Wordsworth well designates 
them, Luke xxiv. 52; ch. v. 41; xii. 
24. 

Cuap. XIV. 1.] kata Td aid, toge- 
ther (reff.): 6uod, Hesych.: not, ‘in the 
same manner, as Wolf and others. 
oUTws @ste, as in EK. V.; not éyévero.... 
éste..., as Vater. ‘EAAjvev | Pro- 
bably here these are the oeBduevor toby 
Gedy, those of the uncircumcised who were 
more or less attached to the Jewish religion. 

2.] The past part. indicates who be- 
lieved not, viz. when Paul preached. 
éxdkwoav, ‘male affecerunt,’—kakolpyws 
d:eOqjxav, Chrys. So Jos. Antt. xvi. 1. 2, 
Kakovv,....Kal THs evvolas fs clxev els 
Tovs Taldas apaipetv. Ver. 3 gives the 
sequel of ver. 1,—ver. 4, of ver. 2. The 
Mev ovv, as usual (see ch. xi. 19), takes up 
the narrative which had been interrupted. 


It is 


8. wopp. émt +. kup.] A pregnant 
construction :—‘ speaking with boldness, 
which boldness was grounded on confidence 
in the Lord.’ T@ Kuptw is GOD: see 
ch. iv. 29, 30, and ch. xx. 32, 7 06 Kk. TG 
Aoyw THS XapiTos avrod. Siddvett, 
without «al, defines waptupodyti: viz. by 
giving, &c. 4.] So Virg. Ann. ii. 39, 
‘Scinditur incertum studia in contraria 
vulgus.’ Such a split into two factions was 
a common occurrence, on far less important 
occasions, in these cities of Oriental Greeks. 
(C. and H. i. p. 228.) TOS atrocTo- 
hos] This is the first place where Paul 
and Barnabas are so called. St. Paul 
constantly vindicates the title in his 
Epistles : cf. Rom. i.1; 1 Cor.i.1; ix. 1; 
XV-.9)5.4) Corgi. 154Gal.. i..0 s \Col. ites 
1 Tim.i.1; 2 Tim. i. 1; Tit.i.1. Itseems 
to have been borne in this higher sense 
also by James the Lord’s brother: see 
Gal. i. 19, and note, and the prolegg. to 
the Epistle of James: and by Barnabas, 
here and in 1 Cor. ix. 5, 6: see also Gal. 
il. 9. So that there were, widening the 
word beyond the Twelve, fifteen Apostles, 
usually so cailed. The word was also used 
in a still wider sense: see Rom. xvi. 7; 


156 


h James iii. 4 
only. Proy. 
iii. 25. 

(- -mav, ch. 
vii. 57.) 

i Matt. xxii. 6. 
Luke xi. 45. 
XVill, 32, 

1 Thess. ii. 
only. 2 King gs 
xix. 43. 

k ch. vii. 58 reff. 

1 ch. xii. 12 reff. 

m Heb. vi. 18 
only. Gen. 
xix. 20. 

n Matt. iii. 5 al. 


ryerrfopevoe P 7 oay. 


Gen. xiii. 10. 
‘ yp Hom TepieTaTnoer. 
y. 20 reff. 
p pants ch. os 


xxii. 29 reff. 
. (viii. 
is 7 


v. (L uke xviii. 27 al.) Joel iii. 10. 

s Matt. xix. 12. Lukei. 15. ch. iii. 2. Gal. i. 15. 

u pres., ch. xvi. 38 reff. v Matt. xxi. 21. 
li. i, &e. 


344.4. a. 


5. om re D 133 sah Chr. 

6. ins cat bef cated. D?. 
D}, simly ver 11. 
DE: pref vulg. 


x = ch. iy. 9 al. 


TIPAZEIS ATIOSTOAQN. 


3 , h € ‘\ lal > lal \ 
eyévero ™ dpun tov éeOvav Te Kal 
dpyovow avtav, 'UBpicar Kat * ALGoBodjcat avTovs, 
6 l 86 m , ? \ f a A / 
ovvioovtes ™ Katéduyov eis Tas TONES THS AvKaovias 
votpav Kat AépBnv kat tTHv ™ Teptywpov, 7 KaKel ° evay- 


| eed / > lal \ > \ oe uv v 
QATEVLOaS aAvUT@ Kat ltlo@V OTL EXEL 
nr ° Ag an? / > \ \ 
* cwOfvat, 1 eirev ¥ weyadyn ¥ THY hovyn ’Avaorn@r eri Tous 
r absol., Matt. xxvii. 36. 
Ps. xxi. 10. lxx. 6. 
Mark iv. 40. xi. 22. Rom. xiv. 22. 
w constr., Luke xxii. 6. ch. xx. 3. 
y ch. xxvi. 
ins twy bef covd. D. 
aft kate. ins ot arooroAa C3 40 Thi. 
ins es bef Avar. C!D-corr. : 


XIV. 


8 Kai tis avnp év Avotpois 4% advvatos Tots Toow 
* éxdOnro yoros Séx Koldias pnTpos avTov, Os OvOETFOTE ...« 
9 oftos HKovev ToD IlavAov AadovvTOS 


Yoriaotw “ Tov 


Luke v.17. John ix. 8. 
t constr., ch. iii. 12 reff. 
. 1Tim.i. 19. James 

1 Pet. iv. 17. Winer, 


Mark y. 15. 


1 Cor. viii. 
Rom. xv. 23. 1 Cor. ix. (6,] 10. 
24 only. Prov. xxvi. 25. 
avtous bef x. Aid. E. 
AvKa@vias 


kat d. aft meptx. ins oAnv 


7. rec noay bef evay., with CEHLP rel Chr @e Thi: txt AB D-gr & 36 ¢ p 13. 
at end ins ka exervnOn oAov To TAGs em TH Hidax7N: 0 Se 7. Kat B. SteTpiBov ev AvaTpois 
D; tov Aoyov Tov Beov' Kat ekemANTOETO Taga yn TWOAUTANOALa ETL TH 5:5. avtwy* o de mr. 


K. B. dierp. ev A. E vulg-sixt. 

8. advy. bef ev A. BN!: 
ins ts bef untp. D?. 
with HLP rel Chr 


exa, bef aduy. D. 137: om ev A. DE. 
rec aft avrov ins urapxwy (interpolated from ch iii. 2), 
:om ABCDEX® c p 13.36. 


om xa. D. 


elz mepremematnxer (see note), with 57. 


73-6-8. 80. 95-6 Thl-sif: Steph wepimerarnKe:, with DEHLP rel Chr: rerarnee: 137: 


txt ABCR a p 13. 36. 
9. aft ovros ins ovk &. 


nroveev (alteration to suit the other aorists, the force 


of theimperf being overlooked : see note) ADEHLN b ce p 18. 36 syr: txt BCP rel sah 


(Ec. for AaA., AeyovTos XN}. 
avtw o. 7. D: mpos ov at. o. m. K. 


ABCD®& ak p 13 am demid fuld sah. 


10. om 77 (as unnecessary, its force being overlooked) BCD'8 k p: 
aft pwn ins cor Aeyw ev Tw OvVOMaTt TOU KUpLoU ina. xp. (interpolation from 


rel. 


aft Aad. ins umapxwy ev poBw D. 
rec mot. bef ex., with EHLP rel Chr: 


atrevioas Se 


txt 
ins ADSEHLP 


chiii.6) CDE a 0 13 vss Thl-fin (om rw, and aft «cup. ins nuwy E): om ABHLPR p rel 


2 Cor. viii. 23; 1 Thess. ii. 6: in which 
latter place Silvanus and Timotheus seem 
to be included in it. 5. | éppy is 
not a rush (‘ impetus,’ Vulg.: ‘assault,’ 
E. V.), but as Hesych. Bovan, émbvula,— 
as is manifest from ovmddyres, rightly 
rendered in E. V. they were ware of it; 
which it would be strange if they were not, 
if an assault had been made on them. 

6. Avotpav| 7a A. also, ver. 8. 
This, as well as Derbe (of both which very 
little further is known), was probably a 
small town at the foot of the singular 
mountain-mass known as the Kara-dagh, or 
black mountain, Lystra being 8 , and Derbe 
S.E. from Iconium. The sites are very un- 
certain. ‘There are the ruins of about forty 
Christian churches on the north side of the 
Kara-dagh, at a place called by the Turks 
Bin-bir-Kilisseh (the 1001 churches), which 
the most recent travellers believe may be 
Lystra (C. and H. i. pp. 225 ff). In one of 
these places (probably at Lystra, see note, 


ch. xvi. 1) Paul found and took up Timothy 
on his second journey ; and from réxvoy, 
1 Cor. iv. 17, compared with warjp, as de- 
fined ib. ver. 15, we are justified in con- 
cluding that he had been converted by the 
Apostle; and, if so, during this visit. 
There appear to have been few Jews in the 
district : we hear of no synagogue. 
Avkaovias | Strabo describes Lycaonia (xii. 
6) as a hilly plain among the mountain- 
spurs of Taurus, very ill watered, cold and 
bare, but exceedingly adapted for sheep- 
pasture and the growth of wool. 

8. éxadyto| Not ‘dwelt, as Kuin., but 
sat, probably in the forum or some place 
of resort. mepterratynoev is the his- 
toric past: who never walked. The plu- 
perfect seeming more apt, it has been 
altered in the later Mss. accordingly. 
Meyer supposes the alteration to have been 
the other way, from ‘the constant pre- 
ference which the Greeks gave in narration 
to the aorist over the plusq. perf.:” but 


*Tovdalwy avy Tots Al 


be 
h 


1 


6—13. 


Todas cou * opOds. 


O@parros “xatéBnoav Tpos Has. 


a a 5 s 
vaBav Alia, tov dé Iladdov ‘Epp, © érevdn autos av 
136 Te & tepevs tov Avws Tod * 
™po Ths TWorAEws Tavpovs Kal ioréupata él a Mati xxviii. 


ec 

0 ‘apyoupevos TOU RoOyou. 

ovtos © 
e ch. xv. 24 reff. 


méAews, Asch. Theb. 162 (Dind.). 


vulg syr-txt copt «th Chr We Thi-sif. 
mare. D syr-mg. 
D syr-mg. 


IIPASEIS AIOZTOAQN, 


\ a (4 \ , 
Kat *nNATO KAL TEPLETTATEL. 
/ a rn an \ 
dydoe idovTes 5 Erroincev Iladros » errppav Tiv ” daviy 
hm A \ , € Vang e Oé > 
avtav AvKaovictt Réyovtes Oi Oeoi © opowwOéevTes av- 


f= here only. Dan. xi. 22 Theod. 
init. g of false gods, here only, 4 Kings xi, 18. 


157 


Y z = here (Heb. 
i Ol TE xii. 13, from 
Prov. iv. 26) 


coe Mark 


3 ‘Kings xxi. 

(xx.) Il. 

ch. ili. 8. 

John iv. 14 

only. Isa. 

xxxv. 6. 

i ch. ii. 14 reff. 
= Rom. ix. 
29 from Isa. 


12 éxanovuv Te Tov Bap- * 


0 TOV Adywv Hyer, Tamblich, de Myster. 
h ch. xii. 6, 14, avago’ "Oya. mpd 


ihere only+. Zech. vi, 11 alii (Tromm.). 


op§ws E-gr HP Thl-sif: add kat wepi- 


aft Ist ka: ins tapaxpnua E vss(not syr) ; evdews mapaxpnua 
rec nAAeTo (alteration to suit the imperf repiemarer), with LP 13 rel syr 


Thi, nAero H: avndAato D!, avnAdato D3: efnAdaro KE: txt ABCN vulg(ewilivit et 


ambulabat) Chr. 


Chr: txt ABN 36. 40 Syr eth. 
ABCDER® ¢ 13 Chr. om tnv D. 
Dil: avOpwmot(sic) XN}. 
12. for re, de Da b g 40 Chr. 
de), with B(sic: 
vulg.—om roy also D. 
om o C!D, 


om 2nd ka B}(ins B}-corr, see table). 
11. ree Se (alteration from the characteristic re), with CDKHLP 


p rel 13 vss 


rec ins o bef ravdos, with HLP p rel: om 


om autwy XN}. ins Tors bef avép. 


rec aft Ist Tov ins pev (fo answer to the follg 
see table) C3EHLP 13 rel syr copt Cyr-c Chr: 
diav DEHL P-corr o p 40. 


om AC!(D)& p 36 
for emedy, ewer Nk. 


13. rec for te, 5e, with DEHLP rel syr coptt Ge Thl: txt ABCN 36. 40 vulg eth 


Chr—rore o p lect-12: tore C!, but re is erased.—or de tepers . . 
om tns D!: 
avtwy, with C3EHLP rel syr Chr: om ABC!DN a p 13. 36 vulg coptt. 


D 96. tov ovtos 6. D c 137. 


ins avtos D: aft oreu., EK 137. 
qu. ? 9.] The imperfect jKovev is 
important. He was listening to Paul’s 
preaching, and, while listening, his coun- 
tenance, read by the Apostle’s gift of spi- 
ritual discernment, gave token of faith to 
be healed. atev. avt.] See note on 
ch, xiii. 9. 10. pey. TH >.] Raising 
his voice above the tone in which he was 
before speaking. The article is important. 
ll. Avxaovioti| The nature of this 
dialect is uncertain: its existence is further 
mentioned by Steph. Byzant., cf. 77 Tav 
Avxadvay pwr7, in note on ver. 20. The 
notice is inserted to shew that the Apostles 
had no knowledge of the inference drawn 
by the crowd, till they saw the bulls being 
brought to their doors, ver. 13. So Chry- 
sostom: ovk jv TodTO ovdémw SiAov- TH 
yap oixela pwvn epOeyyovto, AéyorTes 
K.T.A. 81a TovTo ovdéy avTois ~reyor 
[meaning, “for this reason they, the Ly- 
caonians, spoke unintelligibly to the Apos- 
tles:” €Aeyoy taking up the AéyovTes. 
Wordsw. has, in his ardour to vindicate 
Chrysostom from heterodoxy, fallen into 
the mistake of rendering, “therefore the 
Apostles said nothing to them ”’]- ée1d 5¢ 
eldov Ta oTéumata, oére ekeAOdvTes K.T.A. 
Hom. xxx., p. 235 f. See, on the real na- 
ture of the gift of tongues, and the bearing 
of notices of this kind on its consideration, 


eveykKavtes . . nOedov 
rec aft oA. ins 
aft Taup. 


ins D3, 


the note on ch. ii. 4. These éemipdverat 
of the gods are frequent subjects of heathen 
poetry and mythology. Hom. Od. p. 484, 
says, Kal Te Oeol elvoirww eoukdTes a&AXO- 
damoto. Maytoto: TeAeOovTes emictpwhact 
modnas. It was in the neighbouring 
country of Phrygia that Jupiter and Mer- 
cury were said to have wandered, and to 
have been entertained by Baucis and Phile- 
mon: ‘Jupiter huc, specie mortali, cum- 
que parente Venit Atlantiades positis ca- 
ducifer alis” (Ov. Met. viii. ae f.) Dio 
Chrysostom (Orat. XXXlil. p. 408) says, 
paar TovsS oiKioTas Tipwas a Oeovs moA- 
Adkis emiorpéperOar Tas avTa@y médAets. 
(From Mr. Humphry’s note.) 12. | 
This distinction is (besides the reason 
given) in accordance with what Paul him- 
self cites (as the saying of his adversaries, 
it is true, but not therefore without some 
physical foundation), 7 mtapovoia tod od- 
baros acOevns. So Chrysostom, éuol Sore? 
kal amd tis wWews akiompenys elvar 6 
BapvaBas, Hom. xxx., 237. 

Hyoupevos tov Adyov] So Iamblichus, 
of Hermes, in reff.: ‘vocis et sermonis 
potens,’ Macrob. Saturn. i. 8: Adyou mpo- 
gntns, Orph. H. xxvii. 4: AaAlotatos k. 
Aoyiétaros OeGyv amdytwy, Lucian, Gal- 
lus, 2 13.] mpd rT. w. (see reff.) ; i.e. 
of Zebs mpémvdAos: no ellipsis of fepov or 


158 XIV. 


Ne 
reff. 
= and constr. 
w. inf. pres., 
John xvi. 19. 
Luke x. 29. 
ch. xvii. 18. 

m = Mark xiv. 

1 Cor. 


TIPABEIS AIIOZTOAON. 


Tovs *arud@vas évéyxas abv Tois dydous 1HOedev ™ Ove. 


3 , fal 
P SiappnEavtes Ta Ciuatia avTav % éEerndnoay eis Tov 
Y r 
dydov “Kpafovtes 15 Kal *réyovtes “Avdpes, Ti TabTa 
tal \ fal lal rn A 
TOULTE ; Kab Hels “OpovoTrabe’s eopev buiv avOpwrrot, 
3 [ / lal lal 
Y evayyertGouevot Uuas “ aro TOUT@Y TOV * waTtalwv YY ére- 
otpéepew » eri *Oeov * fava, Os *éroincev Tov * ovpavov 
\ \ nr \ / i. 
Kal THY *yhv Kal THY *OadXaccay Kal TavTa Ta év avTots, 
a a a \ 
16 Os é€v tats » rapwmynuévas “yeveais elacev TavTa Ta 
€Ovn °% tropevecO is ©od0ts avtav, 17 ! Kal y 
” peverBar Tails * od0ls avTav, Kaltovye ovK 
g > / c \ h2 nr i? lal k > , c na 
apaptupov éautov » apjxev | wyaboupyar, * ovpavobev bpiv 


only. (ch. x, 
13 reff.) 
Exod. xxiii. 
18 B. 

n ver. 4. 

o Matt. xxvi. 
65. Josh. 
vii. 6. 

p as above (0). 
Mark xiv, 63. 
Luke v. 6. 
viii. 29 only. 

q here only. 
Deut. xxiii. 
22. 


r Judith xiv. 


iN fal 1s \ 8 5 \ \ om Nery , 02 n 
8 pee melee VETOUS toovusg Kab KQALPOUS KapTropopous, ELTUT NOV 
ch, xvi. 17. 
ix 98 g a \ > / \ f c lal \ 
xix 28al. Prpopys Kal Tevppocvvns tas Kapdias tuov. 18 Kat 
u James vy. 17 : : E : 
only+. Wisd. vii. 3 only. v constr., ch. xvi. 10. Gal.i.9. 1 Pet. i. 12. w ch. xxvi. 18. 1 Thess. 
i. 9. x = here only. (1 Cor. iii. 20 reff.) Levit, xvii. 7. Isa. ii. 20 al. y ch. xxvi. 20 
reff. zsee note. 1 Kings xvii. 26 A(B def.). a ch. iv. 24 reff. b here 
only +. Xen. Anab. ii. 4. 1, end. ce = ch. xiii. 36 reff. d constr., ch. ix. 31 reff. e = Luke 
i. 79. ch. ii. 28. Proy. i. 31. f John iv. 2 (ch. xvii. 27 v. r.) only. Xen. Mem. i. 2. 3. g here 
only+. ov €otuv dé aaprupov 70 meyefos T. TpoetpyuevwY XpnLaTwY, Jos. Antt. xiv. 7. 2. h = Matt. 
iii. 15. Heb. ii. 8. Ezek. xvi. 39. il Tim. vi. 18 only t+. k ch, xxvi. 13 only+. Eéschin. 
p. 73. 5, from Hesiod. 1 ch, xxviii. 2. Heb. vi. 7. James v.18, Rey. xi.6 only. Deut. xi. 14. Job 
y.10. Ep. Jer. 53. m = here only. Tous Katpots ELKwY, Polyb. iii. 9. 7. n here only. Ps. 
evi. 34. exlviii. 9. Jer. ii. 21 only. (-petv, Rom. vii. 4, 5.) o here only. Ps. cii. 5. exliv, 16. see Rom, 


xv. 24. p ch. ix.19al. fr. Ps. exxxyv. 25. q ch, ii. 28 only. Isa. xxix. 19. 
nocdov H.1 p tol Thi-sif, so also D (see above). emudvery D. 

14. axovoas de omg (so Syr) oc aw. D. [InN the as of BapyaBas is supplied perhaps 
by corr?. | eautwy ABN? 13. 36: txt CDEHLPN! p rel Chr Ge Thl. aft aur. 
ins kat D!. rec ewsemndnoay (corrn to suit ets Tr. oxAov), with C3HLP rel Thl- 
fin: txt ABC’DENacp 15. 36 vulgsyrr sah arm Chr Thl-sif-comm. for es, em C. 

15. for Aeyovres, pwvovrtes D?. ins et (ers?) bef 71 A’. om 2nd ka D. 

vuw bef ecu. C. 38. 93.:113 Chr; om vu. H ¢ 137: aft avép. 13. for vuas, 
vuw tov Geov D flor Iren-int. emioTpewnrte, insg omws bef amo, D flor Iren-int : 
emioTpepnte, insg wa bef azo, E. rec tov 0. tov ¢. (alteration for more precision : 
see note), with HLP rel Chr: tov @. ¢. D!: 0. roy ¢. 8!: txt ABC D-corr EX’ ak p 
13. 40 Ath 'Thdrt. Tov twonocavtTa I). 

16. for os, o D. for mavta, kata D!. 

17. carrot ABCR? a p! 13 coptt Ath: xavye DE (probably corrections : the ye or the 
to being deemed unnecessary): txt C3HLPR?! p? rel 36 Chr Thdrt Ge Thi. for 
eaut., avrov ABER! c: txt CDHLPN? 13 rel Ath Chr Thdrt.—agnk. bef eavr. D. 
rec ayabotrowy (altern to more usual word), with DELP rel Chr Thdrt: ayalorwy H: 
txt ABCN Ath. rec nu, with a: om AN? p 13 vulg eth Iren-2-mss: avrais 
Syr sah Leo: txt BCDEHLPRN!? rel flor spee syr Ath Thdrt Thl Iren. 5:5. bef ver. 
AX p 18. 73 lect-12 vulg wth Iren-int-2-mss. eumiprawy DE. om tas D} 
(ins aft Kapdias D®). rec nuwy (corrn, the assertion seeming to be of general 
application to the speaker as well as his hearers), with AHLPN® 13 rel copt 2th Chr 
Leo: avtwy Syr sah: txt BCDEN' b ¢ fk 10 p am(and demid flor fuld tol) spee syr 
Ath Thdrt Thl-sif Iren. 


any thing else. Tavpous K. OTE}L- 
para] Not for tavpovs éoreuuévous: the 
garlands may have been to hang on the 
doors of the house where the Apostles 
were: or for manifold purposes connected 
with the sacrifice. ‘Ips denique fores, 
ips hostiz, ipsa are, ipsi ministri et sacer- 
dotes eorum coronantur.’ Wetst. TOUS 
mvdovas are not the gates of the city, 
but the doors of the outer court of the 
house: see ch. xii. 13. 14. ot aré- 
orodor| See note on ver. 4. The Apos- 


tles were within: on being told, they 
étenhdnoav—rushed forth, into the crowd. 

15. patatwy | viz. Gea : the words 
of ref. 1 Thess. érearpévare mpds roy Oedy 
amd tev eidéAwy, are remarkably like 
these. Oeov Cavra, without the 
articles, is characteristic of Paul: see Rom. 
ix. 26; 2 Cor. iii. 3; vi. 16; 1 Thess.1. 9; 
1 Tim. iii. 15; iv. 10 al. It also oceurs 
Heb. iii. 12; ix. 14; x. 81; xil. 22; Rey. 
vii. 2. 16.] Compare Rom. iii. 25, 26, 
and ch. xvii. 30. 17.) Compare Rom. 


ABCD 
LPR. 


14 Axovcavtes 5€ of “amoatoko Bapyadfas Kat Iaddos vet g 


klor 
13 


Mm ovpa 
voder... 
ABCD 
HLPR 
befg 
klme 
p 13 


14—20. TIPABEIS .AIIOSTOAON. 159 


TavTa éyovTes * words SKatémavoay Tos dydous tTODT HBT 

pn “Ovew adtois. 19 Y’ErhiOav 5€ amo ’Avtioxeias Kai iy. (rom 

*Ixoviov “lovdaior, cai weicavtes Tov’s dxyAous Kal Age, oni 

Gacavtes tov Iladdov *éoupov ¥ gw THs TodEwS, Voml- OSS? Ps” 

fovtes avtov teOvnkévar. 29° *KuKXN@TaVT@Y 5é TOV Ma- 

Ontav avtov *avaotas eishdAOev els THY TOALY, Kal 

>7h émavpioy °é—nAOev oly TH BapvaBa ‘eis AépBnv. «Kom x32 
See Sealant latin gram) etckoath Wiieh. cel 05 oe 


xili. 20. z = John x, 24 (Luke xxi. 20. Heb. xi. 30. Rey. xx. 9) only. 2 Chron. xxiii. 7. 
a = ch. ix. 6 reff. e ch. xi. 25 reff. 


iv«G. Res 
Ixxxiv. 3. 
intrans., 
Heb. iv. 4 
(from Gen. ii. 
2), 10 only. 

t ch. xx. 20, 27. 


b ch. x. 9 reff. 


18. poyis D coptt. katetavoaytTo Cl, at end ins aA\Aa mopever Oa exacrov 
es Ta 11a C ik m p 13. 36 syr-mg arm. 

19. at beg ins d:arpiBovtwy de (so D2: om de D!) avrwy kat d:dackovtwy, omg be follg, 
DEabfk mop 13. 36. 40 syr-mg; so, but om «ca, C; and, but om didackovTwr, 
arm Cassiod. [emnAbay, so ABN p. | Tives tovd. am. txov. K. avT. D, Tw. ar. 
a. K. t. covd. E vulg Cassiod: o: am. avt. kK. ik. kat tovdato 15-8. 180. for 
meoavtes, emiceroaytes D Syr: om 2nd ka D-corr. Kat dtaAeyouevov avTwy 
Tappnola eweloay T. OXA. atooTnvat am(om al) avtwy AeyovTes oT ovdev arnOes Acyoucw 
ah\Aa Tavta WevdovTrar Cakm p syr-mg(adding ka: emtoeroaytes Tovs oxAovs) arm. 

AtOoBoAnoartes A 15-8. 36. 180. om egw Xl. rec vou.icayTes, with 
CEHLP rel 36 Chr ec Thi: txt ABDN p 13. 40. rec TeOvava (corrn: the 
contracted form was the more common: so Meyer), with DEHLP rel Chr @e Thi: 
txt ABCN a k p 18. 36.—reOv. bef avr. D. 

20. kukAwoartes D}(txt D?). rec aut. bef rT. uad., with EHLP: 7. wad. avtov 
(see chix. 25) D\(and lat): txt ABCD§N c h k m? p 13 Chr.—avrewy L.—E adds avrov. 


ins Avotpay bef moAw D. om oA to moAw next ver (homeotel) &}. 
for n, Tnv D2. 


i. 19, 20. The words ovpavobev berovs 5:- 
dovs had a remarkable applicability in a 
country where we have seen from Strabo 
(on ver. 6) that there was great scarcity of 
water. He relates that in one city of 
Lycaonia, where water was reached by 
digging the wells very deep, it was sold for 
money. The idea of Mr. Humphry, that 
the conclusion of this speech is a citation 
Jrom some lyric poet, seems improbable on 
other accounts, and is rendered more so by 
the above-noticed propriety. 19. qet- 
Gaytes TOUS OXA.| Brora yap AvKdoves, 
@s kal” ApiorotéAns paptupe:. Schol. on 
Homer, Il. 5. 88, 92. They stoned him, 
not in the Jewish method, but tumultuously 
and in the streets, dragging him out of the 
city afterwards. He refers to this 
stoning, 2 Cor. xi. 25, Gat éAddoOnv. 

20.| xvKX., not to bury him, but, as would 
naturally be the case, 7x mournful anxiety 
and regret. avaotas| The prima 
facie, and I think the right impression is, 
that this recovery was supernatural. It is 
not indeed so strongly implied, as to leave 
no doubt: especially as a blow from a stone 
would be likely to stun and occasion the 
appearance of death. AépByv] See 
above, on ver. 6. Strabo, xii.6, says of it, 
ths 8 7loavpicjs eotiw ey mAevpais 7 
AépBn, pddiota TH Kamrmadorig émime- 


avy is written by D8, D! has perished. 


2 ~ > a a a 
gpukds, To TOU *Avtimdtpov Tupavvetoy Tov 


AepBitov (cf. Cicero, Epp. xiii. 73, ‘Cum 
Antipatro Derbete mihi non solum hospi- 
tium verum etiam summa _familiaritas 
intercedit’) .. . é¢? jua@y b€ kal Ta “Ioavpa 
k. Tv AépBnyv *Autytas eixev, émibéuevos 
7@ AepBntn, k. aveAwy adtéy. And Ste- 
phanus Byzantinus, A€pBy Ppovpiov *Ioav- 
plas kat Any (for this, evidently an error, 
the French translators of Strabo propose 
to read Aiuvyn. There is a large lake, now 
called Ak G6l, near the presumed site of 
Derbe, see C. and H. i. 239)... . rwes 5€ 
AéABeiav, 6 éott TH TOY AvKadvev pwri 
&prevdos. (Wetst.) From this variety of 
the name, AéABea, Mr. Hamilton thought 
the modern Divlé might be Derbe. Mr. 
Lewin (i. 167) objects, that there is no lake 
near Divlé: but this objection only affects 
the conjectural emendation mentioned 
above. From Derbe not being enumerated, 
2 Tim. iii. 11, with Antioch, Iconium, and 
Lystra, as the scene of any of Paul’s suffer- 
ings, we may perhaps infer that none befell 
him there. They may have fled to 
Derbe, as being in a different jurisdiction 
from Lystra; the latter being comprised 
in the Roman province of Galatia, whereas 
Derbe seems to have belonged at this time 
to Antiochus, king of Commagene. See 
Lewin, i. p. 168; Strabo, xiv. 5; Dio, lix. 


160 


d constr., ch. 
viii. 25 reff. 

e trans., Matt. 
xiii, 52. 
(xxvii. 57 
intr.) xxviii. 
19 only +. 

PC. xu ie 
reff. 

g ch. viii, 25 
reff. 

h (=) ch. xv. 
2 41 only ¢. 


, , A , 
Ixkoviovy Kal eis 


yuxas Tov pabntov, 


TIPABEIS ATIOZTOAON. 


* AvTwoyetar, 


XIV. 21—28. 


/ \ A 

21 4 eYayyehucdpevol Te THY TOAW exeivnV Kai © waOnTEv- 
, \ , 

cavtes ‘ixavods *bméctpeyav eis tHv Avotpay Kat els 


2 hémiotnpivovtes Tas 


i kee - Ga 
TAPAKANOVVTES bi sich 7H 


miater, Kal bre ™ Sia ToArX@V OAtrpewv ® Set Huas ™° Eis- 


vkinee i) EXOErD els THY P Bacirelav TOD ? Oeod. 23 4 XevpotovyicavTes 


i = ch. xi. 23. 
xiii. 42 al. fr. 
k constr., here 


ly. Jer. li. a 
“iv. “peta Y ynoTE@v 


Sir, xxviii. 6. 
Tots vOmots 
é€upevar, 
Xen. Mem. 
iv. 4. 4. 
= (but with 
év) Gal. iii. 
10, from 
Deut. xxvii. 26. Heb. viii. 9 (ch. xxviii. 30) only. 
xvill. 25. John x. 2,9. Rom. vy. 12. 
y. 20. Mark x. 23. Johniii.5al. Paul, never. 
r = ch. xv. 21 reff. s = ch. xi. 30 reff 
v 2 Cor. vi. 5 reff. 
xiii. 6 reff. Josh. xviii. 4. 


21. evayyeAouevor (corrn aft ver 7: 
p rel 36 vulg Chr. 
mode D-gr. 
Dz. 


X TreTLOTEVKELT AD. 


z ch. xi. 19 reff. 


> / ca 
4xaTéBnoav *eis “AtTadav, * KaKxetOev 
Heb. ix. 12 only. Jer. xvii. 25. 
w Luke xxiii. 46. ch. xx. 32. 
for te, 5 D 40. 96 coptt. 


padntevoay B}(Tischdf). 
om Tyv [bef Avorp.| D 93. 113 Chr Thl-fin. 


8é avtois "kar éxkdXnolav * mpecButépous, ' rposevEdpevor 
“ arapéOevto avtovs TO Kupim *eis ov 

24 Kal Y SueNOovtes tiv Uicrdiav 7AOov 
els Hauduriav, *5 nal *Nadjoavtes év Ilépyn Tov * Noryov 


> arémrAevoay Eis 


lch. xiii. 8 reff. m Matt. vii. 13 ||. Luke 
n ch. iv. 12 reff. o Matt. 
q 2 Cor. viii. 19 only +. 

u = 1 Tim. iv. 14 al. 


p ch. xix. 8 reff. 
t absol., ch. x. 9 reff. 


Ps. xxx. 5. x ch. x. 43 reff. y ch. 
a ch. xvi. 11, 22 reff. b ch. xiii. 4 reff. 
see also ch xi. 20) ADEHP a: txt BCLN? 


for THv TOA. €K., TOUS EV TH 
for ik. uteoTp., ToAAOUS UTETTPEpOY 
rec om ers [bef ux. and 


bef avr. ] (as unnecessary: the circumstantial repetition of ets is original), with DHLP 


vulg E-lat Chr Ge Thi: 
txt “AC E-gr Nap 13. 36. 40. 


22. ins ka: bef mapax. Ca ec 69. 100-5-37 syrr arm (ec Thl-fin: 
[for eupevey, € evuevewy(sic) X.] 


vulg(not fuld tol). 


23. rec mpeoB. bef kat exxdA., with EHLP rel Chr: 
neces de D: nai mp. cf vss. 


Syr arm. kata D. 
D ce 78. 137. 
24. ded. Se D copt. 


ins bef tx. but om bef avr. B: om bef tk. vue luis bef avi. 


aft d:eA@. ins evs N. 


i: 


mapak. Te D-gr 83 

Ade D-gr. 

txt ABCDN ak mp 13 vulg 
autos Li. TETLOTEVKAOLY 


naday D. ins tTnv bef 


traup. (to correspond with thy mo.) BCEN p 13. 40: om ADHLP rel Chr. 


25. evs repynv A pam demid: ers thy wepynv N1(and 3 ?). 
en ACN (k) p 18. 40 vulg Syr syr-w-ast arm; tov @cou E. 
at end, D 137 syr-w-ast add bap vena Caer auTOUS. 
26. om amemAecvoay B-txt (insd in marg). 


AB'CDER. ] 


8; lx. 8; Jos. Antt. xix. 5. 1. 21. 
tméotp.| They were not far from the 
famous pass, called the ‘Cilician gates,’ 
which leads direct into that province: but, 
notwithstanding all that had befallen him, 
Paul prefers returning by the churches 
which he had founded, to a short and easy 
journey to the coast by his own home. 

22. mpas] Is not this a token of the pre- 
sence of the narrator again? My own 
conjecture would be, that he remained in 
Antioch during the journey to Iconium, 
&e., and back. The events between those 
two limits are much more summarily re- 
lated than those before or after. In an art. 
in the Journal of classical and sacred philo- 
logy, Camb., March, 1856, where the justice 
of the above conjecture is called in ques- 
tion, the writer says, ‘here de? juas eiserd, 
&e. is the language of the preachers them- 
selves, as the word ét: shews:’ and proceeds 
to remark justly on the transition from the 
oblique to the direct narrative, as especially 
characteristic of St. Luke’s style, and cor- 


aft 7. Aoyov ins Tov 
[arTadtay, so 


roborative of the unity of authorship be- 
tween different parts of the Acts, and be- 
tween the Acts and the Gospel. But if 
so, should we not rather look for spas 
than 744s? The writer, I am glad to see, 
joins with me in rejecting the ‘common’ 

explanation (see Prolegg. § i. 13) that quas 
is used by the writer ‘as a Christian, and 
of all Christians:’ to what then would he 
have it referred? I would rather, regard- 
ing the 67: as marking a transition to the 
direct narrative, take judas as an insensible 
translation into the first person on the 
part of the narrator, speaking of an exhor- 
tation which he heard and felt. 23. 
xetpor. | ‘cum suffragiis creassent,’ Erasm.: 
not necessarily as the meaning of the word 
conventionally,—which had passed to any 
kind of appointment, see ch. x. 41: but 
by the analogy of ch. vi. 2—6. See ref. 
2 Cor. The Word will not bear Jerome’s 
and Chrys.’s sense of ‘laying on of hands,’ 
adopted by Roman Catholic expositors. 
Nor is there any reason here for departing 


ABCD 
HLPR 
befg 
kim: 
pls 


Ms ly 2, TIPAREIS AMOSTOAQON, 161 
"Avridyerav, S0ev oav °mapadedopévor tH yapuTe ToD Tre F3, 
Geod eis TO *épyov 0 ° erdajpacay. 27 f craparyevomevot a0 f ‘Deut. 
dé Kal F ouvaryaryovres Thy ceedo lay » aynjryyeXAXov Soa *= gh 8 
| €rrotnoev 6 Beds ‘per adtav, Kal bre * Hyvowgev Tois EOvecw - aon is i 
ee k Odpay miatews. 8! dcérpeBov dé ypovoyv ™ ovK ™ oréyov ee i nar 
pte avv Tots “abntais. | Posi 
P13, XV. 1 Kad twes °KxatenOovtes amd THs “lovdalas éSi- "ie 
Sackov tovs adeAdods Ste eav py P ameperaarre TO pels 


yy aA a 
1€0e T@ Mavoéas, ov Sivacbe cwOhvar. 
> 
‘aTdoews Kal *EntHcews ™ovK ™oryns TO IlavAw Kai 


k = 2 Cor. ii. 12 reff. 
° a, viii. 5 reff. p 1 Cor. vii. 18 reff. 
='ch. xxii. 7,10. (xxiv. 5 al. 


sple 
i mae vi. 4. 2 Tim. ii, 23. Tite iii. 9 only t+. 


27. cuvagavres D: cuvaryovtes p. 


usual), with HLP rel vulg (ic Thl: avnyyedoy p: avnyyedav m 
avnyyetsov D: txt ABCN 13 copt. 
for per’ avtwy, avro.s(partly erased by D-corr) pera twy Wuxwv avtwy D. 


Chr: 
sah. 


1 ch. xii. 19 reff. 


aut 
Prov. xvii. 14.) 


2 yevomevns ouv iL uke i hee e 
4. Luke 
only. Gen. 
xxiv. 12. 

= Rev. xii. 12. 
Tobit i iii. 3. 2 Macc. 
25. ch. xxy. 20. 1 Tim. 


m ch. xii. 18 reff. 
= ch, vi. 14 reff. constr., 
s John iii. 


rec avnyyethav (corrn to aorist as more 
: arnyyeAav EK k Bas 
o Geos bef erat. DN c 96. 133-80 


28. rec aft dierp. Se ins exer, with EHLP rel Chr: om ABCDN p 13. 36. 40 vulg eth 


arm. 


Cuap. XV. 1. aft tovSaas ins rwy memiorevkoTwy ato THS alperews TwY papicaiwy 


8. 137 syr-mg (see note). 


rec mepiteuvnobe (Meyer thinks the aor, in the sense 


of the futurum exactum, may be an emendation. I shd rather think the present to have 
been the corrn, as being the simpler, and not therefore ‘the more genuine,’ as Bloomf.), 


with EHLP rel Chr: txt ABCDN p 18. 36. 40 Constt Ath Epiph (mep:Ounre B: 


corrd eadem manu: 
Ath Chr Ge Thi: 


moe: 


see table). 
ins ABC!N e tov 170. 
Ovi (but v erased) & 


duvnoncba C: 


but 


rec om 2nd tw, with C2 or 3 DEHLP rel Constt 


Kat Tw €Ber uw. weprmaryTe D syr- 
-ceobe 36. 180. 


2. for ovy, 5« BC D-gr Labh k p 36 Syr coptt: txt AHHPN rel vulg D-lat syr Chr. 


EKTATEWS D-gr: evotacews |. 


rec ou(ntnocews, with 13 (Ec Thl-fin: om 


kat (nt. E68 vulg copt Jer: txt ABCDHLPNX p rel 36 syr sah arm Constt Chr Thl-sif. 


from the usual meaning of electing by show 
of hands. The Apostles may have admitted 
by ordination those presbyters whom the 
churches elected. mposevé. p. VOT. 
belongs to mapé@., not to xe:poTor. 
25. Atradevav| A maritime town at the 
mouth of the river Catarrhactes, in Pam- 
phylia, not far from the border of Lycia, 
built by Attalus Philadelphus, king of Per- 
gamus, in a convenient position to com- 
mand the trade of Syria or Egypt. It is 
still an important place, called Satalia. 
(Winer, Realw. C. and H.i. p. 242.) To 
reach it they had to cross the plain from 
Perga. 26.] Sev, as being the centre 
whence their apostolic commission had 
spread. 27.| per avtav, with [i. e. 
in dealing with] them, see reff.: not to 
them, as usually : nor per ipsos, as Beza, 
&e. Qvpav wior.] The same meta- 
phor is used in the reff. by Paul, and 
shews, perhaps, his hand in the narrative. 
On xpédv. ovk dAty., see chronol. 
table in Prolegg.” 
Cuap. XV. 1—35.| DIFFERENCES RE- 
SPECTING THE NECESSITY OF CIRCUM- 
Vou. II, 


CISION FOR THE GENTILE CONVERTS. 
CoUNCIL OF THE APOSTLES AND ELDERS 
at J ERUSALEM. i Teves | Called in 
Gal. ii. 4, mapelsaxror pevdd5erpor, oltives 
TapeisnAGov KaTaTKOTIACAL THY eAcvbeptay 
nuav hv exouev ev xpiote@ “Inood. See 
the addition in var. readd. probably from 
ver. 5. Doubtless it represents the fact. 
In spite of the special revelations which 
had accompanied the reception of the first 
Gentiles into the church, the strong 
Judaizing party adhered to their old pre- 
judices respecting the necessity of con- 
formity to the law of Moses. With this 
party Paul was in conflict all his life; and 
even long after, we find it raising its head 
again in the sects of the Ebionites and the 
Nazarenes, Neander (Pfl. u. L. p. 185, 
note) notices the account in Josephus (Antt. 
xx. 2. 4), where Izates, king of Adiabene, is 
converted to Judaism by a certain Ananias, 
who, for fear of a commotion among his 
people, allows him to remain uncircumcised 
—when a certain Eleazar, mdyuv mep) Ta 
TaTpia SoK@y axpiBys elvai, prevails on him 
to perform the rite, for that ce it 


162 


t act. absol., 
here (1 Cor. 
xvi. 15) only. 
1 Chron. xvi. 


‘. 
u ch. xi. 2 reff. 
Ezra vii. 6, 


‘ 

v ch. xviii. 15. 
xxiii, 29, 
xxv. 19. 
xxvi. 3 only. 


Vv / , 
EntnpaTos TovTOV. 


TIPABEIS AITOLTTOAON. 


XV. 


t@ BapvaBa mpos avtovs, ‘éraEav “avaBawew Iladdov 
~ / / ” ’ ’ lal \ A 
kat BapvaBav kai tivas addous €& avT@v Tpos Tous 

\ \ lal 
aTrooToNous Kal tpecButépous eis “lepovoadi epi TOD 
3 of wev ody “ rpotreupOevtes tro 

lol \ / 
Ths exxrAnolas * Sunpyovto THY Te Dowixny Kail Lapyapecar, 


ord elf \ A oe \ > , 
Hm Y €xOunryovupevor Thy *erictpodpiyy Tov eOvav" Kal * émrotouv 


only. 
w ch, xx, 38. 
xxi.5. Rom. 


Yapav peyadnv macw Tos adeXpots. 


4 > raparyevo 
paryevopevot 


wit al: O66 © els “lepovoadiy © rapedéyOnoav v7ro THs ExxAnolas Kal 


3 John 6+. 
1 Mace. xii. 


4al. Jos. 
Antt. xx. 2. 5. x ch, xiii. 6 reff. 
only. Cant. vii. 10. Ezek. xlvii. 11. 


b ch. ix. 26 reff. 
Exod. xxiii. 1. 


Xen. Anab. i. 8. 18. 
xii. 6 (from Proy. iii. 12) only. 


om Tw { bef Bap.] DE. 


lal > / \ lal / d > 7 , 
TOV aTOTTOAwWY Kal TOV TpEecBuTepwv, “avyyyeikay TE 


y ch. xiii. 41 (from Hab. i. 5) only. z here 


a= Luke i. 68. Job xl. 15 (20). @oBov movodvtes Tots immats, 


c Mark iv. 20. ch, xvi. 21. xxii. 18. 1 Tim. y. 19. 


d ch. xiv. 27 (reff.). 


Heb. 


for mpos aut., cvy avtos D-gr Syr sah: avros 97. 


for eratay to mpos D syr-mg have eAeyey yap 0 mavAos mevey ovTws Kabws-emioTevoav 
duoxupiCouevos (om D-lat) o: Se eAnAvdoTes aro tepovoaAnu mapnyyetAav autos (for 


auT., ovy Syr-mg) Tw TavAw kK. Tw Bapy. Kat Tig adAoLs avaBatvely TMpos . . 
D-lat, and in conseq has alios ascendere apostolos &c. 
for evs; ev E: om ble. 


ins tous bef mpeoB. C 180. 


- OM pos 
ef autwy bef addous &. 
ins oTws KpiOwou 


em avto.s (er avtwy D3 137) bef reps D 137, syr-w-ast at end of ver. 


3. exmeupé. E. 
36. 


rec om Te (as unnecessary), with AEHLP rel Chr: ins BCDX p 
ins tnv bef can. DH bd f mo Thi. 
4. itcpocoAupa AB k p: txt CDOEHLPR rel 36 Chr Gc Thi. (13 def.) 


dinyouuevor N'(txt N-corr!3), 
rec 


amedexOnoav (appy a corrn, as being the usual word, cf Luke viii. 40, ch xviii. 27, 
xxviii. 830,—and see reff), with CEHLP Chr Ge Thl: raped00ncav D1; ued. 36. 180; 


mposed. k: txt ABD®N p. 
sah Ambr Cassiod. 


Ast «at 81 (ins X-corr!-3), 


he could not be a Jew. On the idea 
that Cerinthus and Ebion were the tivés 
here spoken of, see the patristic reff. in 
Wordsw.’s note. 2.| Compare Gal. 
“thy ératav avaB.| I assume here 
what seems to me to be almost beyond 
the possibility of question (see note to 
chronological table in Prolegg., where I 
have given the reasons), that this journey 
was the same as that mentioned Gal. ii. 
1—10. In that case, Paul there (ver. 2) 
says that he went up kata amrokdAvyiw. In 
this expression I cannot see it necessarily 
implied that the revelation was made to 
himself, but that there was some intima- 
tion of the Holy Ghost, similar perhaps to 
that in ch. xiii. 2, in accordance with which 
the church at Antioch sent him and Barna- 
bas;—there being rpop7jra: there, by whom 
the Spirit spoke His will. TLVaS 
G@AAovs} Titus was one, Gal. ii. 1, 8, and 
that, in all probability, in order to give an 
example of a Gentile convert of the uncir- 
cumeision endowed with gifts of the Holy 
Spirit. Titus is not mentioned in the Acts: 
but only in 2 Cor., Gal., 2 Tim., and the 
epistle addressed to him. 3. mpo- 
mend. | This seems to have been something 
of an official escorting of them on the way, 


add weyadws CD? (ueyws D!, mire D-lat) 137 syr-w-ast 
for vo, amo (perhaps originally, as in C, a corrn to suit 
amedex0., and thence adopted even in copies which read maped.) BC 36. 180. 
amnyyetvavtes D!: arnyyetAay te D-corr b. 


om 
om te N}. 


and perhaps parting from them with solemn 
commendation to God: not, as Morus and 
Heinrichs, ‘rebus ad iter suscipiendum in- 
structis,’ which would bardly be thus spe- 
cified, being a matter of course. At all 
events, it shews that the mind of the church 
was with them, not with the Judaizers. 
This was also the case in Phoenicia and 
Samaria, as is shewn by waow below. 

4.) On their arrival at Jerusalem, there 
seems to have taken place an _ official 
reception of them and their message, in 
public. There they related—as a most 
important datum for the determination 
of the question—God’s dealings with 
them (see on ch. xiv. 27), and recounted 
the places where churches of believing 
Gentiles had been founded. This having 
taken place, a protest was entered on 
the part of the Pharisee believers,—in 
no way doubting the truth of these 
conversions, nor in any way disparaging 
the ministry of Paul and Barnabas,— 
that it was necessary to circumcise adrots, 
those of whom they had spoken, and to com- 
mand them to keep the law of Moses. 

It may be objected, that this view would 
not be consistent with Paul’s statement, 
Gal. ii. 2, ave@éuny abrots 7d edayyéArov O 


ABC) 
HLP; 
bed 

hk) 


op) 


3—7. 


ev € @ Nea 33 , Sess A 
O00 O VEOS ~ ETTOLNTEV MET AUTOV. 


IIPABEIS ATMOSTOAQN. 


163 


5 ¢ €Eavertyoay O€ TuWEG ¢ Mark xii.19\ 


- only. Gen. 


ee ee A a Me a ra) / h I xviii. 16. 
TOV “ato THS Faipegews TOV Dapicaiwy " TeTiaTEvKOTES, **, 18.) 
L oe § — i t > / k ft f ch. xii. 1 reff. 
AeyovTes OTL Cet ‘TepLTemvely avTovs, * TapayyéddEW TE g ch. v.17 reff 
a t s absol.; ch. 
'tnpeiv tov vowov Mavoéws. 8 ™oumjyOncav te of xi. 1234 


xxi. 20; 25 al. 


> / Ni 4 a \ fel ‘ 
aTOGTONOL Kat of mpecBUTEpor “idely Tept TOD ° NOYoU iver't 


TOUTOU. 


k ch. i. 4 reff. 


7 words SE PaovvdnTHicews yevomévns VdvacTdas |= Matt. xix. 


17. xxiii. 3. 


Prov. iii. 


Ilérpos elzrev mpos adtovs “Avdpes aderdoi, vets éri- 12ri?: 


a a , 21. 
otace ott Sad’ Sipepav “ apyalor © év vmiv Y éEeNéEaTO m= on.iv.5 


reff. constr., 
ch. xiii. 44 reff. n=hereonly. Wisd. ii. 17. o = ch. viii. 21 reff. p ch. 
XXViii. 29 v. r. only +. (-Tetv, ch. vi. 9. -TyTHS, 1 Cor. i. 20.) q=ch.i. 15. v. 34.1. 2 Chron. 
es r= ch. x. 30 reff. (2.) Ezek. xxxviii. 8. s see Isa. xxxvii. 26. t Matt. 
v. 21, &c. Luke ix. 8, 19. ver. 21. ch. xxi. 16. 2Cor. v.17, 2 Pet.ii.5. Rev. xii..9. xx.2only. Ps. 


xliii. 1. 
1 Chron. xxviii. 4, 5. 


erat. bef o 6. D 38. 96. 137-42. 


u = Mark vi. 4 al. constr., 3 Kings viii. 16 compared with 2 Chron. vi. 5, not as 
v with inf., ch. i. 24 (Pet.). 


2 Chron. yi. 6. 


at end ins (from ch xiv. 27) Kat ott 


nvottev Tos ebveot Oupay motews C3HL abd f g Thi-fin. 
5. for efay. to amo, D syr-mg have o: de mapayyerAavTes avtois avaBavew mpos 
Tous mpcoBurtepous ctaveotnoay AcyovTes TivEs ato (ef. KATA TWY aTOTT. OYTES aTO Syr- 


mg: D om dey. follg). 


27-9. 99 Jer. for ott, ws HK. 


aft tives ins avdpes A. 
for te, de D!(txt D3[? }). 


memistevkotwy Lb |? o 


6. rec for re, de (alteration of the characteristic te to more usual copula), with 


ADEHLPX rel 36 coptt Chr: txt BC d p 13 vulg eth Syr. 


Aoyou, (ntnuatos E 137 syr: pnuatos 65. 


om 2nd o D. for 


7. rec ov(yr., with HLP rel: (yrno. ABN ac p 18. 36. 40 coptt: txt CDE. 


averTnoey ev zy TETP. kat ermev D\(avacras D8; om ev 7. and Kat D-corr): aft avtous 


ins ev mv. ayww 137: aft werpos syr-mg. 


Knpvoow év Tots Z0veciv, Kat idtav Sé Tots 
SoKxovow, unmws cis Kevoyv TpPéxw }) ZSpamor. 
But I cannot see any inconsistency, if the 
words used in both cases be accurately 
weighed. To the ékkaAncia, amdorodAo, 
and mpecBurepo: Paul and Barnabas gave 
a simple recital of how God had dealt with 
them among the Gentiles: but Paul did 
not lay before the whole assembly the 
Gospel which he preached among the Gen- 
tiles, viz. the indifference of the Mosaic 
law to their salvation (Gal. i. 7—9), for 
fear of its being hastily disparaged or re- 
pudiated, and so his work being hindered 
(unmws «.7.A.). But, in private inter- 
views with the chief Apostles, James, Peter, 
and John (Gal. ii. 9), he did unfold the 
whole freeness of this Gospel, and so 
effectually, as to prepare the way for their 
full and public accordance with him at the 
council. 6.| The Apostles and elders 
only are mentioned as having assembled : 
in which case may 1d mA7O0s (ver. 12) 
must mean tav mpecBuTépwy, and the 
‘decision of ver. 22 must have been arrived 
at in a larger assembly. But most pro- 
bably the deliberation of the Apostles and 
elders implied the presence of the brethren 
also, who are intended by ray 7d 7A.,— 
and there was but one assembly. The ob- 
jection, that no one place could have held 
them, is nugatory: the official presence 
of ali is assumed continually in such cases, 


om ot XN}. rec o 0. ev nuw efeA. 


where the assembly is open to all. 

Aoyou] matter (in this case) of dispute: 
see reff. 7.] A promiscuous debate, 
not perhaps without some angry feeling, 
ensued on their first coming together,—and 
among the multitude, as is implied in ver. 
12,—man disputing with man, Llérpas | 
Partly on account of the universal deference 
paid to him, but principally because of his 
peculiar fitness to open the apostolic de- 
cisions on the subject, from having been 
made the instrument of the first public and 
approved reception of the Gentiles. 

tpets érior. | In Peter’s speeches in ch. x., 
this phrase occurs at the beginning of a 
sentence, ver. 28, and duels otdare, ver. 37 : 
and we have traces of the same way of 
expressing the personal pronoun in his 
speeches, ch. ii. 15; iii. 14, 25. Such 
notices are important, as shewing that 
these reports are not only according to the 
sense of what was said, but the words 
spoken, verbatim. ad np. apx.| In 
regard to the whole time of the Gospel up 
to that day (about 20 years), the date of 
the conversion of Cornelius, at least fifteen 
years before this (ef. Gal. ii. 1, and notes 
to chron. table in Prolegg.), would very 
properly be so specified. The length of 
time elapsed is placed by Peter in the 
strongest light, to shew that the question 
had in fact been settled by divine inter- 
ference long since. Notice (in reff.) the 


M 2 


164 IIPAS EIS AIMODTOAON. ‘vs 


4 a ago ,, € \ \ lol Ud , > lal y 
wehit6(Pet) § Beos “Oia ToD “aTowaTos pov aKkovcat Ta EOvn Tov 
x here only. 


/ rn lal 
wee Cols. *AOYOV TOU *evaryyediov Kal TicTedoat. 8 Kal oY Kapd.0- 


, ‘ / lal A cel 
onlyt.  yvwotns Geos *éuaptipyncev avtois, dovs TO TvEdUa TO 
The a ae : be Ca 9 \ >Q\ a5 , b \ 
caine, cn.x. @ylov KaO@s Kal nuivy % Kal ovfev *dvéxpivev ” werakd 
43 reff. : . a \ - Az 
a1 Cor.xi.29. UOY TE Kal aUTOV, °TH TiaTel “Kabapicas Tas Kapdias 
Erek-xxxv- air@py. 10& ppp © ovy ti ‘rreipatere Tov Oeov, ® ériOeivat 
b= Matt. xviii. hi \ yet \ ik / a a " ” c 
. om. ll. 
15. Romi." Cyryov emt tov ““tpaynrov Tov palyTav, Ov ovTE ob 
— m7 , e lal vo lal , A 
WW, avi , lmartépes 'iuav ovTe tueis ™ ioyvoapev ®Bactaca ; |! adra 
only. lel 4 lal ial fol 
cch.xiii.8 OLA THS °yadpiTos TOV KUpiou “Incod ? ricTEvopMEV 1 cwOHVaL 
reff. f ate Tey a ¢ a Me 
= Enh x28: T ka * Ov? rporrov Kakeivot. |? 8 éoiynoev O€ Tay TO * TAOos, 


James iv. 8. 


Sir. xxxviii. 10. e ch. x. 33 reff. f2 Cor. x. 9 reff. gver.28. Mat. xxiii.4. Luke 


xv. 5. xxiii. 26. 4 Kings xviii. 14. h = Gal.v.1. Matt. xi. 29,30. 1 Tim. vi. 1 (Rev. vi. 5) only. 
i Jer. xxxiv. (xxvii:) 8, 11. xxxv. (xxviii-) 14, k ch. xx. 37. Mark ix: 42|| Mt, Luke xv. 20. xvii. 2. Rom. 
xvi. 4 only. l ch. vy. 30 reff. m = ch. vi. 10 reff. n Matt. xx. 12. Luke 
xiv. 27. John xix.17. Gal. vi.2,5. 4 Kings xviii. 14. o ch. xiii. 43 reff. p with inf. (absol.), 


Rom. xiv. 2 only. Job xv. 22. mtotevw Tov xpovov didakew oe, Xen. Anab. vii. 7.47. with O71, Rom. vi. 8 al. 


q inf. pass. absol., Matt. xviii. 25. Mark vy. 43. rch. xxvii. 25 only. see ch. i. 11 reff. Rom. iii. 2. 
sch. xii. 17 reff. L.P. Exod. xiv. 14. t = ch. ii. 6 reff. 


(corrn of order :—and np. corrn for up. as it seemed more according to ecclesiastical 
propriety for Peter to describe the selection as made “from us apostles,” than “from 
you the whole church”), with EHLP rel (h o vg.) vss Gc Thi Iren-int Ambr Rebapt : 
nuew o 0. €&. D! (ev nu. o 0. €&. D-corr! c) 137: om ev vu. m 99 Syr sah eth: txt 
ABCR a(nuw) k p 13 Constt. om Tov { bef crou.| D}(ins D3) E 96. 

8. 0 de kapd. o 6. D. Steuaptupyncev C. om autos E vulg sah Ambr 
Rebapt.—rec aft dovs ins avtots (supplementary addn), with CEHLP 36 Constt Chr 
Tren-int: ex avrovs D Jer: txt ABN p 138 Did. 

9. ka: om Al, rec ovdey, with ACDEN rel 36 Chr: txt BHLP b gk 1m. 
om te D. 

10. at beg ins ka E eth. om ovr(appy) C. om (uyov X}(ins corr! ?). 

11. rec om Tov (with ¢?): ins ABCDEHLPX rel Chr Thdrt Ge Thi. rec aft 
ina. ins xpioTov, with CD a m 13.36 Syr copt «th-pl Constt ec Thl-fin: om ABEHLPR 
rel p am demid fuld syr sah eth-rom Chr Thdrt Tert. motevoouey Di-gr &. 

12. cuveatatrebeuevav Se Twy TpecBuTEpwv Tols UTO TOU TETPpoU ElpnuEvols ETELynTEV 
may K-T.A. D syr-w-ast. ecrynoay Ce. aray E al fm 13 Thl-fin. 


idioms, &e., peculiar to Peter :—eéfedct. 
with inf.,—d.a 7. ordu.,—Kapdio7yv. (most 


faith Y but by their faith, or by the faith 
in Christ. 10.] wep. (as kwAdoai, ch. 


probably) ;—or characteristic of him, 7ret- 
pac. 7. Oedv,—[Kab|as Kal juty (ch. x. 
47: so ésmep kal, ch. iii. 175 xi. 15),— 
apxalwy now, compared with ev apxf 
ch. xi. 15. Compare also with reipd¢. r. 
Oedv,—Rwadoa T. Gedy, ch. xi. 17. 
évy tpiv|] among you. If juiv be read, 
then ‘ among us (Apostles): see var. read. 
There is no ellipsis of ‘me’ after é&eA. : 
the E. V.expressesthe construction rightly. 
8, 9.| The allusion is throughout to 
spiritual circumcision, as the purification 
of the heart. God, who saw deeper than 
the mere fleshly distinction between Jew 
and Gentile, who knows that the hearts of 
all are unclean, and that the same all- 
sufficient sacrifice can cleanse them ai, if 
applied by faith (compare the remarkable 
parallel, 1 Pet. i. 18—22 inel.), put no 
difference between us and them, but has 
been pleased to render them spiritually 
clean. Ty Tiere, not simply ‘by 


xi. 17), tempt, dy putting obstacles in the 
way of His evidently determined course, 

émvetvat, infin., marking the in- 
tended result of weipa¢ere: cf. BA Se Oder, 
BH 8 tévat, udoritey 8 eadav, Ke. See 
Bernhardy, Syntax, p. 365. Cuyov | 
See ref. Gal. Peter could not be so much 
referring to the mere outward observance 
of ceremonies, which he himself and the 
Jewish converts thought it expedient to 
retain,—but to the imposition of the law, 
as a condition of salvation, on the con- 
sciences of the disciples. So Neander (Pf. 
u. L. p. 214). This being so, o}re... 
Bactdoa will refer, not to the burden- 
someness of ceremonies, but to the far 
more grievous burden of legal death, of 
which Paul cries out so bitterly in Rom. 
vii. 24,—and says, Gal. v. 3, waptipoua 
mavTl avOpdrm mepiteuvonevy, Ste 
derhérns eotiv SAov Tov vopov Toya. 

11.} Seeing that we all in common 


8—16. 


TIPAREIS AIIOSTOAON. 


165 


% ” 
Kat Hxovovy BapvadBa Kai Lavrov “ éEnyoupévoy 60q x here bis, 


> / c \ al na 

érroinoey 0 Geos onueta Kal ‘ Tépata év tots EOverw Ov 
\ fol 

13 wera dé TO 8 cuyoat avdtovs aexpiOn ‘laxwBos 


avuTov. 


Aéyov “Avdpes adedpol, axovcaté pov. 


Luke xxiy. 

35. John i, 

18. ch. x. 8. 

xxi. 19 only. 

Judg. vii. 13. 
yv ch. vii. 36 


14. \ u2 of. 
Lupewv é&- a 3 John 3 


, \ a € \ A ly. 
nyjcato “ Kalas Tpa@Tov O Oeos * éreckerato AaBeEly EE x Tare i. os, 


78. vii. 16. 


>| r \ nr 4 Lol 
€Ovav adv YTO ovopate avTov. 1 Kai TovT@ * cUpdw-  ¢omst-llint. 
s 2 c a a A “ F ter only. 
vovow of *royor TaV *mpodnTav, Kalas yéypaTTTal {sxxi) it 
16 M \ lal b > , \ c > 5 , \ d v.r. see 
eTa Tavta »avaotpe ww Kat © avotKodounao = Luke i. 25. 
P v Hl} ue GY Ty v Ps. vii. i7. Isa. 
xxv. 1. z ch. v. 9 reff. a Luke iii. 4. Deut. xiii. 3. b ch. v. 23 reff. c here 
bis only. Amos ix. 11. = here only, and Amos Il, c. 


BapvaBav kat mavdoy eknyoumevor D1(txt D8). 


13. avactas tak. evrey D Syr. 


14. for ereok., emedctato E: efeAcét. c} 137): 


efeAcé. rar 13. e& cOvwy bef AaB. 


Cc: rec ins em bef tw ovou., with HLP rel copt dic: om ABCDERX p 138. 36. 40 
vulg syrr sah Constt Chr Procop Thl-sif-comm: Thl-fin Iren-int Jer Rebapt. 


15. for rovrw, rovro HL 0 13: ovtws D}(and lat: txt D8) sah Iren-int. 


govow D}(txt D3). 


believe that the grace of Christ is the suf- 
ficient, and only cause of our salvation, it 
can neither be reasonable nor according to 
God’s will, to fetter that grace with super- 
fluous and vexatious conditions. See nearly 
the same argument retorted on Peter him- 
self, Gal. ii. 14 ff. Kaketvor are the 
Gentile Christians, not our fathers ;—their 
ground of trust is the same as ours: ours, 
no more than theirs. 12.] The mul- 
titude (see above) then,—and not before, 
on account of their mutual disputes,— 
being tranquillized by Peter’s speech, 
quietly received from Paul and Barnabas an 
account of the seals of signs and wonders 
by which God had stamped the approval of 
their ministry among the Gentiles. The 
miracles at Paphos and Lystra would be 
among the principal of these. 13.] 
avTovs, viz. Paul and Barnabas. Both had 
spoken: doubtless wonders, unrecorded, 
had been wrought by the hand of Barnabas, 
which he had recounted. ’IdxwBos | 
See note, ch. xii. 17, and the prolegg. to the 
epistle of James. I assume here, that this 
is James the Just, the brother of the Lord, 
the author of the Epistle: and though 
an ardéorodos (Gal. i. 19: see also note 
on ch. xiv. 4), not one of the twelve. 
If we may presume to judge from the 
character of his Epistle, to say nothing of 
the particulars which tradition has handed 
down concerning him, his decision would 
come with remarkable weight on this oc- 
casion. For he is, among all the sacred 
writers of the N. T., the representative of 
the strictest adherence to and loftiest ap- 
preciation of the pure standard of legal 
morality. All that the law was, from its 
intrinsic holiness, justice, and goodness 





ovvowry- 


(Rom. vii. 12), capable of being to Chris- 
tians, he would be sure to attribute to it. 
And therefore when his judgment, as well 
as that of Peter, is given in favour of the 
freedom of the Gentiles, the disputers, even 
of the Pharisaic party, are silenced. There 
does not seem to be in the following speech 
any decision ex cathedra, either in the 
aKovcaTé mov, or in the ey® Kplyw (ver. 
19): the decision lay in the weightiness, 
partly no doubt of the person speaking, but 
principally of the matter spoken by him. 
14. Svpedv | James characteristically 
uses this Jewish form of the name: so also 
Peter himself, 2 Pet.i.1. The name occurs 
Gen. xxix. 33, LXX; Luke ii. 25; iii. 30; ch. 
xili. 1; Rev. vii. 7: the name Simon, else- 
where used in the N. T. for Peter, is found 
in 1 Chron. iy. 20 (Heb. Seuév, LXX-ed.- 
vat., but Seuidv B{ Mai], Seuerdy, A.). 
76 év.| for His name: dat. commodi. On 
émeok. AaB., see reft.: the infin., as émiOe?- 
vat, ver. 10, note. Aaov, answering ta 
the Aads, so well known as His by covenant 
before. 15. tovtw | Neuter, to this: 
not, ‘to Him,’ in which case we should 
expect not of Adyo: tev mp., but of apo- 
pjto (Meyer). 16—18.] The citation 
from Amos is made freely from the LXX : 
differing widely in the latter part from our 
present Hebrew text, which see in loc. 
E. V. In all probability the LXX had 
another reading before them, substituting 
perhaps °fx 117 for “ny wy, and DIN for 
Dix. The existing Hebrew MSS. contain 
several minor variations, for which see 
Kennicott and De Rossi in loc. Of this 
we may at least be sure, that James, even 
if (as I believe) he spoke in Greek, and 
quoted as here given, would not himself 


166 TIPAZEIS ATIOSTOAON. xy, 


a \ fol 
viv Aaveld Thy TeTTwKUIAY, Kal TA © KaTETKAUpEVA AUVTHS ABC! 


e Rom. xi. 3 


only, from HLP, 
/ ° 
sere © ayoikodounaow, Kal favop0ocw aityv 17 8 émws € av ” ék- bed 


f Luke xiii. 13. 
Heb. xii. 12 
only. Ps. 
xvil. 35, 
ch. iii. 19 reff. 

n = Rom. iii.11, 
from Ps. xiii. 
2. Heb. xi. 6 
(Luke x. 50, 
51. Heb. xii. 
17. 1 Pet.i. 


$ lal > / \ A 
&ntnowow of ixatadXorro. TOV avOpwaTwVv TOV KUpLOV, op! 
$ > ; / \ ” / 
kal Tavita ta eOyn, ep’ ods } émuxéxAntat To * dvoma 
. > e a cr \ 
poou jém’ avtovs, Aéyer KUpLos O Tro TavTa 18! yworTa 
m > , bial 19 Py \ 3 \ n / y ti) lal a“ 
aT aiovos. lo eyo "Kpivw pn °Trapevoxdely Tots 
lal lal \ \ / \ 
Paro Tov eOvav “*émriatpépovaww “éri Tov Geov, *9 adra 
r > a > lal s “a > , al > 5) lel u > 
émtotetAat avTois * Tov ‘améyecOar [amo] Tov “ adtoyn- 
Levit. xv. 4. k James ii. 7 only. 1 ch. i. 19 reff. m ch. iii. 21. Luke i. 70. Gen. 
vi. 4. n w. inf., ch. iii. 13. xx. 16. xxv. 25 (xxvii. 1). 1 Cor. ii. 2. v. 3 (vii. 37). Tit. iii. 12. 2 Mace. xi. 25. 
ohere only. w. dat., Job xvi.3. 1 Macc. xii. 14. Diod. Sic. xiv. 27. w. acc., Jer. xxvi. (xlvi.) 27. 1 Mace. x. 
35. Demosth. p. 242. 16. p ch. xii. 1 (xxvii. 44). q ch. xxvi. 20 reff, rch. xxi.25. Heb. 
xiii. 22 only. 3 Kings v. 8 A. (not F.) only. s constr., ch. iii. 12 reff. t = with amo, 


1 Thess. iv. 3. vy. 22 only. (Luke vii.6 al.) Jobi.lal. without, ver. 29 reff. u here only t. (-yetv, 
Mal.i.7,12.. Dan.i.8. Sir. xl. 29.) 


10) only. 
here only. 
Ezra iii. 8. 

j constr., Mark 
vii. 25. Rey. vii. 2. 


emiotpevw D. kateotpeumeva B: -orpaupeva (so 
LXX-A) X13 Procop: aveckappmeva E. oikodounow (2nd time) C1(appy) 68. 

17. om av E ak Chry. for kup., Qeov D wth. om o BN}, for o roiwy, 
moimoe D}(txt D8). rec aft tav. ins mayra, with H 36 Syr Chr: pref., ELP 
e f gl syr Thl-sif: om ABCDX m p 13 vulg copt eth Constt Iren-int Rebapt. 

18. rec at end adds ear Tw Oew mayta Ta epya avtov, with EHLP rel syr Constt 
Chr: yvworoy am a. (add ectw D vulg syr-mg Iren) tw kvpiw (om syr-mg) To epyor 
avtov AD vulg syr-mg Iren-int: txt BCR a p 138. 29. 36. 57. 63-5. 100-5-33-80 
coptt arm. (Jn the presence of so many apocryphal insertions as we find in the 
Acts, taking into account also the great variety, and seeing in it [cf many more 
variations in Scholz ad loc] an argument against the genuineness of the words,—seeing 
also that no possible reason can be given for their omission, if originally genuine, I 
have followed the authority of BCX, as also have Scholz and Tischdf (ed. 7). Lach- 
mann has adopted the reading of AD al{see above], which, as Meyer observes, is 


16. wera Se D}(and lat). 


evidently an emendation of still later date than the rec.) 


20. om Ist rov H. 


(nor would the Pharisees present have al- 
lowed it) have quoted any rendering, espe- 
cially where the stress of his argument lay 
in it, at variance with the original Hebrew. 

The prophecy regards that glorious 
restitution of the kingdom to (the Son 
of) David, which should be begun by the 
incarnation of the Lord, and perfected by 
His reign over all nations. During the 
process of this restitution those nations, as 
the effect of the rebuilding, should seek the 
Lord,—to whomsoever the gospel should 
be preached. There is here neither asser- 
tion nor negation of the national restora- 
tion of the Jews. Be this as it may (and I 
firmly believe in the literal accomplishment 
of all the prophecies respecting them as a 
nation), it is obvious, on any deep view of 
prophetic interpretation, that the glorious 
things which shall have a fulfilment in the 
literal Israel, must have their complete and 
more worthy fulfilment in the spiritual 
theocracy, of which the Son of David is the 
Head. 17. éf obs émtxéx«d.] Notice 
the same expression in the Epistle of James 
(ref.). 18.| The variation of reading 
here is remarkable. The text which I have 
given is in all probability the original, and 


om amo (as unnecessary ?) B D-gr X p 180 E-lat Ge: ins 


the words inserted in the rec. have been in- 
tended as a help out of their difficulty. Not 
only are they wanting in several ancient 
Mss., but they bear the sure mark of spu- 
riousness,—imanifold variations in the mss. 
where they do occur. ‘The sense, and ae- 
count of the text seem to be this: the 
Apostle paraphrases the 6 moi@y [advra]} 
tavta of the LXX, adding yeora ar 
ai@vos, and intending to express ‘saith 
the Lord, who from the beginning revealed 
these things,’ viz. by the prophet (of old, 
see reff.) just cited. The addition in the 
rec. has been made to fill up the appa- 
rently elliptical yyword am aidvos, which 
not being found in the passage of Amos, 
was regarded as a sentence by itself. These 
last words, xtp. 6 mot. Tad. yy. am’ ai., may 
perhaps be an allusion to the mystery 
of the admission of the Gentiles into the 
chureh, which was now being revealed prac- 
tically, and had been from of old announced 
by the prophets: cf. Rom. xvi. 25, 26; Eph. 
iil. 5, 6, Ke. 19. | émrtatpépovory, not 
as E, V. ‘ are turned,’ but are turning :— 
the converts daily gathered into the church. 
In mapevoxdX. there is no meaning of 
‘preter, . . . insuper, molestiam creare :’ 


17—22. TIPASEIS AITOSTOAON. 167 


/ >) / fol n a es 
Matov TOV Eld@d@V Kal THS “ Topvelas Kal TOD * TVYLKTOD ¥ Rom. ii. 2, 
\ n A 9 fal \ a ff. i 
kat Tov aipatos. *! Mavais yap ¥ ex yevedv Y apyai@v w~ Matt. xv. 

19. 1 Cor. vi. 


Z \ t eer , > ae ” > _ 

KaTa TOMY TOUS *KNPVTTOVTAS AUTOV EXEL EV TALS TUV- }8al. Hos. 
ll. & 

x ver. 29. ch. 


cal \ lal 4 ’ ¢ 
aywyats Kata wav caBRatov ” avayiwwoKdopevos. 2 Tore * ii 25 
c gd a > a ni a , \ av only +. see 
ic o&ev TOLS aTrocTOXOLS Kat TOL mpea BuTépais Ovuy orn 2 Henge a 
tL , 15. Sir. 
li. 4. y see ver. 7 reff. z Luke viii. 4. ch. xiv. 23. Tit. i. 5. a and 


b ch, xiii. 27 (reff.). Lukei.3. Esth.i. 19. 


1 Cor. xiy. 23. 2 Chron. xxx. 24 Ald, 


constr., ch. viii. 5 reff. Cc = VY. 20, 28. 


dch.y. 11. Rom. xvi. 23. 
AC E-gr HLP 13 rel vulg Constt Chr Iren-int. om Kat Tov mviKTOV (appy, as 
Meyer, because in Levit no such command is formally expressed) D Iren-int Cypr 
Tert Jer(who says it was in some mss) Ambrst(who ascribes it to Greek interpolators) : 
om tov AB p 13. at end ins kas oo (add ay al) wn OeAovow (-wow al) eavtors 
(avr. al) yweoOa erepois wy moeite D abeo 7. 27-9. 60-9. 98-marg 106 sah eth 


Tren-int Cypr. 
21. ex. Tous knp. C m: exer T. kK. avtov e[ xer | D(three letters lost, erased by D-corr). 


v . 
for avrov, avtou(sic) X?. 


but simply ‘ molestiam creare :’ see reff. 
20.| émtorethor, to send an ém- 
oToA: then rod az., of the purpose of such 
epistle,—to the end that they may ab- 
stain, &e. aducy. belongs to cidéAwy 
only. Meyer understands it to refer to the 
four genitives, the pollutions of (1) idols, 
(2) fornication, (3) things strangled, (4) 
blood. This he rests on the non-repetition 
of amé before THs mopv. But in this case 
the members do not correspond. The Gen- 
tile converts needed no command to abstain 
from the pollution of idolatry : and the use 
of the Alexandrine verb aA.cyety in reff. 
shews it to apply most naturally to pollution 
by eating. ‘The aa. 7. eid. are the things 
polluted by being offered to idols, about 
which there was much doubt and conten- 
tion in the early church :—see Exod. xxxiv. 
15, and 1 Cor. viii. and x. 19. hs 
mopveias} It may seem strange that a 
positive sin should be made the subject 
of these enactments which mostly regard 
things in themselves indifferent, but ren- 
dered otherwise by expediency and charity 
to others. In consequence we have the 
following attempts to evade the simple 
rendering of the word: (1) Beza, Selden, 
Schleusner, explain it of spiritual fornica- 
tion in eating things offered to idols: (2) 
Morus and Heinrichs, of the committal of 
actual fornication at the rites in idol tem- 
ples: (3) Salmasius, of the sin of the 
whore-master: (4) Calovius, of concubin- 
age: (5) Lightfoot, of marriage within the 
forbidden degrees: (6) Teller, of marriage 
with heathens : (7) Bentley would read xou- 
pelas, ‘ swine’s flesh :’ (8) mopretas has also 
been conjectured (probably not by Bentley, 
as stated in Meyer, De W., and this work, 
edn. 1) :—see other renderings in Meyer 
and De Wette. But the solution will best 
be found in the fact, that mopvela was 


universally in the Gentile world regarded 
on the same footing with the other things 
mentioned, as an &didgopor, and is classed 
here as Gentiles would be accustomed to 
hear of it, among those things which they 
allowed themselves, but which the Jews 
regarded as forbidden. The moral abomi- 
nation of the practice is not here in ques- 
tion, but is abundantly set forth by our 
Lord and his Apostles in other places. 

mviktov| as containing the blood,—see 
Leyit. xvii. 18, 14. atparos | blood, 
in any shape: see Gen. ix. 4; Levit. xvii. 
13, 14; Deut. xii. 23,24. Cypr., Tertull., 
and others interpret the word of homicide, 
which is refuted by the context. 21. ] 
Living as the Gentile converts would be 
in the presence of Jewish Christians, who 
heard these Mosaic prohibitions read, as 
they had been from generations past, in 
their synagogues, it would be well for them 
to avoid all such conduct and habits as 
would give unnecessary offence. Other 
meanings have been proposed: as ‘ that it 
was superfluous to command these things 
to the Jews, for they would hear them 
in the synagogues’ (so an ancient Schol., 
Lyra, and Neander),—whereas no question 
whatever was raised about Jewish con- 
verts :—‘neque est metuendum, ut Moses 
propterea antiquetur,’ Erasmus, al.: ‘ Pu- 
dori vobis foret et ignominiz, si vos, ho- 
mines Christiani.... hae in re inferiores 
a Judzis deprehenderemini, quod vos com- 
munione cum epulis sacrificialibus poly- 
theismo favere videremini, quum illi J udzi 
.... monotheismo adhezreant tenacissime, 
eumque quavis septimana sibi inculeatum 
audiant,’ Heinrichs. ‘Nam quod ad 
Mosen attinet, non possunt, quiex Judzis 
sunt, queri, eum sperni ab alienigenis nostri 
gregis, quando in nostris (?) non minus 
quam in Judaicis conventibus Moses, ita 


168 IIPAZEIS AIOSTOAON. XV. 
edohn vi-70. 7H exxdnola ° exreEapévous avdpas €€ aitav méurpas eis 
ch. vi. 5. 


"Avriwyevay oiv TO Liatiw kal BapvaBa, “lovdav tov 
Kadovpevoy BapoaBBav Kai Lirav, avdpas * ryyoupévous 
év Tois ® adedpois, * “ypaavtes ‘dia yetpos avtav Ot 
, , \ € 7 or iO ‘\ “ k A ‘\ 

aTooToXot Kal of mpecBvrepor © adeAdpoi Tois * kata THY 
"Avtiyerav Kat Lupiay Kal Kidsxiav & adeddois trois e& 


1 Chron, xix. 
10 


f Luke xxii. 26. 
Heb. xiii. 7, 
17, 2. 

3 Kings ix. 5. 

Sir. eat 
eae 

xxvi. 3 reff. 
ich. xi. 30 reff. 

k ch. xi. 1 reff. 

22. edotacey D}. om ef avtwy A. om Tw (for uniformity) DHLP rel 

Chr (ec Thl-sif: ins ABCEX ac p 13 Thi-fin. ins tw bef Bapy. a ¢ 13 Thl-fin. 

rec emuxadouuevoy (explanatory corrn), with HP rel Chr (ec Thi: txt ABCDELX 

p 13. 36 Constt. rec BapoaBay, with a 36 rel syrr Chr ic Thl: BapaBBay D: 

BapvaBay fuld eth: txt ABCEHLPR b e m p 13 am coptt Constt. nyoumevors N}. 

23. rec aft avtwy ins tade (addition as the variations shew), with EHLPR3 p 13. 

36 syr Constt Chr; em:oroAny mepiexovoay tade C D(but emor. bef 5. x. a.) eth-pl; 

ETLOTOANY Kat memWavTes meptexovoay 137 syr-mg; ovrws Syr; emit. ovrws sah: om 

ABN? vulg copt eth-rom. rec ins kat ot bef adeAd. (see note), with EHLPN? rel 

36 syrr coptt «th Constt Chr @e Thl: om ABCDR! p 13 vulg arm Ath Ivren-int 


Pac Vig. 
ros e& €0. bef ad. D. 


ut ab antiquo factum est, legitur, et quidem 
sabbatis,’ Grot., Hammond. On the read- 
ing of the law, &c., in the synagogues, see 
ch. xiii. 15, note. 22.| ékAeEapevous 
must not (with Kuin., al.) be taken for 
exAexGevras; the 1 aor. middle can never 
have a passive signification : see Lobeck’s 
note on Phrynichus, p. 319: where he 
gives a collection of seeming instances of 
such usage and explains them. Such 
irregularities of case in words in apposition 
as we have here (amooréAos ... . exAcka- 
pévous .... ypawavres ... .) will not 
surprise any one versed in Hellenistic Greek. 
See e.g. Lukei. 73,74; ch. xxv, 27; Heb. 
ii. 10; also ch. xxii. 17, eyévero 5é wor b7r0- 
oTpevaytt K. TMposevxXoMEevou Mov 
22.» yeveobat pe ev exordoe , .. . and 
ref. (h). BapoaBBay | Of this Judas 
nothing further is known than that (ver. 
32) he was a ‘prophet’ (see ch. xiii. 1). 
Wolf and Grotius hold him to have been 
the brother of Joseph Barsabas, ch. i. 23. 

Strav} otherwise Silvanus (S:Aova- 
vés): the former name in the Acts, the 
latter in the Epistles of Paul. He also was 
a ‘prophet’ (ver. 32). He accompanied 
Paul on his second missionary journey 
through Asia Minor and Macedonia (ver. 
40—ch. xvii. 10),—remained behind in 
Bercea (xvii. 14), and joined Paul again 
in Corinth (xviii. 5; 1 Thess. i. 1; 
2 Thess. i. 1), where he preached with 
Paul and Timotheus (2 Cor. i. 19). The 
Silvanus (1 Pet. v. 12), by whom the 
first Epistle of Peter was carried to 
the churches of Asia Minor, seems to be 
the same person. ‘Tradition however 
distinguishes Silas from Silvanus, making 
the former bishop of Corinth, the latter 


om Ist tors C!(appy) 13. 


for KtAikiay, KiAtay A, kiAecay D. 


of Thessalonica. On the hypothesis 
which identifies Silas with Luke and 
makes him the author of the Acts, see 
Prolegg. to Acts, § i. 11. B, y. I may 
repeat here, that in my mind the descrip- 
tion of Silas here as one of the jyodmevor 
év Tots adeApors, of itself, especially when 
contrasted with the preface to Luke’s 
gospel, would suffice to refute the notion. 
It has been also supposed [by Burmann] 
that Silas [uu] is the same name with 
Tertius, who wrote the Epistle to the Ro- 
mans, Rom. xvi. 22: but without reason: 
see Winer, Realw., “ Tertius,’ and Mi- 
chaelis, Introd. vol. iv. p. 89, Marsh’s 
transl. 23.| The omission of ka 
of before adeAgoi, found (see var. read.) 
in all the first mss., can (as Neander 
observes against De Wette) hardly have 
been occasioned by hierarchical conside- 
rations, seeing that it occurs as early as 
Ireneeus, and that it would be equally 
against the strong hierarchical view to 
call the presbyters mpeoB. adeAgol, writ- 
ing, as they were, to the ddeApois. 
It seems very much more probable to 
me that the words «al of were inserted 
to bring the decree into exact harmony 
with the beginning of ver. 22. In this, 
the first official mention of rperBurepat, it 
is very natural that the import of the term 
should be thus given by attaching adeAgol 
to it. See, on the whole, Bp. Wordsw.’s 
note, Kudtkiav} This mention of 
churches in Cilicia, coupled with the fact 
of Paul’s stay at Tarsus (ch. ix. 30—xi. 25: 
see also Gal. i. 21), makes it probable that 
Paul preached the gospel there, and to 
Gentiles, in accordance with the vision 
which he had in the temple (ch. xxii. 21), 


ABC 
HLP 
bed 
hk] 


op 


23—26. TIPABEIS AMOZTOAON. 169 


eOvav 'yaipew. *4 ™ érreid1) HKovcapev OTL TWES ™ GE nye | 36 sees i. 
n2 , OZ € oa ’ PZ , \ lonly (2 John 
ee Oovtes °erdpakav buds Royols P avacKkevafovTEs TAS 10,11. Isa. 

apuyas tuar, ols od 4 SiecterAducOa, * * Edokev nuiv yevo- 
, s (. fay Oo r > / A Py / \ 
pévois *OuoOvpadov * éxreEapévous avdpas téurpat mpos 


xlviii. 22) $. 

Esdr. viil. 9. 

2 Macc. ix.19. 
m Luke xi. 6. 


ch. xiii. 46. 
a A a A r \ ,. xiy. 12. 5 
buds ov tos tayarntois nuov BapvaBa Kai Llavrw, 1£%-3-21 
t \ \ a \ Matt, xxi. 
26 u dyOpdrrols ’ Tapadedwxdow Tas “puxyas ad’Tav *bméep Movs)” 
1 Mace, 


o =ch. xvii. 8,13. Gal. 
p here only t+. (see 
q Mark vii. 36 al. Ezek. 


xv. 3. n Matt. ii. 6. 1Johnii.19. Deut. xiii. 13. 
i.7. y. 10. Prov. xii. 25. 4 Tapatter oe,... OTL... Xen. Mem. ii. 6. 17. 
ch. xvii. 6.) Tv AnKku@ov KaedAwv kK, avagKevacas, Thuc. iy. 116. 


iii. 19. r ver. 22 (reff.). s ch. i. 14 reff. tw. gen. (Matt. xii. 18). Rom. 
i. 7. xvi.5,8,9. 1Cor.x.14. Phil. ii.12 only. Ps. exxvi. 2. u = Matt. xiii. 45. Gen. 
ix. 20 al. vy =1 Cor. xiii. 3. Dan. iii. 28 (95). w = Matt. ii. 20. John x. 11. ch. 


xx. 24. Rom. xvi.4. Rey. xii. llal. Exod. xxi. 23. x ch. ix. 16 reff. 


24. for emeidn, em Se N}. for nuwy, vuwy XN}. om ¢&A@. BX? a! arm Constt 
Vig: eA@ovres L. eSerapaiay Dial. rec aft vuwy ins AeyouTes Tepitenved Oa 
(add de: E Bede-gr) kat tnpew tov vopov (gloss from vv 1, 5), with CEHLP syrr axth- 
pl Iren(aft d:eore1A.), mepiteuvery avtovs ta Texva Chr-edd: om ABDN p 13 vulg 


coptt zth-rom Constt Ath Epiph Vig Bede. 


dieoreAoueda D}(txt D4). 


25. exActauevors (grammatical correction) ABL p 13 rel: txt CDEHPN b f g 1 36 


Constt Chr ec Thi. 
26. rapadedwracw D. 


xatpeww] Not a rendering by Luke 
of the Hebrew oydw, as Grotius; for the 
Epistle was certainly written in Greek, 
as intended for Gentiles. The only other 
place where this Greek form of salutation 
oceurs in an apostolic document (we have 
it in the letter of the chief captain Lysias, 
ch. xxiii. 26) is in James i. 1, which Bleek 
has remarked as a coincidence serving to 
shew his hand in the drawing up of this 
Epistle. 24.) Neander remarks (Pf. 
u. L. p, 223, note) that ef hpav ef. is a 
presumption in favour of the reading kat oi 
adeAgot above: for that these men could 
hardly have gone out from among the 
Apostles and elders. But such a suppo- 
sition is not necessary: 7ue@yv implies the 
church, the a5eA@oi of whom they were the 
mpeoBvrepor, whether kal of be inserted or 
not. avack.] See ref. Thucyd., where 
it will be seen that it implies turning up 
the foundations :—for Brasidas cleared the 
ground and consecrated it. Cf. Passow, 
sub voc. The words A€yortes Tepi- 
TéeuvecOat kK. THhpety Toy vduov, inserted in 
rec. after buay, are manifestly, in my view, 
an interpolation, from the desire to spe- 
cify in what particulars these persons had 
sought to unsettle the souls of the Gentile 
brethren. The defence of the clause set 
up by Meyer and De Wette,—that if in- 
terpolated it must be from ver. 5, not from 
ver. 1, and that this is improbable,—is best 
answered by observing that in E, one of 
the principal authorities for the insertion, 
the Set after mepitéuverOa: betrays in very 
fact that the interpolation was from ver. 5, 
as also, but in a less degree, does the Aéyov- 
tes. The reasons given by Meyer and De 
W. why the words should have been omit- 


for nu., vuwy D-gr. 
Thy wuxnv D Iren-int. 


ted,—the similarity of ending in t-MON 
and vé-MON,—or to square it with ver. 1, 
seem tome nugatory. The former is very 
improbable,—and the latter would have 
required the preservation of Aéy. zepi- 
téuvecOar. The variations also in the 
clause are strong presumptions against it. 
The persons to whom the epistle was ad- 
dressed would very well know what it was 
that had disturbed their minds, and the 
omission of formal mention of it would be 
natural, to avoid prominent cause of offence 
to the Jewish converts by an apparent de- 
preciation of circumcision and the observ- 
ance of the law.  25.] yev. 6po8up. may 
mean either ‘ assembled with one accord,’ 
as (perhaps) ch. i. 14; or ‘ having agreed 
with one consent’ as Meyer. I prefer the 
former meaning. So we have adyerbs as 
predicates after verbs substantive, e. g., 
elvat diapepdvtws, Plato Legg. x. p. 892 ©, 
katumepbe yiverOat, Herod., &e. See Bern- 
hardy, Syntax, p. 337. Bapv. x. Ilavn. ] 
Paul has generally been mentioned first 
since ch. xiii. 43. (The exception, ch. xiv. 
14, appears to arise from the people calling 
Barnabas Jupiter, and thus giving him the 
precedence in ver. 12, after which the next 
mention of them follows the same order.) 
But here, as at ver. 12, we have naturally 
the old order of precedence in the Jeru- 
salem congregation preserved. 26. 
twapad. t. W.| See reff. The sacrifice of 
their lives was made by them: they were 
martyrs év will, though their lives had not 
as yet been laid down in point of fact. 

This is mentioned to shew that Paul and 
Barnabas could have no other motive than 
that of serving the Lord Jesus Christ, 
and to awaken trust in the minds of the 


170 TIPASEIS ATOZTOAON. XV. 


27 -dar- 


= ihe : a x > , nr / e cal ’ lal lal 
y=Matt. Tov * OvomaTos TOD Kupiov ruav "Inood xXpLoTOD. 
. i. 24. , > , \ b 
vue ~=6 e@TaAKamwev odv “lovdavy Kai Yirav, ¥ Kal Yavtods * bia 
2 Thess. ii. 


2, 15. 

ach. xi. 13 reff. 
constr., eh. 
vi. 11 reff. 

b ver. 10 reff. 


oyou *amayyéd\Novtas Ta aiTd. 8" &dokev yap TO 
e ta al r 
ayia mvEevpaTe Kai Huiv pndév Tréov ” érriTiOecOar tpiv 
c= Rev. iit © Bapos, mAnV Tov “érravayKes, *9 °améyerOar ! eidwro- 
(Matt. XX. 12. : “4 a R - . * 2 . 
2 Oor- iv. PuytT@v Kal aimatos Kal 2 aviKTa@V Kal ® qropvetass €&€ wv 


Gal. vi. 2. 

1 Thess. ii. 6) a : \ c » 

onlyt. Sir. " QeaTnpodvTes ‘éavTovs ed impakete. *Eppwabe. %9 OF 
xu. 2 


Demosth. kata Tyzoxp. p. 706. 22. (€mav- 

1 Pet. ii. 1l only. Jer. vii. 10. [w. @7ro, ver. 
h Luke ii. 51 only. = Ps. xi. 7. Isa. 

2 Macc. ix. 19, k here 


Jos, Antt, xvi. 11. 2, 
e gen., 1 Tim. iv. 3. 
“g ver. 20 (reff.). 
j see note. not as Eph. vi. 21. 


(2 Mace. ix. 10) only. d here only +. 


ref} Se ter ahi. Uxelt 

lvi. 2. i = 2 Cor. vii. 11 reff. 

(ch. xxiii. 30 rec.) only. 2 Mace. xi. 33. 
at end ins e:s wavra meipacuov DE 137 syr-mg. 

27. aft Aoy. ins moAAou E. amayyeXourtas D-gr, 
txt D?) sah eth-pl: xa: ravra syr: om eth-rom. 

28. Tw mv. Tw ay. ABN k p13 Clem: txt CDEHLP rel 36 Constt Cyr-jer Chr Bas, He 
Thl Cypr Pace. [after nuw &! has written «, but marked it for erasure. ] 
mAevtov D 105. for vu, nuew D'(txt DS[?}). rec aft Tay emavay. ins 
Tovtwy, with ELP rel Chr (ic: pref BCDH® a m p 13 vulg Constt Thl Iren-int : om A 
15-8. 36. 43. 180 Clem, Epiph, Cyr Orig-int Pac-mss (tovtwy seems to have been a 
marginal supplementary gloss, which some inserted before, some after Twv emavarykes). 


tavta D\(and lat: 


—om twyv D1(ins D?[?]) 8113. 


29. rec «. mvixtov (alteration for uniformity with ver 21), with AAEHLPN? 138. 36 
vulg Constt Chr Gc Thl Vig: om D Cyr-jer Iren-int Cypr Tert Ambr Pac Jer (see on 


ver 21): txt A1BCN! p coptt Clem, Orig. 


at end ins kat ooa un OedeTE EavTots 


yeveoOat erepw an morerte (cf ver 20) D(motery D!: -ew Taifsic] D*) a e 25-9, 32. 42. 


57. 69. 105-6-37 syr-w-ast wth Iren-int Cypr. 


CDHLeth-rom: mpatnre E Thl-fin. 


for ef, ap D. mpatare 
D adds depomevor ev Tw ayiw mvevmaTe: 


also Iren(ambulantes in sp. s.) Tert(vectante or rectante vos sp, s.). 


churches. But, although this was so, the 
Apostles and Elders did not think proper 
to send only Paul and Barnabas, who were 
already so deeply committed by their acts 
to the same side of the question as the 
letter which they bore,—but as direct au- 
thorities from themselves, Judas and Silas 
also, who might by word confirm the con- 
tents of the Epistle. Onthe present part. 
(amaryy.) see reff. and Winer, edn. 6, § 45. 
1. One account of it is, that during the 
mission implied in a@meordAkauey they 
would be arayyéAAovtes. But afar more 
probable one, that the pres. part. here, as 
so often, designates merely, carrying rather 
a logical than a chronological force: ‘as 
announcers of.” 27.) Ta avta, as 
above, the contents of the Epistle (and 
any explanation required): not, as Nean- 
der, ‘the same things as P. and B. have 
preached : 8a Aeyou, by word of mouth, 
as opposed to ‘by letter, decides against 
this interpretation. 28. TO ay. Tv. 
kal qp.| Not = T@ ay. mv. év jy. (as 
Olsh.),—but as, in ch. v. 32, the Holy 
Spirit, given to the Apostles and testifying 
by His divine power, is coupled with their 
own human testimony,—so here the de- 
cision of the Holy Spirit, given them as 
leaders of the Church, is laid down as the 
primary and decisive determination on the 


matter,—and their own formal ecclesias- 
tical decision follows, as giving utterance 
and scope to His will andcommand., ‘The 
other interpretation weakens this accuracy 
of expression, and destroys the propriety of 
the sentence. Neander, in his last edn. of 
the Pfl. u. L. (p. 224, note), has given up 
the rendering of his former ones, édogev 
yap (76 aylw rveduari) Kal huiv, ‘It seemed 
good (by the Holy Ghost) to us also, i.e. 
as well as to Paul and Barnabas. It was 
plausible, but quite untenable. Such am- 
biguity, in such a document, would surely 
be out of the question. The judgment 
as to what things were érdvay«es is implied 
in €dotev, &e. émutiO. had been used 
by Peter, ver. 10. 29.] On the con- 
struction of améxeoOat with ad in ver. 20, 
and with a simple gen. here, Tittm., de 
Syn. N. T. p. 225, says well that the differ- 
ence arises ‘non quoad rem ipsam, sed 
modo cogitandi, ita ut in priori formula 
sejunctionis cogitatio ad rem, in posteriori 
vero ad nos ipsos referatur.’ His following 
remarks are worth reading. é dv, 
from which things; not, as Meyer, ‘ ao- 
cording to which precepts ;’ see John xvii. 
15. ev mpat.| Not, ‘ye shall pros- 
per: but as kadas érolnoas, ch. x. 33; 
3 John 6,—ye shall do well. See 
the curious additions in var. readd. 


ABC] 
HLP: 
bed 
hkl 

opl 


27—35. 


pev ovv ‘arodvbévtes ™KaTHdOov eis “AvTioyeay, 


TIPABEIS ATIOSTOAON. 


171 


KGL 1 ch. xiii. 3 reff. 


m ch. viii. 5 reff 


a / / 725 

"guvayayovTes TO °TAHOos PérédwKay Thy 1 émiaToAHy. ® hs 7 
Cyl es t \ Pye TN a s , o ver. 12. — 
avayvovtes Sé€ *éydpnoay *éri TH * mapakAnoes. p~Lakeiv. 


82 “Tovdas Te Kal Lidas, ‘kat tavroi “trpodpras dvtes, * dua 
Noyou ToANod Yrrapexdrecay Tos adeAfovs Kal ~ éx- 
33 *¥ qroujoavtes S€ * ypovov | amedvOnoay 9°. ix. 


eoTnpiéav. 


“meT “elpyvns ATO TOY GEAPOV TPOS TOs aTTOGTELNAVTAS 
35 TIlavAos dé Kal BapvaBas a duéTpuBov ép s Rom. xv. 4, 5 


> is 
avuTous. 


17. xi. 11, 12 
|| Mt. xxiv 
30, 42 (ch. 
xxvii. 15) 

. Esth 
rb git ts 


r1 Cor. xiii. 6 
reff. 
Jonah iy, 6, 


reff. Isa. 


\ , \ eit 
"Avruoyeia SiacKkovtes Kat ” evayyeduGouevor peta Kat ce) 


na , la) / 
© étépwy ToAA@Y TOV ” Noyov TOD KuUpiov. 


al. fr. Deut. xiii. 6. 
xXpovov ovdeva. : 

x1. 3l only. Gen. xxvi, 29. 
only. see 1 Cor. xv. 2. 


80. aft amoAvé. ins ev nuepais oAvyats D. 


= ch. xx. 3. 


rel Chr He Thil-sif: txt ABCD a p 18. 36. 40 vulg eth Thl-fin. 


emidcdwkay KH. 


D1(txt D2). 


w ch. xiy. 22 reff, 
y 2 Cor. xi, 25. 
see ch. xvi. 36 reff. 
ce = ch. xvii. 7 reff. 


uch. xi. 27 reff. 
vy ch. xvi. 40. 
xx. 2 
x ch. xviii. 23, Demosth. p, 392, o¥d’ émoinaav 
James iy. 13. Prov. xiii. 23, z Heb. 
ach, xii. 19 reff. b ch. viii. 4 


rec (for kaT7A8.) nAPov, with EHLP 
ouvayovtes 


32. elz (for te) 5¢, with D-gr vulg E-lat syr copt Thl-fin: om sah xth-rom: txt 


ABC E-gr HLPX p 13 rel D-lat Syr zth-pl Chr He Thl-sif, 


xovres EH: aft ovres ins wAnpets mvevpatos ayiov D. 


for ovtes, umap- 
om oAAov D 18. 


excotnpicay CE 73: txt ABDHLP &-corr! p 13. 36 rel Chr: om ka ereor. X). 
33. rec for amoor. avtous, aroatodous ( perhaps an explanatory gloss, substituted 


Sor the genuine text ;—but more probably a mistake, owing to amor. being common to 
the two words), with EHLP rel syrr copt Chr: txt ABCDN a p 13. 36. 40 vulg sah 
zeth-rom Thl-fin Cassiod Bede.—X had eavtovs, but the e« has been marked and then 
erased. 

[84. rec edote de Tw o1Aa emimervat avtov (explanatory anticipation of ver 40), with 
CD 18 rel sah syr-w-ast arm Qe Thl-fin (ce:Aea D: mavaw wth: for empmeivat, susti- 
nere eos D-lat: for avtov, avtovs CD, pos avtovs D-corr!: om ABEHLEXN cd ghl 
m p am(and demid fuld) Syr copt Chr Thl-sif). add further jovos de sovdas 


eropevén D vulg-ed arm(not ed-1805) Cassiod. | 


35. o de 7. D. 
in D!, is supplied by D®(?). 


éppwoe |] The customary ‘valete’ of the 
conclusion of epistles. 31. wapa- 
KAyoet|] It does not appear, because 
mapekdAcoay follows in the sense of ‘ex- 
horted,’ that this word need mean ‘ea- 
hortation.’ There was (De W.) very little 
exhortation in the letter: and it is much 
more natural to render it consolation here: 
it was the matter of their joy, which surely 
could not be said of the orders to abstain 
given in the letter. It has been observed 
by Mr. Pusey that syr. renders mapexdAe- 
cay v. 32, by comforted. 32. | mpod. 
ovr. gives the reason for their superadding 
to the appointed business of their mission 
the work of exhorting and edifying. 

On zpo®., see ch. xi. 27; xili. 1; Eph. ii. 
20, and notes. 33. | mou. xp., having 
continued some time: see reff. [34. | 
On every account it is probable that the 
words forming this verse in ree. (see var. 
readd.) are an interpolation. For, (1) manu- 
script evidence against them is weighty, 
especially as D, in the case of insertions in 
the Acts, is of very low authority. (2) The 


kat peta eT. D!(txt D5). 


at end «v., which has perished 


avTov is avTovs in C and D, and a’rots and 
avTd: in some cursives; and D and the 
Vulg. add pdvos 5€ *Iovd. eropetOn; the 
former showing the copying of an indistinct 
marginal gloss which was not understood, 
and the latter betraying the secret of the 
whole, viz. that the notice was interpolated 
to account for Silas being found again at 
Antioch in ver. 40. (3) Internally con- 
sidered, the insertion is very improbable: 
coming alter ameAv6noay unexplained 
(which from its voice and tense implies 
that the dismissal actually took place and 
they departed) and followed by Mladaos 8é 
after dof 5¢ TG Sida. On Silas’s subse- 
quent presence at Antioch, see note, ver. 
40. We learn from Gal. ii. 10, that @ 
condition was attached to the cordiality 
with which the Gentile mission of Paul 
and Barnabas was recognized by the chief 
Apostles: that they should remember the 
poor, i.e. the poor at Jerusalem :—that 
the wants of the mother church should 
not be forgotten by those converts, whose 
Judaical bond to her was thus cast loose. 


172 TIPABEIS AILODTTOAON. XV. 36—41. 


d ch, x. 48 reff. 

e see Luke 
xxii. 32 (and 
note). 

f = Luke ii. 15. 
ch. xiii. 2. 


36 Mera 6é “twas “xpépas eirev pos BapvaBav Iad- ABCD 
e ’ / ‘¢ ‘ £ 3 / \ > \ b c d f| 
Nos ©’ Emuotpéavtes ' 5) * ericxeppapela Tovs adeApors beat! 


heata ToAW Tacav év als ixatnyyetNapev Tov ‘oyov oP} 


1 Cor. vi. 20. 
Gen. xviii. 4. 

g ch. vil, 23 
reff. 

h ch. xiii. 27 
reff. 

ich. xiii. 5 reff. 

k Gen. xliii. 27. 
see Matt. iv. 
24. Mark 
xvi. 18. 


nr / - 
Tod Kuptov, * 


lehxii 25 GyyrapadamBavew 4% TOUTOV. 

/ [4 8 > OF > \ > ’ > / ‘ 

pos, wste SatoywpicOjvat avTous amt aXANnAwY, TOV 
/ ’ r 

te BapvaBav ‘ rapadaBovta tov Mapkov “ exmedoat els 


reff. 

m = ch. xxviii. 
22 (Luke vii. 
7. 2 Thess. 


i. 11. 1 Tim, 
v.17. Heb. 
iii. 3. x. 29) 
only. 1 Macc. xi. 28. 
reff. p =ch. xiii. 2. xiv. 26. Phil. i. 22 al. 


xxix. 28. Jer. xxxix. (xxxii.) 37 only. (-vveo@at. ch. xvii. 16.) 
t = Matt. xvii. 1. 


ix. 33.) Ezek. xliii. 21 only, but not =. 
only+. Xen. Anab. y. 6, 21, 23. 


mas * €youow. 
lovyrapadaBeiv Kal “lwavyny tov Kkadovpevov Mapkov- 
38 TladAos S€ ™7Elov Tov “amocTayTa at av’T@v ato 
Ilaudurias Kai pr) °cuvedOovra adbrois eis TO ? Epyov, 1) 


n Luke ii. 37. iv. 13. ch. xii. 10. xix. 9 al. 


37 BapvaBas S€ éBovreTo 


39 éyévero 6€ * tapokva- 


o = ch. i. 21 

r Heb. x. 2only. Deut. 
s Rey. vi. 14 only. (Stax., Luke 

Num. xxii. 41. u ch. xviii. 18, xx. 6 


Ps. Ixxix. 18. 
q ch. xiii. 7 al. 


36. rec mava. bef xp. Bapy., with DEHLP rel: txt ABCN m p 18 vulg Thl-fin.—ins 


o bef wava. D. for 57, de 8}. 


rec aft Tous ad. ins nuwy (not perceiving 


the sense of 7. adeAd.), with HLPX rel eth He Thi: tovs D ¢ 36. 137-80 syr-w-ast : om 


ABCER a p 18. 40 vulg coptt arm Chr. 
36 rel vss Chr: txt ABCN k m copt. 
tayev C 15-8. 36. 180 (Syr copt ?). 


rec mac. bef 7oA., with DEHLP 13. 


os D. for katnyy., €Knpu- 


ins To bef tws EH. 


37. rec «BovAevoaro, with HLP rel Chr Gc Thi-sif: eBovAevero D: txt ABCEN a ec 


e p 13. 36. 40 vulg syrr copt zth Thl-fin. 


ouvrapadapBavew A (13). rec 


(for cat) tov, with HLP 13 rel Syr sah wth Ge Thi-sif: om Dac: kat tov BR p: txt 


ACE h k 36 vulg syr copt arm Chr Thl-fin. 


88. for néiov, ove eBovaeto Aeywy D. 
- om azo mayo. C?. 
aft epy.add eis o emeupOnoay D tol. 


ouveddota B'(but corrd), 


emuxadoumevoyv CD cd k p 13. 40. 
amooratyngavtTa(sic) A: amooTnoayTa 
om autos D. 
rec guumapadaBew (corrn for conformity 


to ver 37), with EHLP rel Chr Ee Thl: txt ABCN a ec p 86.—[ovvz., so ABICER. | 
for pn ovvt. T., D has rovroy un evar ovy avTots. 
39, rec for de, ovy (corrn to suit the sequence of the wapot. on the last verse), with 


CEHLP rel 36 syr Chr: txt ABD® p vulg coptt. 


amoxwpnoa E, TOTE 


Bapv. wapadaBwr 7. p. ewdevoey D: tov ye(or o ye) Syr. 


This was an object which Paul was ever 
most anxious to subserve. See Gal. 1. c. 
and note.] 35. | Su8dcKovrtes, to those 
who had received it,—evayyeAtLopevor, to 
those who had not. 

86—Cu. XVIII. 22.] Pavr’s srconp 
MISSIONARY JOURNEY (unaccompanied by 
Barnabas, on account of a difference be- 
tween them) THROUGH AsIA MINOR TO 
MACEDONIA AND GREECE, AND THENCE 
BY SEA, TOUCHING AT Epnesus, To JE- 
RUSALEM AND BACK TO ANTIOCH. 
86. peta S€ tivas jp.| How long, we 
are not informed: but perhaps (?) during 
this time took place that visit of Peter to 
Antioch mentioned Gal. ii. 11 ff. when he 
sacrificed his Christian consistency and 
better persuasions to please some Ju- 
daizers, and even Barnabas was led away 
with the dissimulation. On this occasion 
Paul boldly rebuked him. See, on the 
whole occurrence, notes to Gal, 1. ¢. 
81, see above, ch. xiii. 2. év als, be- 
cause macay méAw involves a plurality: 
so Xen, Mem. i. 2. 62, edy tis pavepds yé- 


. . Tovtas Odvards éoriy H Chula: 
ef. Herm. ad Viger. p. 40. 38. nEiov | 
Not as Vulg. ‘rogabat:’? but ‘aquum 
censebat,’ as Beza. It gives Paul’s refusal 
in the strongest manner. The position of 
the accusatives also forcibly expresses his 
decided rejection of one who had not dared 
to face the dangers of the untried country 
before. But Paul thought proper (as to) 
one who had fallen off from them from 
Pamphylia, and had not gone with them 
to the work, not to take with them that 
man. We may well believe that Paul’s 
own mouth gave originally the character to 
the sentence. Tov ator. | See ch. 
xiii. 18. It hence is evident that his de- 
parture was not by the authority of the 
Apostles (as Benson). 39. | 6 TlavAos 
e(ntrer Td Slxaov, 6 BapydBas 7d piAdy- 
@pwrov, Chrysostom: who also remarks 
on their separate journeys,—éuol Sone? Kat 
Kata otverw yeyerjoba Toy xwpioudy, 
kal mpos GAAAous eiwety Sti ered eyo 
ov BotvAoua, ab 5 BovAc, va wh paxd- 
peOa, Siavemmueba Tos Témous. &Sste mavu 


VNTat . 


XVI. 1—3. 


IIPABEIZ AIOSTOAON, 


173 


Kuzpov. 49 Tlatyos Sé ¥ érineEdpevos Sirav  €&ArOev v= here (John 


x 5 0 \ a U a ‘ e \ a 10 a 

mapacodeis TH YapiTt TOU KUplov UTO THY adeAPav. >. 
41 ¥ Sujpyeto Sé tiv Xupiav Kat Kidixiav, * émiorypitov « 
XVI. 1 Pxarivrncev Sé eis AépBnv 
c Ms \ / = SALA Sue Mee Gece 
kat lov pabntys Tis tv éKel dvomaTe rif. Gen 


\ 

Tas * é€xxAnolas. 
< / 

kat Avotpav. 


vy. 2) only. 
Book ae 
2 Kings 
x. 9. 
= ch. xvi. 3, 
40, xx. 1 al, 
x ch. xiv. 26 
reff. 
ch. xiii. 6 


Tipobeos, vios yuvaixos “lovéatas 4mioths, matpos bé* 3” 
nS, 


"EXAnvos, ® Os ° éwaptupetto * vo TeV év Adatpows Kal 


"Tkoviw aderpav. 


a / \ i 
PéEenOciv, kal ®rAaBov "“meprétrewev adtov ibia ods 3i, 


iii. 11 only. 2 Mace. iv. 44. w. avtuKpvs, ch. xx. 15 only. L.P. (w. emt, 2 Kings iii. 29 only.) 
i i d ch. x. 45 reff. é 


xi. 11. xii. 7. xxvii. 24 al. 
gred., Matt, xiii. 3l al. of persons, here only. 
iv. 21. x. 21. 


40. aavdos E-gr. 


Num, iii. 6. 


emiSctauevos D. 


reff. 
a plur., Rom. 
xvi. 16 reff. 
b w. ets, ch. 


a 


3 rodtov nOéAncev 6 IladANos ody avT@ *vii-19,24 


al5, 1 Cor. 
xX. lls xiv. 
Eph. iv, 
13. Phil. 
ech. 
f ch. xy. 40 reff. 
i=ch, 


e ch. x. 22 reff. 
h 1 Cor, vii. 18 reff. 


om tov D}(ins D5). rec 


(for kup.) @eov, with CEHLP rel 36 syrr copt Chr: txt ABDX p 13. 40 am(and demid 


fuld tol) sah Thl-fin. azo D. 
41. ins tnv bef «A. BD Thl-fin. 


at end ins rapadi5ous Tas evroAas Twy mpeo~ 


Butepwy D demid fuld(not am tol) arm(not ed-1805). 


Cuar. XVI. 1. d:eA@wy Se Ta €Ovn TavtTa Karnyt. D syr-mg Cassiod. 
bef ets Sep8. AB a m 13. 36. 40 syr copt. 
exet bef ny D: om exer 32-7. 57 wth. 


ins Kat 
ins es bef Aver. ABN c p Thi-fin. 
rec aft yuv. ins Tivos, with HLP 


rel Syr sah (Ze Thl: om ABCDEN ak p 36. 40 vulg syr copt «th arm Chr Orig-int 


Jer. (13 def.) 
2. ixoviov XN. 


om tovdaas KH. 


elxovtes GAAHAoLs TovTO émolovv. Hom. 
xxxiv., p. 262. Yet it seems as if there 
were a considerable difference in the cha- 
racter of their setting out. Barnabas ap- 
pears to have gone with his nephew without 
any special sympathy or approval ; whereas 
Paul was commended to the grace of God 
by the assembled church. We find 
Mark afterwards received into favour by 
Paul, see Col. iv. 10; 2 Tim. iv. 11; and 
in the former of those places it would seem 
as if he was dependent for his reception on 
Paul’s special commendation. 40. 
=trtav] He may perhaps have come down 
again to Antioch (see ver. 33) in Peter’s 
company. We find (see above on ver. 22) 
a Silvanus in 1 Pet. v. 12, the bearer of 
that epistle to the congregations of Asia 
Minor. 41. Suptav «. Keduk.] See 
note, ver. 23. Here we finally lose sight 
of Barnabas in the sacred record. 

Cuap. XVI.1.] We have Derbe first, as 
lying nearest to the pass from Cilicia into 
Lycaonia and Cappadocia. Paul probably 
travelled by the ordinary road through the 
‘Cilician gates,’ a rent or fissure in the 
mountain-chain of Taurus, extending from 
north to south through a distance of eighty 
miles. See various interesting particulars 
in C, and H. i. p. 301 ff. and notes. 
éxet | At Lystra: which, and not Derbe, 
was in all probability the birth-place of 
Timotheus: see on ch. xx. 4. This view is 
confirmed by ver. 2. He had probably 


been converted by Paul during his former 
visit, as he calls him his son in the Lord, 
Cor ive Lig) Lime 2) oe Linen) 
perhaps at Antioch in Pisidia, see 2 Tim. 
iii. 10, 11. His mother was Eunice, his 
grandmother Lois,—both women of well- 
known piety, 2 Tim. i. 5. Whether his 
father was a proselyte of the gate or not, is 
uncertain : he certainly was uncircumcised. 
He would be, besides his personal aptness 
for the work, singularly fitted to be the 
coadjutor to Paul, by his mixed extraction 
forming a link between Jews and Greeks. 
2.| Some of these testimonies were 
probably intimations of the Spirit respect- 
ing his fitness for the work; for Paul 
speaks, 1 Tim. i. 18, of Tas mpoayodoas em) 
o& mpodyretas (see ch. xiii. 1, 3). He was 
set apart for the work by the laying on of 
the hands of Paul and of the presbytery, 
1 Tim. iv.14; 2 Tim. i. 6, after he had 
made a good confession before many wit- 
nesses, 1 Tim. vi. 12. 3. AaBov trepi- 
ér.| As E. V. took and circumcised him. 
Every Israelite might perform the rite ; see 
Winer, Realw., art. ‘ Beschneidung.’ 
81a tT. Iovd.] That he might not at once, 
wherever he preached, throw a stumbling- 
block before the Jews, by having with him 
one by birth a Jew, but uncircumcised. 
There was here no concession in doctrine 
at all, and no reference whatever to the 
duty of Timotheus himself in the matter. 
In the case of Titus, a Greek, he dealt 





174 IIPABEIS AILOSTOAON AVE 


, / lal 
kplur, Mark "Toudatous Tovs dvtas év Tois * ToTrots éxelvoust | 7devoav ABCD 


yap amavTes Tov marépa avtov, ore “EXAnv 7 UOTE NED: bear 
I 


11 ||. ch. 
xxvii. 2, 29 


only. 
2 Chron. 
xxxiv. 6. 

1 constr., 2 Cor. 
xii. 3,4. Job 
xxi. 27. 

m ch. ii. 30 reff. 

n acc., here 
(Luke vi. 1. 
xiii. 22. 

XViil. 36. 
Rom. ae 44) 
only. 

viii. 8. 

1 Mace. iil. 
37. o = 1 Cor. xi. 2 reff. (ch. xii. 4.) 
al. Eccles. xii. 13. 

error) only. Dan. vi. 
s plur., Rom. xvi. 16 reff. t ch. iii. 7 reff. 

1.9. Eccl. iii. 19. w ch. ii, 46 reff. 

yili. 36 al. 1 Kings xxy. 26. pass., Rom. i. 13. 


9 Theod. 


3. maytes CD m: txt ABEHLPR® p rel Chr (ic Thi. 
am 13.86. 40 sah Thl-fin : 


(corrn for simplicity) ABC 
sif, 


4 @s dé "Ouverropevovto Tas ToNeLs, 


q Luke ii. 1. ch. xvii. 7. 
r= ch. xx. 16. 


Heb. vii. 23 only. 


‘é€atepeobvto TH YmlaTel, Kab 
- > fol 
Kal’ juépav: & * Sui Bov O€ THY 


Dpvyiav Kat Te yepav, ¥ kwd\vOévTes vO TOU 


1 Tim. vy. 21 
Ezek. xx. 26 B (but appy 
Tit. iii. 12. 2 Macc. xi. 25. 
v 2 Cor. ix. 12. Phil. 
y = Matt. xix. 14. ch. 


p = Luke xi. 28. ch. vii. 53. xxi. 24. 
Eph. ii. 15. Col. ii. 14 only. 
1,Gor..v. 3. Vii. 37. 
u ch. xiii. 8 reff. 
x ch, xiii. 6 reff. 
Exod. xxxvi. 6. 


oTLeEAANY O TAaTHP avTOU 


txt DEHLP rel Chr @e Thl- 


4. for ver, diepXouevor de Tas moAets exnpvocoy Kat Tapedidooay avTols META TacNS 
Tappyoias TOY Ky inv xpv Aba mapad.bovTes Kat Tas evToAas amooT. (Twy am. D®) tk. mpecB. 


7T. eviep. D: 
ree mapedidouv, with HLP rel 36 Chr: 


Bas Thl-fin. 
5. om 77 mor. D. 


aft Tas mod. ins exnpvocov wEeTa Tac. Tap. T. Kup. (no. Xp. SYY-mMg. 
mapedidovcay C: 
ins tw bef mpecB. (corrn for uniformity), with EHLP rel Chr: 
rec tepovoaAnu, with KHLP Chr: 
meptecoevoy E 3. 65. 95' Chr-mss. 

6. rec SieAovtes, with LP rel vulg(transeuntes . 
ABCDEN ac dekm p 13. 36. 40 syr copt arm Epiph Did. 


txt ABDERN p 13. rec 
om ABCDX a p13 
txt ABCDR a p 13 vulg Thl-fin. 


. vetati sunt) Chr (He Thi: txt 
rec ins tnv bef yaa. 


(corrn for uniformity), with KHLP 36 Epiph Did: om ABCDN p 13 Ces. 


otherwise, no such reason existing: Gal. 
ii. 3. 4. tas méX.| Iconium, and 
perhaps Antioch in Pisidia. He might at 
Iconium see the elders of the church of 
Antioch, as he did afterwards those of 
Ephesus at Miletus. If he went to An- 
tioch, he might regain his route into Phry- 
gia and Galatia by crossing the hills east of 
that city. 5.| This general notice, 
with wév ody, like those at ch. ix. 31, xii. 
24, marks the opening of a new section. 
6—9.| This very cursory notice of 
a journey in which we have reason to think 
so much happened,—the founding of the 
Galatian and Phrygian churches (see ch. 
xviil. 23, where we find him, on his second 
visit, ornpl(wy mdvras tovs pabntds) ; 
the sickness of the Apostle alluded to Gal. 
iv. 13; the working of miracles and im- 
parting of the Spirit mentioned Gal. iii. 5; 
the warmth and kindness of feeling shewn 
to Paul in his weakness, Gal. iv. 14, 15,— 
seems to shew that the narrator was not 
with him during this part of the route ; an 
inference which is remarkably confirmed 
by the sudden resumption of circumstantial 
detail with the use of the first person, at 
ver. 10. 6. Ppvyiav| There were 
‘two tracts of country called by this name: 
‘Phrygiam utramque (alteram ad Helles- 
pontum, majorem alteram vocant)..... 
Eumeni restituerunt.? Livy, xxxviii. 39. 


It is with ‘Phrygia Major’ that we are 
here concerned, which was the great central 
space of Asia Minor, yet retaining the name 
of its earliest inhabitants, and on account 
of its being politically subdivided among 
the contiguous provinces, impossible to 
define accurately (see C. and H. i. p. 280, 
note 1). The Apostle’s route must 
remain very uncertain. It is probable that 
he may have followed the great road (ac- 
cording to his usual practice and the natu- 
ral course of a missionary journey) from 
Iconium to Philomelium and perhaps as far 
as Synnada, and thence struck off to the 
N.E. towards Pessinus in Galatia. That 
he visited Colosse, in the extreme S.W. of 
Phrygia, on this journey, as supposed by 
some, and maintained with some ingenuity 
by Mr. Lewin (Life and Epistles of St. Paul 
i. 191 ff.), is very improbable (see Wieseler, 
Chron. d. Apostgsch. pp. 28 ff.). 

Takarikyy x. | The midland district, known 
as Galatia, or Gallo-gracia, was inhabited 
by the descendants of those Gauls who 
invaded Greece and Asia in the third cen- 
tury B.C., and after various incursions and 
wars, settled and became mixed with the 
Greeks in the centre of Asia Minor. They 
were known as a brave and freedom-loving 
people, fond of war, and either on their 
own or others’ account, almost always in 
arms, and generally as cavalry. Jerome (in 


° mapedidocay avTois op i: 
P dua x 460 Bb 
acoew Ta doypata Ta *Kexpiuéva LTO TOV aTro- 
/ \ lol s 
oTO\wY Kat TpecButépwy Tav év ‘lepocodvpots. 
5 At pev obv * éxxrAnolas 
v erreplacevoy TO aplo uo 


4—9, 


ayiov Tvevpmatos Big) tee Tov “oyov év tH ’Acia 
7@é@\Oovtes 5€ * KaTA THY Muciav ® emretpatoy els THY 


IIPAZEIS ATMOSTOAON. 


175 


zch. xi. 19 reff. 
? a of place, here 
only. of per- 
son, Luke 
x. 33. 


Biuviav ropevOjvar, Kai ovK °elacey avtovs TO mebpa aie” 


xxiv. 6 


"Incod: § * mapenOorres dé tav Muolav ° xareBnoay Els ok. wal. 


Tpwada. 


only. (ch. xxiv. 7 al.) Deut. ii. 14, 
ch. v. 19 reff. 


‘ins under Def AaAnoa D. 
7. for eAOovres, yevowevnv D'(-vo1 D8). 


ins ABCDEN a b! dk m p 13. 36. 40 syr coptt Ath Epiph Did. 


D Syr. 
before: 


e ch. xviii. 22 reff. 


Job ix. 18. 


9 Kat fopapa "dia [THs] vuKTos TO avr @ constr, Mark 


f ch. vii. 31 reff. g see 


aft rov A. ins Tov cov D vulg-ed spec Syr copt. 


rec om de, with HLP rel Chr c Thi: 
for emetp., nOcAav 


rec (for evs) kata (perhaps merely a mistake, occasioned by kata T. uve. 
if an intentional alteration, the reason is not clear), with HLP rel @e Thl- 
sif: txt ABCDEX ¢ k m p 13. 40 Epiph Chr Cyr Thl-fin. 


om 2nd tv D. 


rec mopeveoOa: (corrn for the less usual inf. aor.), with CDHLP 13 rel Chr ce Thl- 


sif: txt ABEX m p 36 Cyr Did Thl-fin. 
sah Chr (Ec Thl; 
arm Jer Orig-int Vig. 
8. SieAGovres D. 
9. ev opapar: D-gr E-lat Syr. 


the introduction to book ii. of his comm. 
on Galatians, vol. vii., p. 429) says that 
their speech was like that of the Germans 
in the neighbourhood of Treves: and per- 
haps Aveaonorti, ch. xiv. 11, spoken of the 
neighbouring district, may refer to this 
peculiar dialect. But Greek was extensively 
spoken. They were conquered by the con- 
sul Cn. Manlius Vulso, 189 B.c. (Livy 
xxxvili. 12, see 1 Mace. viii. 2), but retained 
their own governors, called as before te- 
trarchs, and afterwards kings (for one of 
whom, Deiotarus, a protégé of Pompey’s, 
Cicero pleaded before Cesar); their last 
king, Amyntas, passed over from Antony 
to Augustus in the battle of Actium. 
Galatia, after his murder, A.D. 26, became 
a Roman province. The principal cities 
were Ancyra,—which was made the me- 
tropolis of the province by Augustus,— 
Tavium, and Pessinus: in all, or some of 
which, the Apostle certainly preached. 
He was detained here on account of sick- 
ness (30 ao0€veiay THs capKds, Gal. iv. 13). 
See further in Prolegg. to Gal. § ii. 

kwAv9évtTes | By some special intimation, 
like that in ch. xiii. 2. *Aoia] This 
name, applied at first to the district near 
the river Cayster in Lydia (Agito év Aciwari, 
Kaiiorplov audi péeOpa, Hom. Il. B. 461), 
came.to have a meaning more and more 
widely extended, till at last it embraced, 
as at present, the whole vast continent, 
forming one of the quarters of the globe. 
But we never find this meaning in Scrip- 
ture. The Asia of the Acts is not even 
our Asia Minor, —which name is not used 
till Orosius (i. 2, p. 16) in the fourth 
century A.D.,—but only a portion of the 
- western coast of that great peninsula. (A 


rec om inoov (see note), with HLP rel 


kupiov C! demid: txt ABC2DEN m p! 13. 36. 40 vulg syrr copt «th 


katyvtTnoay D-gr. 
om 51a C. 


rec ins tns, with CEHLPN p 13 


full account of the history of the territory 
and its Spanars of extent will be found in 
C. and H., i. pp. 275 ff., and in Wieseler, 
pp. 32 33. I confine myself to its im- 
port in the Acts.) This, which was the 
Roman province of Asia,—Asia Propria, 
Plin. v. 28,—as spoken of in the Acts, 
includes only Mysia, Lydia, and Caria,— 
excluding Phrygia (ch. ii. 9 and here: 
1 Pet. i. 1 it must be included) as in 
Pliny 1. ¢.,—Galatia, Bithynia, Cilicia, 
Pamphylia, Lycia. See ch. xix. 26, &e. 
7. Bbuviay |] At this time a Roman 
province (senatorial: Hadrian, whose fa- 
vourite province it was, took it from the 
senate). When they were come to (i.e. 
to the borders of) Mysia, they attempted 
to go into B. The expression mv. Inaod 
is remarkable, as occurring in all the great 
Mss., and from its peculiarity bearing 
almost unquestionable trace of genuine- 
ness,—the idea being quite untenable that 
the word *Incov has been inserted here, 
and no where else, on doctrinal grounds. 
If the report of this journey came from 
an unusual source, an unusual expression 
would be accountable. 8.] maped- 
Od6vres must from the context mean ‘having 
passed by, i.e. as regarded their work 
of preaching (cf. ch. xx. 16),—and not 
‘having passed by’ as avoiding it; for 
they could not get to the coast without 
entering Mysia. Ladhere to this inter- 
pretation, notwithstanding what has been 
said against it by Dr. Bloomfield (Gr. Test. 
edn. 9). For this sense of mapéepxomat, 
which is not figurative at all, but involved 
in the literal, cf. Hom. Il. 0.239: Aristoph. 
Vesp. 636,7: Plato, Phzedr. p. 278 fin. 
TpwdSa] Troas (Alexandria Troas, in ho- 


176 IIPASEIS AIOSTOAQN. “XVI. 
Per: 15 reff @hOn, avnp Maxedmv tis éEctws imapakarav avTov Kat 
ted. x29 1 éywr * AvaBas ets Maxedoviav ' BonOncov jyiv. 1° ws 


only. 1 Kings 


e 3 a 

rut ty as, O€ TO fOpaua eidev, evOews ™ Cntr capev ” éEeNOciv eis 
Mark ix. 22, ¢ ca 
uchxxu TV Maxedoviay, ° cupPBiBafovtes OTe ? rposkéKAnTaL Has 


28. 2 Cor. vi. 
2, from Isa. xlix. 8, 
0 1 Cor. ii. 16 reff. 


Heb. ii. 18. Rev. xii, 16 only. m = ch. xiii. § reff. n ch. xi. 25 reff. 


p ch. xiii. 2 reff. 


rel Chr: om A?(and appy A!) BD 40. rec wp0n bef tw mavaAw, with ACDIHLP 
rel 36 syrr Chr: txt B D-corr EX m p 13. 40 vulg. ins wset bef avnp D Syr sah. 

rec tis bef wakedwy, with HLP rel syrr Chr: txt ABCDEX m p 13 Thl-fin.— 
rec aft aynp tis ins ny, with HLP rel Chr ec Thl-sif: aft uakedwv t1s ABCD®X am p13 
Thl-fin (these variations of position shew the word to be spurious, inserted to fill up 
the imagined constr, it not being observed that avnp &c is in apposn with opaua): om 


DIE 3. 47. 95!. 103 Syr copt eth arm. 
syr-w-ast sah. 


aft extws ins kata To Tposwrov avtov D 


ins rat bef rapaxadwy (supplementary corrn) ABCER a p 13 vulg 
(syrr) eth: om DHLP rel copt Chr, Ge Thl. 


om autoy D. 


10. for ws to ort, dieyepOers ovy Sinynoato To opaua nut Kat evonoapmev ott D, simly 


sah. efntnoamer(sic) X. 


nour of Alex. the Great: now Eski Stam- 
boul) was a colony juris Italici (see on ver. 
12), and a free city, and was not reckoned 
as belonging to either of the provinces, 
Asia or Bithynia. Whether it was for this 
reason that Paul and his companions visited 
it, is uncertain. He may have had the 
design of crossing to Europe, if permitted, 
which the subsequent vision confirmed. 
See ch. xx. 5; 2 Cor. ii.12; 2 Tim. iv. 13. 

9.] The vision seems to have ap- 
peared in the same way as that sent to 
Peter in ch. x. It was an unreal appari- 
tion, designed to convey a practical mean- 
ing. The context precludes our under- 
standing it as a dream. Maxedav | 
known probably by the affecting words 
spoken by him. There would hardly be 
any peculiarity of dress by which a Mace- 
donian could be recognized. 10. 
éLytyocapevy| by immediate enquiry for a 
ship. This word is remarkable as the 
introduction of the first person in the 
narrative: which however is dropped at 
ver. 40, on Paul’s leaving Philippi, and 
resumed again, ch. xx. 5, on occasion of 
sailing from Philippi. Thence it continues 
(in all places where we have reason to 
expect it: see below) to the end of the 
book. On the question, what is implied 
by this, we may remark, (1) That while 
we safely conclude from it that the writer 
was in company with Paul when he thus 
speaks, we cannot with like safety infer 
that he was not, where the third person 
is used. This latter must be determined 
by other features of the history. For it 
is conceivable that a narrative, even where 
it concerns all present, might be, in its 
earlier parts, written as of others in the 
third person, but might, when more inti- 
macy had been established, or even by 


om tv (for uniformity with es war. above: but 


preference only, be at any point changed 
to the first. And again, the episodes where 
the chief person alone, or with his principal 
companion or companions, is concerned, 
would be many, in which the narrator would 
use the third person, not because he was 
not present, but because he was not con- 
cerned. This has not been enough attended 
to. If it be thought fanciful, I may refer 
to an undoubted instance in the episode, 
ch. xxi. 17, yevouévwv judy eis ‘Iep., to 
ch. xxvii. 1, ws 5€ éexplOn 7. a&momdelv 
nuas, ...; during the whole of which time 
the writer was with or in the neighbour- 
hood of Paul, and drops the we, merely 
because he is speaking of Paul alone. (2) 
One objection raised by De Wette to the 
common view, that Le accompanied Paul 
from this time (except as above), is, that 
several times Paul’s companions are men- 
tioned, but Luke is never among them. 
On examining however one of the passages 
where this is done, we find that after the 
enumeration of Sopater, Aristarchus, Se- 
cundus, Gaius, Timotheus, Tychicus, and 
Trophimus, we are told, obr0: mpoeA@dvres 
Euevov Mas ev Tpwdd:: so that the writer 
evidently regards himself as being closely 
associated with Paul, and does not think 
it requisite to enumerate himself among 
the companions of the Apostle. This may 
serve as a key to his practice on other 
occasions. On the whole, and after careful 
consideration of the subject, I see no reason 
to doubt the common view, that Luke here 
joined the Apostle (whether, as Wieseler 
suggests, asa physician, on account of his 
broken health, must of course be matter 
of conjecture, but is not improbable), and 
from this time (except from ch. xvii. 1— 
xx. 5) accompanies him to the end of the 
history. See the question of the author- 


10—12. 


6 Geos % evayyeXicacbar 


xxvii. 1. uch. x. 41 reff. 


IIPASEIS AILOZTOAQN. 


avtous. 
amo Tpwddos * evOvdpounoapmev els LapoOpaxny, TH O€ 
témuovan eis Nedtronw, ! caxetOev eis Pidtrrrovs, “iris 
> \ / fol Vv ‘5 an M } yy U Ww 

€otly mpoeTn THs ‘ mepidos THs Maxedovias modus, * Ko- 


177 


LA avax Gévtes de q constr., ch. 


viii. 25 reff. 

\ rch. xiii. 13 
reff. 

s ch. xxi. 1 
only +. 

t abs., ch. xx. 
15, xxi. 18 
(vii. 26. xxiii. 
11) only. Proy. 
w here only +. 


y ch, viii. 21 reff. Ezek. xlv. 7. 


that was the first this the second mention) BCELPN ak p 18 Thl-sif: ins AH rel Ge 


Thil-fin. om yeas XN}. 


Thl-sif: tovs ev tn waxed. D. 


rec (for @eos) kupios, with DHLP rel syrr sah Chr ec 
Thi-sif Iren-int: txt ABCEN a1 p 18. 86 vulg copt eth Thl-fin Jer. 


avtous A 138 


11. ree for de, ovy (corrn to suit the sequence on the foregoing ver), with BCHL 
P(appy) rel 36 syr-txt sah (ec Thl-sif: txt A(D)EX m p 13 vulg syr-mg copt Chr 


Thl-fin.—r7 de ewavpioy ax. (avax@. D*) aro D 137. 
with HL P(appy) rel Thdrt ce Thl: om ABCDEN c m p 13. 40 Chr. 


rec ins tTys bef Tpwasdos, 
rec (for 77 


de) tn Te, With H rel vulg Syr eth Chr He Thi: cart D: txt A B(®) CELRabck mo 


p 13 syr coptt. (P uncert.) 


aft emovc. ins nuepa D. 


veav To\w ABD®N. 


12. ree exeiOev re, with HP rel vulg Syr copt eth Chr He Thl-sif: ex. S5¢ L 137 


syr sah: txt A B(sic: see table) CDEN a m p 13. 36 Thl-fin. 


kedady D Syr. 
Chr: pepis E-gr. 


for mpwr., 


om 1st tns B: om ts wep. D c 14}. 96. 105-37-42 syrr eth 
om 2nd rns (to make the sense clearer: waxedovias Tod. 


expressing ‘Macedonian city’ better than Tyns wakedovias moA.) ACEN a m p 40: ins 


BDHLP Chr Cc Thl. (13 def.) 


ship of the Acts further discussed in the 
Prolegg. § i. 12—14. 11.] They had 
a fair wind on this occasion: in ch. xx. 6, 
the voyage in the opposite direction took 
five days. This is also implied by ev@vdpo- 
uhoauey: see ref., where it has the same 
sense, viz., ran before the wind. The 
coincidence of their going to Samothrace 
also shews it: determining the wind to 
have been from the S. or 8.S.E. It is only 
a strong southerly breeze which will over- 
come the current southwards which runs 
from the Dardanelles by Tenedos (C. and 
H. i. p. 386): and this, combined with the 
short passage, is another mark of the vera- 
eity of our narrative. They seem to have 
anchored N. of the lofty island of Samo- 
thrace, under its lee. _ eis Nedtrodty | 
In an E. by N. direction, past the island 
of Thasos. It was not properly in Mace- 
donia, but in Thrace, and twelve (ten, 
C. and H.i. 339, from the Jerusalem Itine- 
rary) Roman miles from Philippi, which 
was the frontier town of Macedonia strictly 
speaking: see below. It was by Vespa- 
sian, together with the whole of Thrace, 
attached to the province of Macedonia 
(Winer, Realw.). Some Roman ruins and 
inscriptions serve to point out the Turkish 
village of Cavallo as its site. 12. 
@iXtmrovs | Philippi was built as a mili- 
tary position on the site of the village 
Krenides (also called Datos, Appian, Bell. 
Civ. iv. 105, of 5€ SiAuwro TéALs eotly, 
Adros wvoudtero mada, Kat Kpnvides ér1 
mpo Adrov’ Kpivat yap elot wep) TE Addw 
vaudTwy modAat), by Philip the Great of 
Macedon. The plain between the Gangites, 
Vou. II. 


on which the town is situate, and the 
Strymon, was the field of the celebrated 
battle of Antony and Octavius against 
Brutus and Cassius (cf. Dio Cassius, xlvii. 
41 ff.: Appian, ubi supra): see more 
below. There is now an_ insignificant 
place on its site retaining the name Filiba 
(or Philippigi ?). Winer, Realw. 

TPOTH THS pepldOos THS Makedovias 
aé\us | The first Macedonian city of the 
district. It was the first Macedonian 
city to which Paul and his companions 
came in that district,—Neapolis properly 
belonging to Thrace. And this epithet of 
apétn would belong to it not only as re- 
garded the journey of Paul and Silas, but 
as Wieseler remarks (Chron. d. Apgsch. 
p- 37, note) as lying furthest eastward, for 
which reason also the district was called 
Macedonia prima, though furthest from 
Rome. The other explanations are, (1) 
‘chief city, as KE. V. But this it was not: 
Thessalonica being the chief city of the 
whole province, and Amphipolis of the 
division (if it then subsisted) of Macedonia 
prima :—(2) mpét7n is taken as a title of 
honour (Hug, Kuin., De Wette), as we 
find in the coins of Pergamus and Smyrna 
(but not in the case of any city out of 
Asia Minor): (3) 7éAts koAwr. are united 
(Grot.),—‘the first city which was a 
colony. But there could be no reason for 
stating this : whereas there would be every 
reason to particularize the fact that they 
tarried and preached in the very first city 
to which they came, in the territory to 
which they were sent. pepiSos would 
seem to import that the division into Mace- 


178 


Awvia. 


x ch. xii. 19 
reff. 

y ch. x. 48 reff. 
z Luke iv. 16. 
ch. xiii. 14 
only. Exod. 

xx. 8. see 

ch. xx. 7 reff. 

Luke xiv. 5 al. 
c = here only t. 


a Matt. xxi. 17. 
2 Mace. xiv. 4. 


neny D}(txt D§). 
ak p 13. 36 Syr.—rn bef avr7 b o. 


13. for te, 5e Daco 13 vulg E-lat syr coptt Thi. 


IIPABEIS AIOZTOAON. 


Heb. xiii. 13. 
d ver. 16 only $. 


XVI. 


Fev O€ ev Ta’TH TH TOAEL * SiaTpiBovTes ¥ Huepas 
“Yowds, 3 rH Te *épa Ta * caBBatwv * €EjdOoper * Ew 
Tis °rvAnS Tapa TotTapov, ov ° évomiteTo 4 mposevyn elvat, 


b Luke vii. 12. 
Jos. Antt. xiv. 10. 23 (see note). 


Heb. xiii. 12. Ruth iy. 1. 


for tavtn, avtn D-corr HLP rel Chr Ge Thl: txt ABCD'EXR 


rec for muAns, ToAews (per- 


haps a margl expl of tns mudAns: perhaps an error), with EHLP rel 36 syr eth-rom 


Chr: txt ABCDR a p 13. 40 vulg coptt. 


ins tov bef zotau. D ] 142 Thl-sif. 


evouiCopev ABC 13. 40 copt wth-rom (-apey C): evourCev R: edoxer D Epiph (altera- 
tions from misunderstanding : see note): putabant arm : videbatur vulg : txt A)(appy) 


EHLP rel 36 Chr Ge Thl. 


donia prima, secunda, &c., made long before 
this by Zmilius Paulus (Livy, xlv. 29), still 
subsisted ; this however is not necessary : 
Hepis might be merely a geographical sub- 
division. Wordsworth finds his  solu- 
tion of the difficulty in “the Hellenistic 
sense of the word pepls, viz. a frontier or 
strip of border land, that by which it (?) is 
divided from some other adjacent territory : 
see Ezek. xlv.7.” But this supposed sense 
may be questioned. Certainly in the place 
cited uepis has no such meaning. It there 
represents p97, which is merely a part or 
portion. kodwvia | Philippi was made 
a colonia by Augustus, as a memorial 
of his victory over Brutus and Cassius, 
and as a frontier garrison against Thrace. 
Its full name on the coins of the city 
was Colonia Augusta Julia Philippensis. 
A Roman colony was in fact a portion 
of Rome itself transplanted to the pro- 
vinces (Aulus Gellius, xvi. 13, calls them 
‘ex civitate quasi propagatee—populi Ro- 
mani quasi effigies parve simulacraque ’). 
The colonists consisted of veteran soldiers 
and freedmen, who went forth, and de- 
termined and marked out their situation, 
with all religious and military ceremo- 
nies. The inhabitants of the colonix 
were Roman citizens, and were still en- 
rolled in one or other of the tribes, and 
possessed the privilege of voting at Rome. 
In them the Roman law was strictly 
observed, and the Latin language was 
used on their coins and _ inscriptions. 
They were governed by their own senate 
and magistrates (Duumviri, as the consuls 
at Rome: see on otpatnyol below, ver. 
20), and not by the governor of the 
province. The land on which they stood 
was tributary, as being provincial, un- 
less liberated from tribute by the special 
favour of the jus Italicum, or Quiritarian 
ownership of the soil. This Philippi 
possessed, in common with many other 
colonize and favoured provincial towns. 


mposevxnv A2CN p 13. 40 copt eth: evxn m 99: txt 


The population of such places came in pro- 
cess of time to be of a mixed character: 
but only the descendants of the original 
colonists by Roman wives, or women of a 
people possessing the civitas, were Roman 
citizens. Hence new supplies of colonists 
were often necessary. See article ‘Colonia ” 
in Smith’s Dict. of Antt., and C. and H. 
i. pp. 341, f. év TAaUTY TY WoAcr | 
In this city,—as distinguished from the 
suburban place of prayer to which they 
afterwards, on the Sabbath, e&7A@ov %€w 
Tis mUAns. Perhaps tav7tn may have been 
changed to avry, to make the contrast 
stronger. éy avTh TH méAei, as distin- 
guished from €w THs mvAns, would be too 
strong an expression for the calm simplicity 
of St. Luke’s narrative style. 18. 
motapcv | a (or, the) river; viz. the small 
stream Gangites, or Gangas: Leake, p. 217, 
cited by C. and H. i. 341; not, as Meyer 
and De Wette, the Strymon, the nearest 
point of which was many miles distant. 
The name Krenides, formerly borne by the 
city, was derived from the fountains of this 
stream. From many sources we learn, 
that it was the practice of the Jews to hold 
their assemblies for prayer near water, 
whether of the sea, or of rivers: probably 
on account of the frequent washings cus- 
tomary among them. Thus a decree of the 
Halicarnasseans in Joseph. Antt. xiv. 10. 
23, allows the Jews ras mposevyas roteto- 
Oat mpos TH Oaddoon Kata Td TaTpLov EOos. 
Thus Juvenal, speaking of the ‘madida 
Capena’ at Rome, adds, ‘ Nune sacri fontis 
nemus, et delubra locantur Judeis,’ iii, 13. 
And Tertullian, de Jejuniis, ch. 16, vol. ii. 
p- 976, ‘Judaicum certe jejunium ubique 
celebratur, quum omissis templis per omne 
litus quocumque in aperto aliquando jam 
precem ad ceelum mittunt. And ad 
Nationes, i. 13, vol. i. p. 579, he speaks of 
the ‘orationes litorales’ of the Jews. See 
also Philo in Flace. § 14, vol. ii. p. 535. 

ov évop. mpos. elvat] Where a 


138—15. 


Kat *KxaBicavtes éXadodmev Tals 


I Kai Tus yur) ovowate Avodia, ® roppupdT@Xdts TrOAEwS 


IIPASEIZ AIMOSTOAON. 


f 


179 


bs., Matt. 
cuvenOovoas yvvakiv. cena age: 


ch. xiii. 14. 
1 Cor. x. 7. 
Isa. xxx. 8. 


Ovateipwrv, “ ceBowévn tov ‘Ocov, HKovev, Hs 6 KUptos f ch. i. 6 reff 


X SunvorEev tiv Kapdiav ' mposexew Tois AaNoupévots U7rd 
id 

15 @s 66 éBartic@n, Kal 0 ™oikos avTis 

; 7S, 


tov Ilavxov. 


g here only +. 
h eve xiii. 43 


i ae sa 7; 
13 only. Job 
i. 9 A. 


x mapeKahecev ™réyouca Ki ° xexpinare pe P mor yy We © ee 


45. (ch. vii. 


6 reff. 
Pxupio eivar, eiseNOovtes eis TOV olKoY pou *4pelvaTe 2 Macedi.d. 


reff. m = ch. x. 2 reff. 
p here only. see 1 Cor. iy, 17. 


Al(appy) BEHLP rel 36. 
disapproving) zth. 

14. ins rns bef roAews D. 
Chr ec Thl-fin. om tov BD. 


n Matt. viii. 5. xviii. 29, 
q = ch. xxi. 7, 8 reff. 


guveAnrvdurats D. 


ins nTts bef yk. E. 


1=ch. viii. 6 
o = ch, xiii, 46 reff. 


Mark y. 12 al. 


aft cuverd. add nuw CE &1(85 


nkovoey D}-gr Lack 13 vulg 


15. ins avt7y bef kt. o ox. EX? d h 36-8. 93-7. 106-marg 113-77-80 demid fuld sah 


arm Chr. 


ins mas bef o ox. D a 43.69 eth. 


for kupiw, ew D-gr xth. 


* JLEVETE (corrn to more usual?) ABDER p 13: weware CHLP rel 36 Chr 


(ce Thl. 


meeting for prayer was accustomed to be: 
i. e. ‘where prayer was wont to be made,’ 
as E. V. That this is the meaning here, is 
plain from the use of évopifero eivat, which 
could certainly not be said if the mposevxh 
were in this case a building dedicated to 
prayer. Were there no such qualification, 
we should understand the word of a zpos- 
EVvKTHpLoy or synagogue, as frequently used : 
twas 8 otkovs éavTols KaTacKevdcayTes 
} témous TAaTeis pdpwy Siknv, mpesevyas 
TavTas exdAouv" Kal joay mev TO TaAady 
mTposevxav Témo. éy TE Tots “lovdalois eéw 
TéAews, Kal ev ToIs Zauapeitas. Epi- 
phanius, Her. 80, §1, p. 1067: and again, 
soon after, GAAG Kal mposevxts Témos ev 
Zuciuors, év wh vuyi KadoumErn Neaméaet, eEw 
THs TWOAEWS, Ev TH medics, as amd onuctwy 
dvo, earpoeiirs, otws év dépi Kk. aldpio 
ToT® éott katacKevacGeis, ims TeV 
Sapaperray mavTa TA TOV lovdalwy pijmov- 
pévwy. Josephus, Vita p. 54, says, ouv- 
LYOVTOLMAVTES EIS THY TPOSEVXNV, MEYLOTOY 
otknua ToAvy bXAOY emideEaTOar Suvdwevor. 
The mposevxn here was probably 

one of the open places spoken of in the 
above extracts from Epiph. The close 
of the verse also agrees best with an open 
place of resort. There seem to have been 
few, if any, Jews in Philippi: this assem- 
bly consisting merely of women attached 
to the Jewish faith. We hear of no oppo- 
sition arising from Jews. There appears 
(ch. xvii. 1) to have been no synagogue. 
14. roppupdmwAts | The guild of dyers 

(oi Bapets) at Thyatira have left inscrip- 
tions, still existing, shewing the accuracy of 
our narrative. The celebrity of the purple 
dyeing of the neighbourhood is as old as 
Homer: as & dre tls 7 eAéhayta yuvh 
gotvikt pnyn Mnovis 7&é Keeipa, maphiov 


eupevar immo, Il. 8. 141. So also Clau- 
dian, de Raptu Proserp. i. 270: ‘non sic 
decus ardet eburnum Lydia Sidonio quod 
femina tinxerit ostro’ (Lewin, i. 242). 
Thyatira was a city of the province of 
Asia. Thus, although forbidden to preach 
the word in Asia, their first convert at 
Philippi is an Asiatic. Lydia is a proper 
name, not ‘ita dicta a solo natali,’ as 
Grot.: though its origin may have been 
that. It was a common female name. 
See Hor. Od. i. 8; iii. 9. oeB. 7. 0. ] 
A proselyte; see reff. N. T. HKovev, 
was listening,—when d:qvoitev, the act 
of God, took place. dujvoréev | ‘cor 
clausum per se: sed Dei est id aperire.’ 
Bengel. tT. Aadovpevors | It appears 
rather to have been a conversation (€Aadov- 
fev, we spoke—and not rby Adyov) than 
a set discourse: the things which Paul 
was saying. 15. éBawr., K. 6 otKos 
avt.| It may be (as Meyer maintains) that 
no inference for infant-baptism is hence 
deducible. The practice, however, does not 
rest on inference, but on the continuity 
and identity of the covenant of grace to 
Jew and Christian, the sign only of admis- 
sion being altered. The Apostles, as Jews, 
would have proposed to administer baptism 
to the children, and Jewish or proselyte 
converts would, as matter of course, have 
acceded to the proposal; and that the prac- 
tice thus by universal consent, tacitly (be- 
cause at first unquestioned) pervaded the 
universal church, can hardly with any 
reason be doubted. See note on 1 Cor. 
vii. 14, ei Kexpixate | If ye have 
judged me; modestly alluding to the deci- 
sion respecting her faithfulness implied by 
their baptizing her, and assuming that such 
a judgment had been passed. Similarly «t 
2 


180 


r Luke xxiv. 
29 only. Gen. 
xix. 9. 

1 Kings 
XXvili. 23. 

s constr., ch. 
xxi. 17 reff. 

t ver. 13. 

u ch. xii. 13 al. 
Gen. xx. 17. 

vy = John vii. 
20. viii. 48, 
&c. ch, xix. 
13. 


W rv0@va * UTravTnoat 


w here only +. 
x Luke viii. 27 
Mt. (Mk. 
v. r.) xiv. 31. 
John iv. 51. 
xi. 20, 30, 
xii. 18 only +. Tobit vii. 1. 
iv. 19) only. L.P. 
b = Matt. x. 24. Luke xvi. 8. Judg. xix. 11. 
only. Jer. xvii. 16. 1 Macc. vi. 23 only. 
3. Dan. iii. 26 Theod. 4 Kings x. 23. 
h ch. xiii. 5 reff. i here only. 
1 ch. iy. 2 (reff.) only. 


y ch, xix. 24. 


vuas NR}. 


TIPAZEI> ATIOZTOAON. 


\ Tr / e la) 
Kal * rapeBiacato pas. 
» 0 o 
eis THY ‘mposevyny “Taldicxny Twa * Eyovcav TvEipa 
8 «,,% 4 yz 3 / AAT 
nuiv, tus %* épyaciay Troy 
lal r fol / 
¥4qrapeiyev Tois »Kuplois avTis © wavTevopmern. 
r \ lal v / 
4 xataxorov0ncaca TO LlavAw Kai jpiv, © Expatev * Neyouca 
nr A g rn a / > 2 
Odrtot of dvOpwrrot *SodA0L TOD * Geod Tod * WyiaToU eicly, 
r 2 4 s / 
olrwes "KatayyéAXovew auiv ‘odov ' cwTnplas. 
\ e / 
8€ ézroler * eri qoAXNas Hpépas. 
(Gen. xxix. 27.) Xen. Mem. iii. 10.1. 


g Mark vy. 7}j L. 
see Matt. xxi. 32. Luke xx. 21. ch. ii. 28 al. 


x VEE 


16 Peet be / s ,£ nr 
EVYEVETO O€ TTOPEVOMLEV@Y © 7) /L0)V 


18 tovTo 
1 Statrovnbeis 6€ 6 LLadXos 


z = here bis. ch. xix. 24 (25, Luke xii. 58. Eph. 

a = ch. xvii. 31. xxviii. 2 al. Ps. xxix. 7. 

c here only. Deut. xviii. 10. d Luke xxiii. 55 

e ch. xiv. 14 reff. fch.iv. 29. Tit.i.1. Rev. vii. 


Heb. vii. 1. Gen. xiv. 18. see ch. vii. 48. 


k ch, xiii. 31 reff. 


16. ree om tnv, with DHLP rel Chr: ins ABCEX p 13. 40 Orig Thl-fin. 


oxovoay X}. 


syr-mg-gr Chr: txt ABC!D!8 p vulg Orig Ambr. 
vuw XR}, 


rel Chr: txt BCEX p 18. 36 Orig. 
d1a rourov D}(and Jat). 

17. KkataxcoAovbovca B D-gr & 36. 180. 
pref. «a: D1-gr(txt D§). 
Katayy., evaryyeAi(ovte D(-res D?). 


om ayv@pwmro D}(and lat}: ins D®) Lucif. 


rec mu@wvos (see note), with D-corr! EHL P(7o.8.) 13. 36 rel tol 


rec amavtTnca, with ADHLP 
TaperxeTo C, for avTns, 

om tw B Orig. expagoy and 
for 

rec vuiv (alteration, as better suiting the 


person speaking), with BD E-gr 8 a b 0 36 vulg syrr eth-pl Thdrt,;: txt AC?7HLP 
p(sic) 13 rel E-lat coptt eth-rom Orig Chr Thdrt-ms Eustath (ie Thi Lucif. 


18. om Ist 5¢ H sah. 


juets avaxpwducba, ch. iv. 9. 16.] 
This happened on other occasions; not on 
the same day, as Heinrichs and Kuinoel 
fancy. In that case (besides'other objec- 
tions), if they had gone back from the house 
of Lydia to the place of prayer, the word 
would certainly have been é&eA@dvtwy, and 
not zopevouevwy. In ver. 15 is implied 
their taking up their abode with Lydia:— 
in this verse that they habitually resorted 
to this place of prayer to teach, and that 
what follows happened on such occasions. 

It may be remarked that the E. V. of 
mopevouevwy cis (THY) mposevxy, ‘as we 
went to prayer, has given rise to a curious 
abuse of the expression ‘going to prayer, 
in the sense of ‘ beginning to pray, among 
the lower classes in England. €xov- 
gav tvevpa TVbwva) On the whole sub- 
ject of dzemoniacal possession, see note on 
Matt. viii. 32. This was a case in which 
the presence of the spirit was a patent 
fact, recognized by the heathen possessors 
and consulters of this female slave, and 
by them turned to account ; and recognized 
also by the Christian teachers, as an in- 
stance of one of those works of the devil 
which their Lord came, and commissioned 
them, to destroy. All attempt to explain 
away such a narrative as this by the sub- 
terfuges of rationalism (as e. g. in Meyer, 
and even Lewin, i. 243, and apparently 


om o ABN: ins CDEHLP rel 36 Chr.—emiozp. Se o 7. Tw 


Hackett, p. 222), is more than ever futile. 
The fact of the spirit leaving the gir], and 
the masters finding the hope of their gains 
gone, is fatal: and we may see, notwith- 
standing all his attempts to account for it 
psychologically, that Meyer feels it to be 
sO. mv@wva | Plut. de Defectu Oracul. 
p- 414, says &smep tovs eyyaotpiudbous 
EvpuxAéas (from a prophet, Eurycles), 
mddat, vuvl Tiv0wvas mposayopevouevous. 
It is difficult to decide internally between 
the probabilities of m¥@wva and mi@wvos : 
I have retained the ancient reading, both 
from its external authority, and because 
I find so many Commentators explaining 
midwy to be a name of Apollo, or the 
serpent Python, that the alteration into 
the gen. may thus be easily accounted 
for. Bp. Wordsworth has an interesting 
note on the probable reason for this new 
term appearing in the narrative, now that 
St. Paul is brought directly into contact 
with Greek and Roman divination. 

17.| €xpafev, used to cry out: several 
occasions are referred to. The recogni- 
tion of Paul and his company here by the 
spirit is strictly analogous to that of our 
Lord by the demons, Matt. viii. 29; Luke 
iv. 34: and the same account to be given 
of both : viz. that the evil spirit knew and 
confessed the power of God and His Christ, 
whether in His own Person or that of His 


ABC] 
HLP 
bed 
hk] 
op 


16—21. 


IIPAR EIS ATOSTOAON. 


18] 


\ b) , a , 
Kat ™ émiotpeyas TO Trvevpate eitrev ™ LlapayyéAX@ cor ° Ey ™— ch ix. 40. 


constr., see 
note. 


in Fi ? a fal a iol na 
ovopatt Inoov ypiotod ¥ éEeNOeiv am avTis. Kai ? €&ANOev n int vor, 


q > lel a q ov 
avT™ 7 Swpa. 


19 (Sovtes dé of -KUpLoe adTHs OTe é&- 
n 

Lp) e > \ fol / lal “ \ 

MrOev % * errs THs *épyacias avTav, § émiNaBowevos Tov 


Mark viii. 6. 
ch. x. 42. 
1 Cor. vii. 10. 
1 Tim. vi. 13. 
Josh. vi. 6. 

o ch. iv. 7 reff. 


Tlabdov cai Yirav ‘eidevoav eis THY “ayopay eri Tods peh.vii.7 
ren. 


” \ , \ a a 

apxovtas, *9 Kal Y rposayayovtes avTovs Tois “ otpatiyois ° 

es e e fal , 

etmav Odtot ot avOpwrrot * extapdocovew uav Tv TONY 

> al e 

Tovdatou ¥ vrapyovres, 2) Kai * KatayyédAXNovow * On & 
vii. 21. x. 21. xii. 12. xiii, 31. xx. 19 only. L. Dan. v, 5 only. 

i s acc., ch. ix. 27 reff. 


Jer. xlv. (xxxviii.) 13. see ch. xxi. 30. 
v Matt. xviii. 24. Luke ix, 41. ch. xxvii, 27. 


i. 18. iy. 4. Col. i. 23. 
xviii. 10. xxi. 6, 11) only. 
xxvii. 12. 
w = here &c. 5 times only. (ch. iv. 1 reff.) 
z ch. xiii. 5 reff. ach. vi. 14 reff. 


amv. Kat Siatrov. D. 


efeAGe 13. 


mapayyeAw Ca: mapayyeAw p. 
DHLP 13 rel Ge Thl: om ABCEN ch p Eustath Ath Chr Thdrt. 
for efnAd. aut. T. w., evdews e&nAO. D eeth-rom. 


Luke ii. 38. 
xxiv. 33. ch. 
xxii. 13 only. 
Dan. iii. 6 (15. 
iv. 30 [33] 
Theod.) only. 
w. év, Luke 
rconstr., Gal. v.5. Eph. 
t = here (John vi. 44. xii. 32. 
uch. xvil.17. Ezek. 
1 Pet. iii. 18 only. 
Ps. Ixxxvii. 16. 


Gen. xlviii. 9. 


x here only. y ch. ii. 30 reff. 


rec ins Tw bef ov., with 
wa e£eAOns D 


19. kat wovr. B Syr eth: om Se A! D-lat.—ws de evdav o kup. Tns wedioKns ote 


ameoTepnobat THS epy. aut. ns etxav dt avtns D. 
uniformity), with ABEHLPN p 13. 36 rel Eustath Chr: om CD 1. 


egupav EB. 
20. mposayaryovtas D1(txt D-corr’). 


servants. 18. Statrovnbeis | Not mere 
annoyance is expressed by this word, but 
rather holy indignation and sorrow at what 
he saw and heard; the Christian soldier 
was goaded to the attack, but the mere 
satisfaction of anger was not the ‘object, 
any more than the result, of the stroke. 
It is doubtful here, in mere grammar, 
whether the dat. tG mvevpate is to be 
constructed with émorpéyas or with elev. 
But considering 1) that the spirit could 
hardly be the object of a bodily movement 
on the part of the Apostle, except as -re- 
presented by the possessed damsel, and 2) 
that émictpédw is never elsewhere found 
with a dative, but always with a pre- 
position, eis or mpés or emi, it is much 
the best to take T@ avetuare with cizey, 
and believe it to be thrown forward before 
its verb for the sake of emphasis. 

19.] Her masters (a partnership of per- 
sons, not plur. for sing. They may have 
been the heredes of some one to whom 
she had belonged) perceived that the hope 
of their gain had gone out (with the 
demon). émd. ... etAk. gives the 
idea of force having been used. So we 
haye ‘ obtorto collo ad preetorem trahor,’ 
Plaut. Poen. iii. 5. 45. Paul and Silas 
only are apprehended as having been the 
principal persons in the company. When 
De Wette says that, if Luke here were 
the narrator, he must say something of 
Timotheus, as he mentions him ch. xvii. 
14, xviii. 5,—and yet holds (on ver. 10) 
that Timotheus himself is the narrator, 
he forgets that the same reasoning will 
apply to him also, if it applies at all, 


rec ins toy bef oA. (corrn for 
nAkvoay C: 


[ermav, so ABEHN p. | 


which I much doubt. When two persons 
of a company are described as being ap- 
prehended, we do not need an express 
assertion to assure us that the rest were 
not. éml +. dpxovtas said generally : 
they dragged them to the forum to the 
authorities,—afterwards specified as crpar- 
nyol. 20. otpatnyots| The Duum- 
viri of the colony, of whom at Capua Ci- 
cero says, ‘cum in ceteris coloniis Duwm- 
viri appellentur, hi se Pratores (orpar- 
nyovs) appellari volebant.’ De Leg. Agr. c. 
34.‘ Messinenses,’ says Wetstein, ‘etiam 
nune (cir. 1750) Preetorem sive Preefectum 
urbis Stradigo appellant.’ The name, as 
a rendering of Pretor, had come from the 
Greek title of similar magistrates: so Aris- 
totle, Politic. vil. 3, év Tats uixpais méAcor 
ula wep) mdvtwy (apxXh)* KaAovot Se oTpat- 
nyous kal moAcudpxous. *ovd. imdp- 
xovTes ... . ‘Pop. ovo] The distinction 
between imdpxwy and éy seems to be, 
that the former is used of something which 
the speaker or narrator wishes to put for- 
ward into notice, either as unknown to his 
reader or hearer, or in some way to be 
marked by him for praise or blame: 
whereas the latter refers to facts known 
and recognized, and taken for granted by 
both. Thus, we may notice that, when 
the fact of Paul and Silas being Romans 
is announced to the jailor, it is not avé. 
‘Pwuatous 6vtas, but UrapxovTas ; whereas 
here, both parties, the speakers and the 
addressed, being indisputably Romans, we 
have ‘Pwuato:s ovaow. The account of this 
may be, that drdpxw is predicated of some- 
thing of which the speaker informs the 





182 


b w. pres., ch. 
(xxi. 37) 
Xxil. 25. 


Matt. xiv. 4 d 
al 


%. ° \ 
ovow. » Kat 
echexyv. 4. 

Xxil. 18, 

Mark iy. 20. 

1 Tim. vy. 19. 

Heb. xii. 6 

(from Proy. 

iii. 12) only. 

Exod. xxiil.l. ] 9 
d here only +. 

Num. xvi. 3 


TIPASEITS ATIOTTOAON. 


AVE, 


ov &eotw iypiv © rapadéxerOar ovd€ Troveiv “Popaious 
cuveréatn 6 dydos KaT avToV, Kai ot 
“otpatnyol °repipjEavtes avTav Ta ipdatia €éKédevoy 
f paBdifew, 3 moras Te £ éribévtes avtois © mAnyas 
h &Banror eis * dudaxiy, ' rapayyeiravtes TO * Seapopvraxt 
aoparas ™ rnpeiv adtovs: * ds rapayyedlay TovavTHY 


es A ‘ 
alii(Tromm.). LaB@v €Barev avdtovs eis THY °éowtépav " dudraKyny Kab 


e here only t. 

2 Macc. iy. 38 
only. 

f 2 Cor. xi. 25 y 
onlyt. Judg. TO 
Sia. 

g Luke x. 30. 
Rey. xxii. 18. 

h Matt. y. 25. 
xviii. 30, Luke xii. 58. xxiii. 1 

reff, k here, 
onlyt. (Gen. xxxiv. 25 only.) 
vi. 19 only. Levit. xvi. 2 (15). 

only. Job xxxiii. 11 BNF. (not A.) 
xiii. 35. Luke xi. 5. ch. xx. 7 only. Ps. exviii. 62. 
ii. 12 only, Isa. xii. 4. 
only+. (-pdacts, 1 Kings xv. 22.) 
16 || Mk. Paul, Eph. iii. 1 al4. 


5. Rev. ii. 10. 
c. 3ce only t. 
Tobit vi. 4. 





de~arGat ovre ToL. pw. umapxovow D. 


tov Oeov: ¥ érnkpo@yto Sé avTay ot  décpuoL. 


(see Jer. xliv. [xxxvii.] 21.) 
(see Gen. xxxix. 21, &c.) 


p Matt. xxvii. 64, 65, 66 only. 


Dan. iii. 23 Theod. absol., Matt. x xvi. 30 || Mk. only. 
Heb. x. 34. xiii. 3 only. 
21. ra <Ovn D}(and lat!) 15': 7@n G: sectam tol Lucif. 


U cal os A \ 

Tous Todas P nodaricato avTav eis TO 4 EVAOV. ** KaTa OE 
s 4 lo} \ / t , u 2 

pecovixtiov LLatnos Kai Lidas ' rposevyopmevot “ buvouv 


26 x advo 


i w. inf. pres., ch. i. 4 


1 = Mark xiv. 44 (ch. ii. 36) 


m = ch. xii. 5, 6 reff. n ch. y. 28 reff. + o Heb. 
Isa. xli. 10. Wisd, xiii. 15. q = here 

r=ch, xxvii. 27. Heb. iii. 8, from Ps. xciv. 8. s Mark 
t absol., ch. x. 9 reff. u w. ace., Heb 

1 Mace. xiii. 47. v here 

w Acts, here bis, ch. xxviii. 16 v. r., 17 al3. Matt. xxvii. 15, 
Lam. iii. 34. x ch. ii. 2. xxviii.6 only. Josh. x. 9. 


a ove e&. Nuas Tapa~ 


22. Kat woAus oXA. TUVETETTHOAY KaT. avT. KpatovTes ToTE (Kat DS) o1 D. 


[mepipné., so AB1CDEHLNX p 13. | 
23. for te, de B p 40 E-lat copt. 
ThpercOa D. 
24. for os, o de D. 
ABCDER am p 13. 36. 40. 


for maparyyetAavtes, TaparyyiAas Te RN. 


rec (for AaBwv) e:Anpws, with HLP rel Chr Ge Thi: txt 
for eBadev, ceAaBev A. 


rec autwy bef noo. 


(corrn of order), with C2DEHLP rel 36 Chr: txt ABC1X p 13: nopadiwavro D}. 


ev Tw EvAw Dal. 


25. om To N.—xkarta de weooy tTys vuxtos D}(txt D§). 
ins kat bef o1 Seou. C Orig. 


ins o bef ciAas C. 


hearer, some prior knowledge which he 
possessed and now imparts,—eiui being 
predicated of the bare matter of fact. See 
ch. xvii. 27, 29; xxi. 20 (for both) ; xxii. 3; 
Gal. ii. 14 al., for irapxwy: and for &v, 
John iii. 4; iv. 9 bis; Rom. v. 10 al. 
‘ Versute composita fuit hee criminatio ad 
gravandos Christi servos: nam ab una 
parte obtendunt Romanum nomen, quo 
nihil erat magis favorabile ; rursum ex no- 
mine Judaico, quod tune infame erat (espe- 
cially if the decree of Claudius, expelling 
them from Rome, ch. xviii. 2, had at this 
time been enacted) conflant illis invidiam : 
nam, quantum ad religionem, plus habe- 
bant Romani affinitatis cum aliis quibus- 
libet, quam cum gente Judaica’ Calvin. 
21. €y ...| “ Dio Cassius tells us 
that Meecenas gave the following advice to 
Augustus:—7d pév Oeiov mavtn TayTws 
autés te céBov kata Ta maTpia, Kal Tovs 
&ddAous Tiuav avdykale: rots be tevior- 
rds Tt mepl aitd Kal ploer Kal KddAaCe- 
and the reason is alleged, viz. that such in- 
novations lead to secret associations, con- 
spiracies, and cabals, Grep fora povap- 
xla cuupéeper.” (C. and H. i. p. 356.) So 
Julius Paulus, Sentent. v. 21. 2, cited by 
Wetst., ‘Qui novas et usu vel ratione 
incognitas religiones inducunt, ex quibus 


ins o bef wavAos Db o. 
decuor D}(txt D§). 


animi hominum moveantur, honestiores de- 
portantur, humiliores capite premuntur.’ 
22.] The multitude probably cried 
out tumultuously, as on other occasions 
(see Luke xxiii. 18; ch. xix. 28, 34; xxi. 
30; xxii. 22, 23),—and the duumviri, with- 
out giving them a trial (axataxplrous, 
ver. 37), rent off their clothes, scil. by the 
lictors (rots paBdovxors ekéAevoay Ti 
ecOard Te Tepikatappjta Kal rats pdp- 
dois TO C@ma ~alverv, Dion. Hal. ix. 39). 
The form was, ‘Summovye, lictor, despolia, 
verbera,’ Seneca (C. and H. i. 357). See 
also Livy, ii. 8; Valer. Max. ii. 28, in 
Wetst. Erasmus fancied that the duum- 
viri rent ¢heiz own clothes from indigna- 
tion: but, to say nothing of the impro- 
bability of such a proceeding on the part of 
a Roman magistrate, a man could not very 
well weptpijéa: his own garments. 
24. 7d EvAov] Also called K@Aov, modo- 
Kan, and aodocrpaBn, and in Latin, 
nervus: so ‘noctu nervo vinetus custodi- 
bitur,’ Plaut. Cap. iii. 5. 71. Eusebius 
(v. 1, vol. ii. p. 16, ed. Heinichen) men- 
tions, speaking of the martyrs in Gaul, 
Tas év TG UAW Siatdoeis Tav Today emt 
meuntov Siarewouevwy TpiTnua. 
25. mposevx. pv. | Not as E. V., ‘prayed 
and sang praises, —but, praying, sang 


22—50. 


IIPABEIS ATOSTOAON. 


183 


b \ a ase 
5é ¥ cerapos eyévero péyas, dste  carevOjvar TA * Oewérwa ¥ = Matt. viii 


TOU °decuwTnplov: nvewyOncav Sé “mapayphwa ai Ovpar ii 
f avéOn. 
Myevomevos 6 ‘decuodtrAak Kai idwv davewywévas Tas 
Ovpas Tis purakhs, “ cracapevos THY *™ wdyarpav Hweddev 
EavTov " avaipeiv, vomitwr ° éxmedevyévat Tovs “ Secpious. 
*8 Péehdvyncey 56 dhovhy peyadn oO LadAas Aéyov Mndév 


lal X , 
TACal, Kal TaVTWY TA © deapa 


24. xxiv. 7. 

Rey. vi. 12 

Ezek. 

<Vill. 19. 

27 & EE Sz ch. iv. 31 reff. 

EGUTTVOS dé a Ps. Ixxxi. 5. 

b neut. plur., 
here only. 
masc., Heb. 
xi. 10. Rey. 
xxi. 14, 19. 

c Matt. xi. 2. 
ch. v. 21, 23 
only. Gen. 
XxXxxix. 22 
bis. xl. 3, 5 
only 


/ a q te o , 5) r2 @ , 
mpaéns ceavT® Ixaxov' aravtes ydp éopev * évOdde. . 2", 5 op 


9 ? a s 
9 Saitncas O€ ‘hota “elseTndnoev, Kal 


pevos 


40 (Eph. vi. 9. 

iii. 3 only. h ch. 
las above (k) only. Josh. v. 13. 

ii. 3. xii. 25 only. Isa. Ixvi. 7. 


q = and constr., w. Totew, ch. ix. 13. 


i. 18 al. 


n / 
“arposérecey TO IlavAw kai Lira, * Kai *mpo- 
% > \ ” ” K , U 5 a a A 66 : 
ayay@v auTous é&w epn uptol, Tl be €l TTOLELY LYVA OWUW ; 
Heb. xiii. 5, from Deut. xxxi. 6) only $. 


m ch. xii. 2 reff. 
(Rom. ii. 3 reff. Judg. vi. 11.) 
r Luke xxiv. 41. 


eneut. pl.,Luke 
viii. 29. ch. 
xx. 23 only +. 
Seopot, 
(Paul) Phil. 
1.13. Ezek. 
ili, 25. 
f = ch. xxvii. 
ghere onlyt. Esdr. 
k Mark xiv. 47. Num. xxii. 31. 
n= ch. vy. 33 reff. o absol., Heb. 
p Luke xxiii. 46. Rev. xiy. 18. 
John iv. 15, 16. ch. x. 18. xvii. 6. xxv. 17, 


’ EvTpomos ryevo- 


(Ezek. i, 25 A.) 
1 ver. 23. 


24 only +. A Matt. vii, 10. Luke i. 63. ch. xil. 20. xiii. 21. 3 Kings xix. 4, + = here 
only. 1 Mace. xii. 29. vuKTOS emvyevojevns das éxwv smep VOMLUGETaL +.» , Xen. Hellen. y. 1.8. 

where only. Amos y.19 only. Sus. 26 Theod v= ch. vii. 32 reff. w = Mark iii. 
1l. vii. 25. Luke vy. 8. viii. 28, 47 || Mk. (Mi att. vii. 25) only. Ps. xciy, 6. x ch. xii. 6 reff. 


26. rec avewx6., with HLP rel Chr: 


nvo.x@. AEN p 13 Orig: 


txt BCD m Thl-fin. 


rec for 2nd de, re (perhaps to avoid the recurrence of de,—perhaps because 
the copulative is more natural), with CHLP rel vss Chr: txt ABDEN a c!hk m p 13 


syr coptt Thl-fin. 
27. for ef. 5, ka e¢. D Syr eth. 
C vulg(not am demid fuld). 
AEHLPX p? 13. 36 rel Chr: ins BCD pl. 
averew Cl, exmepuyevat A. 


28. wey. bef gwvn AB D-lat am coptt.—avaos bef pey. pwr. 
ins 71 bef kakoy D-gr. 

for yev., vrapxwv C! D-gr c k? 40. 

ins mpos tous todas D! vulg Syr (syr-w-ob) sah Lucif. 


Thl-sif. momons KH. 
29. mwa Se ernoas D. 


om tapaxpnua B Lucif Cassiod. 
decuodvaas(sic) X. 
ins «at bef crac. D-gr?. 


avedvdn DX). 
T. Oup. bef avewy. 


rec om Tyyv, with 
[nueda., so ABCELPN p. | 


B.—om o BC1X 13 


aft mposer 
rec ins Tw bef o1Aa (corrn 


Sor uniformity), with AC* EHLPN p 13. 36 rel: om BC!D. 


30. k. mponyayey aut. ekw D: 


D coptt. 


praises, or in their prayers, were singing 
praises, The distinction of modern times 
between prayer and praise, arising from 
our attention being directed to the shape 
rather than to the essence of devotion, was 
unknown in these days: see Col. iv. 2. 

‘Nihil crus sentit in nervo, quum 
animus in celo est.’ Tertullian ad Mar- 
tyres, c. 2, vol. i. p. 623. The 
imperfects shew that they were singing, 
and the prisoners (in the outer prison) 
listening, when the earthquake happened. 

26. mwavtwy Ta Seopa avéby] i.e. 
of all the prisoners in the prison: see be- 
low (ver. 28), dwravres yap eouey evOdbe. 
Doubtless there were gracious purposes in 
this for those prisoners, who before were 
listening to the praises of Paul and Silas ; 
and the very form of the narrative, men- 
tioning this listening, shews subsequent 
communication between some one of these 
and the narrator. Their chains were 
loosed, not by the earthquake, but by mi- 
raculous interference over and above it. 


add tous Aoimous acgaricapevos kat D(om ka D-corr) 
syr-w-ast(adding further appropinquavit).—mpoaywy X}. 


for epn, eurey autos 


It is some satisfaction to find, that neither 
Meyer, De Wette, nor Kuinoel have at- 
tempted to rationalize this wonderful ex- 
ample of the triumph of prayer. See some 
excellent remarks on Baur’s attempt to do 
so, in Neander, Pil. u. L. p- 802, note 3. 
27. ped. Eavt. dvarp.] The law 
de Custodia foes (Wetst.) says, ‘Ad 
commentariensem receptarum personarum 
custodia observatioque pertineat, nec putet, 
hominem abjectum atque vilem objiciendum 
esse judici, si reus modo aliquo fuerit elap- 
sus. Nam ipsum volumus hujusmodi peenze 
consumi, cui obnoxius docebitur fuisse, qui 
fugerit.’. Mr, Howson notices, by the ex- 
amples of Cassius, Brutus, Titinius, and 
many of the proscribed, after the battle,— 
that Philippi is famous in the annals of 
suicide (p. 361). 29. data] Not as 
E. V., ‘alight, but lights, neut. plur. 
30. rpoay. avr. €£w | Into the outer prison : 
not perhaps yet outside the prison, which 
(from évayayeév, ver. 34, when he takes 
them to his own house) seems to have been 


184 


y ch. ix. 42 
reff. 

z ch. x. 2 reff. 

auch. 

b = John xix. 
16. ch. 
24. xxiii. 

. XXiii. 23. 

- ix, 37 








33 Kal 


eff. 

e = Heb. x. 22. 
Sir, Xxx . 
(xxxiv.) 25. > “ 

fch. iii. 7 reff, @UTOU TAaVTES 

2 ch. ix. 39 reff. 

h = Mark viii. 
6,7. 4 Kings 
Vi. 22. 

i = Matt. xv. 
27. ch: vi- 2. 
Ps. Ixxvii. 20. 

m dat., = ch. xviii. 8. 

xii. 18 reff. 


81. [emay, so AB C(appy) DER p.] 
lect-12. i 
ABR p 13 vulg copt Lucif. 

32. om tov D. 





k ch. ii, 26 reff. 
John v. 24. viii. 31. 


IIPAEREIZ ATIOZTOAON. 


“iT. , \ \ Ae Pee 
xi. 19 reff. cwOnon av Kal O OLKOS COU. 


Tov olxov ™qrapéOnxev ‘tpamefav Kat * 7ryaddvaTo 
ouel ™rremioTevK@s TO Gea. 


Rom. iy. 3, from Gen, xv. 6. 


for kup., Qeov BX! wth. 


AVE: 


e ‘ s ’ A 
31 of 8€ elmav ¥tatevaov ¥ ert tov Kvptov “Inaodv, Kat 


32 kal *éXaAnoav avT@ 


| qrap- 


35 syuepas de ™ yevomevns 


Jos. Antt. iv. 4. 4. 


Exod. i. 1 B only. 
nch. 


1 here only. 
1 John y. 10. 


Tit. ili. 8. 


mioTevoay &}, for em, es E 


rec aft ioouy ins xpiorov, with CDEHLP rel 36 vss Thdrt Chr: om 
ins mas bef o oiwxos Ea g 13 copt wth arm. 


rec (for cuv) xa (alteration 


Sor simplicity, and to suit ov kato ox. above), with EHL syrr Chr: txt ABCDPR p 


13. 36. 40 vulg Lucif (cup & p). 
38. edvoey D)(and lat: txt D?). 


autos bef eB. D. 


ins oketoe bef avtou 


A; viot m lect-17: per Thi-fin.—o oixos avrov 40 vulg. (These exx may serve to illus- 


trate the practice of insertion to fill up any ellipsis.) 
34. kat avay. te D!: av. Se C 13. 36 copt syr. 
ADEHLN 13 rel vss Chr: om BCP ¢ p 36. 40 Lucif. 


amayvtes BR. 
rec aft ox. ins avtov, with 
ins kat bef mapeOnrev D'. 


rec nyaAAtacato (alteration to more usual historic tense), with ABC? E-gr 
HLX p 13. 36 rel vulg syr copt Thl-fin: txt C\(appy) DP b g h m o E-lat Syr sah Chr 


(Ge Thi-sif. 
ABICN 13. 


underground, or at all events on a lower 
level in the same building. In this same 
space they seem to have been joined by 
the jailor’s family,—to have converted and 
baptized them, and to have been taken (to 
the well?) and washed from their stripes ; 
and afterwards to have been led up (by 
stairs? see ref.) to his house, and hos- 
pitably entertained. The circumstantiality 
of the account shews that some eye-witness 
related it. His question, connected with 
the 63v gwtyptas of the damoniac in 
ver. 17, makes it necessary to infer, as De 
Wette well observes, that he had previously 
become acquainted with the subject of their 
preaching. He wanted no means of escape 
from any danger but that which was spi- 
ritual: the earthquake was past, and his 
prisoners were all safe. Bengel admirably 
remarks: ‘Non audierat hymnos Pauli, nam 
dormierat, sed tamen vel antea vel postea 
senserat, quis esset Paulus.’ 31. emi 
7. kUptov} Not without allusion to the 
K¥ptot, by which name he had just addressed 
them. So Bengel: ‘non agnoscunt se do- 
minos.’ Considering who the person 
was that asked the question,—a heathen in 
the depths of ignorance and sin,—and how 
indisputably therefore the answer embraces 
all sinners whatever,—there perhaps does 
not stand on record in the whole book a 
more important answer than this of Paul: 
—or, I may add, one more strikingly cha- 





rec mavoixt, With B*HLP rel: cuv tw o1kw avtov D: om E: txt 
for Tw Oew, emt Tov Beov D. 


racteristic of the Apostle himself and his 
teaching. We may remark also, in the 
face of all attempts to establish a develop- 
ment of St. Paul’s doctrine according to 
mere external circumstances,—that this 
reply was given before any one of his 
extant epistles was written. Kal 6 
olkds gov does not mean that Ais faith 
would save his household,—but that the 
same way was open to them as to him: 
‘ Believe, and thou shalt be saved: and the 
same of thy household.’ 33. Ehovcev 
a6! A pregnant construction: ‘washed 
them, so that they were purified from the 
blood occasioned by their stripes :’ see reff. 
This is much more natural than to take 
ard (as in ard tHs xXapas (ch. xii. 14) 
and the like) as signifying ‘on account of’ 
(see Bernhardy, Syntax, p. 225). 
34.] avay., see reff. and note on ver. 30. 
memiotevkas | Winer renders ‘as 
one who has placed his trust in God:’ but, 
as De W. observes, wemiorevkas must give 
the ground of his rejoicing (see 1 Cor. 
xiv. 18 [rec.], evxapioT@... Aad@y, ‘1 
give thanks ... that I speak’). Thus the 
meaning will be, rejoiced that he with all 
his house had been led to believe (and 
thus as a necessary consequence to believe 
in) God. The expression remioT. TG OEG 
could only be used of a converted heathen, 
not of a Jew: in ch. xviii. 8, of a Jew, 
we have éxlorevoey TG Kuply. 35. ] 


ABCD 
HLPs 
bedf 
1 a 


xxi. TOV *\OyOV TOD KUploU, OLY TAC TOS EV TH Okla aUTOV. OP) 
18, 3 c “ 
b \ > \ 5] > / a“ ¢ a lel c \ 
TaparaBav avtovs ev éxelvyn TH ° Opa THs © vUKTOS 
d EX e b] \ “ “ X\ 3 / fa} > ‘ \ e 
éXovoev © ato TaV TANYaV, Kal éBaTTicOn avdTos Kai ot 
fal \ > 
‘ rapaxphya, °*' ®avayayov Te avTous els 


3]1—38. 


TIPABEIS AIOSTOAON. 


185 


eg : Abe \ \ c , v ba aS 
améotethav of °atpatynyol Tovs ? paBdovyous, AéyovTEs °¥.20,% 


ol] , 

@’Amrodvooy Tors avOpwrous Exeivous. 

e 4 , s \ lal 

o*decpopvraE tovs Aoyous Tov’Tous mpos Tov Iladrov, 

¢ s > / c oO \ ivf q > fel 1 lal 

OTe Samréotadkay of °otpatnyol wa IatrodvOATe * viv 

= s b) / / 2 re eed 

7 ovv e€eXOovtes TropeverOe ev “ eipyyn. 

IE \ > \ Vv / ¢ na w § / > ee / 

2E TMpos avtovs ‘ Aelpavtes Huds “ Snwoola * axataxpirous, 

's¥ avOpe@Tous ¥‘Pwpalous * bTapxyovtas, *éBarav eis * hu- 
= a / 

3 Nakjv, Kat vov »rAaOpa Huds °éxBadrrovow; “od yap 

GAG ENOTES avTol Huds © éEayayéTooar. 


w ch, xviii. 28. xx. 20 only+. 2 Macc. vi. 10 only. (-tos, ch. v. 18.) 
i Exod. ii. 11.) 


y ch. xxii. 25. (Matt. xxvii. 32. ch. xxi. 39. 
b Matt. i.19. ii. 7. John xi. 28 only. Ps. c. 5. 
xxi. 10. d here only. see note. 


> / \ p ver. 38 only +. 
36 aTrnyyetNev O€ ee ch, xxvi. 
32 reff. 
r ver. 23. 
s constr., John 

iii. 17. 

1 John iv. 9. 
ye \ x ” t ch. x. 33 reff. 
37 6 dé [Latinos en ww. év, 1 Cor. 

xvi. 11 reff. 
2 Kings lil. 
21. ets, 
Mark vy. 34. 
Luke vii. 50 
al. 1 Kings 


He Ki MET, 
38 2 Fe c a 33 
aTynyyetNav v ch: v. 40 reff. 


x ch, xxii. 25 only +. 

z ch. ii. 30 reff. a vv. 23, 24. 

c Matt. ix. 25. ch. ix. 40. Gal. iv. 30, from Gen. 
e=ch. y. 19. vii. 36. Gen. xl. 14. 


35. nu. de yev. cuvndPov ot coTparnyo.(sic) emt TO avTO ELs THY ayopay KaL avauyno- 
Gevtes Tov TElcuoy Tov yeyovoTa epoBnOnoay kat aweatetAay Tous D syr-mg. 


Aeyorvtas D 68 Syr. 


836. Kar erseAPwy o Seopopuaat arnyy- D Syr. 


at end ins ous ex@es mapeAaBes D syr. 


for de, re E-gr sah eth. 


om touvrous (from similarity of endings) BC D-gr a 36(sic): ins AEHLPN p 13 rel 


vulg D-lat Chr. 

Chr: amecte:Aay C p: txt ABN. (13 def.) 
37. om mp. avtouvs E eth. 

sah. [eBadav, so BDN. | 


rec ameotadkag (grammatical corrn), with DEHLP rel 36 


for ev tep., ers uipnyny RN: om D. 


ins avaitetous bef Seip. D, so (but om axaraxp.) Syr 
aut. nuas bef eAPovr. E: om nu. HP Me. 


38. rec avnyy., with HLP rel: txt ABDEN a m 0 p 36 Chr-comm Thl-fin. (13 def.) 


What had influenced the magistrates is 
not recorded. We can hardly suppose 
that the earthquake alone (as suggested 
by the addition in D: see digest) would 
have done so, as they would not have 
connected it with their prisoners; they 
may have heard what had taken place: 
but that, again, is hardly probable. I 
should rather set it down to calmer 
thought, repudiating the tumultuary pro- 
ceeding of the evening before. papd- 
ovxous}| The lictors,—‘bearers of the 
rods,’ bacilli ; which, and not fasces, were 
carried before the colonial duumviri: see 
Cicero, de Leg. Agr. ubi supra, on ver. 20. 

36.] Paul and Silas had returned to 
the prison : whither the jailor goes, accom- 
panied by the lictors (6 5 I. &pn 7p. 
avTouvs, ver. 37), to announce the order. 

37.] Sypoota and Ad@pa are op- 
posed: the injury had been public: the 
reparation, not to Paul and Silas merely, 
but to the Gospel of which they were the 
heralds, must be public also. avOp. 
‘Pop. trdpx.| By the Lex Valeria, passed 
A.U.C. 254, and the Lex Porcia, A.v.c. 506, 
Roman citizens were exempted from stripes 
and torture: by the former, till an appeal 
to the people was decided,—by the latter, 
absolutely. The following passages of Cicero 
illustrate our text: ‘ Porcia lex virgas ab 
omnium civium Romanorum corpore amo- 
vit.’ Pro Rabirio, ce. 3. ‘Czdebatur virgis 
in medio foro Messane civis Romanus, 
judices : cum interea nullus gemitus, nulla 


vox alia istius miseri, inter dolorem crepi- 
tumque virgarum audiebatur, nisi hee: 
Civis Romanus sum.’ In Verrem, lib. y. 
62, 63. ‘Facinus est vinciri civem Ro- 
manum ; scelus verberari; prope parrici- 
dium, necari.’ Ibid. 66. Many others are 
given by Kuinoel, Biscoe, &e. On the 
question, how Paul came to be born a Ro- 
man citizen, see note on ch. xxii. 28: and 
on bmdpx., note, ver. 20. Another 
irregularity had been committed by the 
duumviri, in scourging them wacondemned: 
‘causa cognita multi possunt absolyi: in- 
cognita quidem condemnari nemo potest.’ 
Cic. in Verr.i. 9. ‘Inauditi et indefensi 
tanquam innocenter perierant.’ Tac. Hist. 
ii. 10. éxBaAX. | are they thrusting 
us out? It does not follow, because 
éx8dAAw has no such sense in ch. ix. 40, 
&e., that therefore it has not here. The 
circumstances must determine ; which here 
seem to require this sense: the ékBdaAXeuw 
AaGpa having a tinge of degradation in it, 
as if said of casting out that of which one 
is ashamed. ov yap} An elliptical an- 
swer to a question or position, the negative 
of which is self-evident: see Hartung, 
Partikellehre, ii. p. 48: Kiihner, Gramm. 
§ 741. 6: Hermann on Viger, p. 462. 
When it occurs with GAAq, it is best written 
without a stop between : cf. Aristoph. Ran. 
58: wh ondmte ww, © SeAP™* ov yap GAN 
éxw Kkax@s:—ib. 193: wa toy AP od yap 
(scil. vevavudynka) GAN ~Eruxov dpbar- 
piayv, and 499, pepe 5) Taxéws ait ov 


186 IIPABEIS AIIOZTOAQON. XVI. 39, 40. 


f ver. 35. Seis dt “a 5 a Tse Dies 
eee be tols Sorparayois oi paBdodxot Ta piper Taira 
Vv. » &0 ie Lal 
Pais. e@poBnOnoav 8 axoveavtes 67t “Pwpaiol Seiow, *° Kab 
ch. iv. 13, ix. 5 Z ‘ 2 - a gtr 
%6. Heb.x. €XOovTes qrapexadecay avTovs, Kal © éEayayovtes ‘npw- 
Wi ¥ dn. a a , b) / \ 
crise tev *Kameeivy *ard ths morews. 19 é&eXOovTes Se 
h=ch.xvii.9 4g sy = ~ \ , \ 
fol ] 3 
1. a 
1 ees. Ue puaauis eis Gov mpos THY Avdiav, Kat 
Jorn ue, ™OovTes ™ Wapexaddecay Tors adedhovs, Kal ° €&HAOor, 
ch. (iii. 3.) x. > ! a] 
is. xviti-20. XWVIT, 1 PAvodevoavres d€ tiv “Apdirodwv Kat “Arod- 
XXL. 5 
1 Thess. y. 12 only. w. tva, Mark vii. 26. Luke vii. 36. w. OTws, ch. xxiii. 20. k = Mark v. 17. lw. 
mpos, ch. xi. 3 reff. m = Luke viii. 20. ch. xxviii. 20 al. 4 Kings viii. 29. n= ch. xv. 32 reff. 
o = ch. xv. 40 reff. p Luke viii. l only. Gen. xiii. 17. Isa. lix. 8. 
for 1st Se, re E-gr & Syr eth. for Tois, avrois ot D). aft ravTa 


ins Ta pnbevra mpos Tovs otparnyous D Syr. rec kat eoB. (corrn to more natural 
copula), with EHLP rel vulg Chr: txt ABN p 36. 40 copt.—o: de akovoaytes oT. pw. 
ero. epoBn9. D. 
39. for «. eAOovT., kat Taparyevomevot meTAa hidwy ToAAwY es THY pvdakny D. 

npwrovy A Thl-fin: -rnoav E. rec (for ameA@ew atro) «feAOev, with HLP rel 
Chr: efeA@. ex (D)E: e&A0. aro a: txt ABN p 13. 36. 40.—mapexadrecay avtous 
eteAOey ermovTes nyvonoapey Ta Kal vuas, ort ecTat avdpes Sixaror (thus far syr-w-ast) 
kat ekaryaryovTes TapexaAecay avTous AcyovTes Ek THS TOAEWS TauTNS c~EABaTE uNTOTE 


TaAW ouvtpapwow nuew emixpaCovTes Ka vuwy D, simly 137. 


40. for ex, aro BN ah 38 Thl-fin. 


nddov D E-lat. rec for mpos, els 


(see note: and cf Mark v.12, 13), with Ge: txt ABDEHLPN rel vulg sah arm Chr 


Thi. 


rec 1d0vT. T. adeAp. Tapek. avtous, with EHLP rel 36 vulg syrr sah wth 


Chr: txt ABN p 138. 40 copt.—16. 7. ad. Sinynoavro ova eroncey Kuplos avToLs TapEeKa- 


Aeoayres(maparaderay| sic] re D-corr) avtovs «at D Cassiod. 


Cuap. XVII. 1. deMGovres E. 


for audim., moAw N'(txt &X-corr!). 


efnAbay DR. 


ins 


thy bef amodA. (for uniformity) ABEX a p 13: om (D)HL rel.—ryv az. k. thy aug. Ez 
kat KaTnABoyv (om kat D-corr: katnaAd, rat D3) ets awoAAwyida KaKebey eis D. 


yap GAAG TEeLoTéov. Mr. Hamphry re- 
marks, ‘St Paul submitted to be scourged 
by his own countrymen (five times, 2 Cor. 
xi. 24): for, though he might have pleaded 
his privilege as a Roman, to the Jews he 
“became as a Jew,” observing their cere- 
monies, and submitting to their law.’ 
38 éoB.] For the account which they 
might have to give at Rome, as in Verres’ 
case, or even for their popularity with the 
very mob of Roman citizens who had de- 
manded the punishment. 39. arap- 
exaddecay | Not ‘comforted :’ but, as E. V., 
besought them: viz. not to make their 
treatment matter of legal complaint. In 
the request to depart from the city, the 
praetors seem to shew fear of a change in 
the temper of the mob. See the curious 
addition in the var. readd. 40.| They 
do not depart hastily, or as though forced, 
but wait to reassure the brethren. mpés 
has probably been altered to eis, on account 
of the verb, not because Avidlavy was mis- 
taken (Meyer) for the country of that name. 
mapex.| exhorted, is better than 
‘comforted, Kh. V. The one in this case 
would imply the other. Cap. XVII. 
1.] Here (or rather perhaps at é&7A@ov, in 
the preceding verse) we have the first per- 


son again dropped,—implying apparently 
that the narrator did not accompany Paul 
and Silas. I should be inclined to think 
that Timotheus went with them from 
Philippi,—not, as is usually supposed, 
joined them at Bercea: see below on yer. 
10. Stodevoavtes] The 656s, on 
which they travelled from Philippi to Thes- 
salonica, was the Via Egnatia, the Mace- 
donian continuation of the Via Appia, and 
so named from Egnatia (‘ Gnatia lymphis 
iratis exstructa,’ Hor. Sat. i. 5), in the 
neighbourhood of which the latter meets 
the Adriatic. It extended from Dyrrha- 
chium in Epirus to the Hebrus in Thrace, 
a distance of 500 miles. The stages here 
mentioned are thus particularized in the 
itineraries: Philippi to Amphipolis, 33 
miles: Amphipolis to Apollonia, 30 miles : 
Apollonia to Thessalonica, 37 miles. See 
more particulars in C. and H., i. pp. 368 ff. 

"Apotrrodw]} Anciently called évyéa 
650l, Thucyd. i. 100. Herod. vii. 114, lying 
in a most important position, at the end 
of the lake Cercinitis, formed by the Stry- 
mon, commanding the only easy pass from 
the coast of the Strymonic gulf into Mace- 
donia. (‘Amphipoleos, quee objecta claudit 
omnes ab oriente sole in Macedoniam adi- 


ABD 
HLPR 
bedf 
hkl 


opls 


XVII. 1—4. 


IIPAREIS ATOZTOAON. 


187 


Awviav HrOov eis Oeocarovixnv, Srov hv [| cuvarywryi 4 Lae iv. 16. 


tav lovoalov. 


yedrAw bir. 


9. Exod. vi. 27. 2 Macc. xi. 20. 
11. ch. xviii. 24, 28 al. Paul, Rom. xv. 4. 
reff.) 


z= ch. x. 41 reff. a ch, ix. 20 reff. 


/ al 
4 kat Tues €€ avtav ° érretaOnaav Kal “aTpos- 34 


u = ch. xxviii, 23. 
1 Cor. xv. 3, 4 only. 
x Matt. xiii. 24,31. Exod. xix. 7. w.07t, here only. 


Num. xxiv. 1. 


n / n a y . 
24 xaTa S€ TO ¥ ciwOos TO LlavrA eisHrOev * Maes 
\ > \ \ s2 ‘ / / t6 ld > al 
Mpos avtovs Kat Sémt caBBata tpia ‘duedéyeTo avtois 
U gan a v i 3w6 f Neuer < Oé 
avo TaVv ‘ypadav tavolywy Kat *tTrapaTiOéwevos 
4 \ \ » al ? fol a 
OTL Tov yptoTov Y &er Tabeiy Kai * avaoThvar * ex vEeKpOr, 
Kal OTL * ovTOS EoTW 6 xptaTos 6 “Inaods by éyw ” KaTay- 


15. Mark 
x. l only. 
Sir, xxxvii. 


sch, xili, 31 
reff. 
t = ver. 17. 
ch. xviii. 19, 
be ar fit 
Acts only, 
exc. Mark ix. 
Heb. 
xii. 5. Jude 
v = plur. absol., John vy. 39. ver. 
w = Luke xxiv. 32. (ch. vii. 56 
y = ch. iv. 12 reff. 


b ch. xiii. 5 reff. e absol., ch. xxi. 14 reff. 


dhere onlyt. T@... TaTpl TMV OAwY TpOSKEKANPwILEVOL, Philo de Fortit. $ 7, vol. ii. p. 381. 


ins tyv bef Gecoad. B 104. 
rel Chr ec Thi. 


2. kat kata To e1ow80s(sic) D'(and lat) eth. 


om ka D. 


8. om toy D!(ins D®). 


om 7 (see note) ABDN p 13. 40: ins EHLP 


o mavaos D vulg Syr eth. 


deAeEaro (alteration to historic aorist) ABN p 18: deAexOn D E-gr 
e 36. 40 Chr-comm: txt HLP rel vulg E-lat Chr, Ge Thl. 


for amo, ex D. 


rec o xp. ino., omg 2nd 6, with HLP 13 rel ce Thi: 


xp. ino. AD p Chr,: mo. o xp. Ec fh Syr copt eth Chr,: inc. xp. N: txt B. 


tus, Liv. xlv. 30.) In consequence of this, 
the Athenians colonized the place, calling 
it Amphipolis, em dupdrepa mepippéovros 
Tov Stpuudvos, Thue. iv. 102. It was the 
spot where Brasidas was killed, and for 
previously failing to succour which Thucy- 
dides was exiled: see Thucyd. iv. and v., 
and Grote’s Hist. of Greece, vol. vi. p. 
625 ff., where there is a plan of Amphi- 
polis. After this it was a point of conten- 
tion between the Athenians and Philip, and 
subsequently became the capital of Mace- 
donia Prima,—see Livy, xlv. 30, where 
Paulus Aimilius proclaims, at Amphipolis, 
the freedom and territorial arrangements 
of Macedonia. It is now called Emboli. 
*AtroAhwviav] Its situation is unknown, 
but was evidently (see the distances above 
given) inland, not quite half-way from Am- 
phipolis to Thessalonica, where the road 
crosses from the Strymonic to the Thermaic 
gulf. Leake saw some ruins at about the 
right spot, but did not visit them: and 
Cousinéry mentions seeing, on an opposite 
hill, the village of Polina. Pliny mentions 
it (N. H. iv. 10), ‘regio Mygdoniz sub- 
jacens, in qua recedentes a mare Apollonia, 
Arethusa.’ It must not be confounded 
with a better known Apollonia near Dyr- 
rhachium, on the western coast, also on the 
Via Egnatia. See C. and H. i. pp. 376 f. 
Oecoadovicnv] At this time the 
capital of the province Macedonia, and the 
residence of the proconsul (Macedonia had 
been an imperial, but was now a senatorial 
province). Its former names were Emathia, 
Halia, and Therma: it received its name 
of Thessalonica from Cassander, on his re- 
building and embellishing it, in honour of 


his wife Thessalonica, sister of Alexander 
the Great. So Strabo, lib. vii. excerpt. 10: 
who, ib. excerpt. 3, calls it @cecoaAom«ela. 
It was made a free city after the battle of 
Philippi: and every thing in this narrative 
is consistent with the privileges and state 
of an urbs libera. We read of its Sjuos 
ver. 5, and its moAitapxa: ver. 6: not, as 
at the Roman colony of Philippi, of paBé- 
ovxo. (lictors), and otparnyot (duun- 
viri), ch. xvi. 20, 35. It has ever been an 
important and populous city, and still con- 
tinues such (pop. 70,000), being the second 
city in European Turkey, under the slightly 
corrupted name of Saloniki. For a notice 
of the church there, see Prolegg. to first Ep. 
to the Thessalonians, § ii. [¥] vvvay. | 
The article is im all probability genuine: 
implying that there was no other synagogue 
for the towns lately traversed : and shewing 
the same minute acquaintance with the 
peculiarities of this district as our narrative 
has shewn since the arrival at Neapolis. 
2. kata T. ciw0.| See marge. reff. in 

E.V. Paul was most probably suffering 
still from his ‘shameful treatment’ at Phil- 
ippi, 1 Thess. ii. 2. Stchdy.| argued, 
see reff. ard T. ypad. is best taken 
with Steddy., not with dravotyav: see reff. 
3. StL ovTos ....] See examples 

of the change of construction, ch. i. 4; 
xxiii. 22; Luke v. 14. The rendering 
is nearly as E.V., literally, that this is the 
Christ, namely, Jesus, whom I preach 
unto you. So Meyer. The 6 xpiorés takes 
up Tov xpiotéy above, and attaches to 
6 *Incods the office concerning which this 
necessity of suffering, &c., was predicated. 
Even the particularity of this wafety 


188 IIPAZEIS ATOZTOAON. XVII. 


e ch. xiii. 43 
reff. 

f = Matt. xxii. 
38. Luke xv. 
22. ch. xiii. 
50 reff. Dan. 
eee By 

g@ ch. xii. 18 reff. 

h = ch. vii. 9 
reff. 

i = ch. xviii. 
26. Matt. xvi. 
22 || Mk. $ 
2 Mace. viii. 
a 

k = here (ch. 


na an rn , 
exhnpwoOncav TO LLaiAw Kai TO Lida, THY TE ® ceBopéevwv 
- a , r lal , > 
“EXAjnvev TARO0s Tord, yuvakav Te TOV ‘TpeTwY © OvK 
A y fal \ 7 , 
5h &rwcavtes 5é€ of “lovdator kai ‘ mposdkaBo- 
a = \ \ > 
pevot TOV * ayopaiwy avdpas TiWas Trovnpovs Kal | dyo- 
/ m ’ / \ / \ n >’ / aA 
Tomaavtes ™eOopvBouv tiv TOW, Kal "éTiCTAaVYTES TH 
lal > \ a 
oixia ‘lacovos ° é&touv avtovs ® rpoayayetv eis Tov 4 SHwov" 
“a \ ’ U 
6 uy ebpovtes O€ avtovs 'écupov [Tov] “lacova Kai Twas 


> 
® odtyat. 


xix. 38) 
only +. > \ \ fal ¢ e \ 
Hse,  ‘@OEAovs ert tovs taodutapyas, “BowvTes STL ot TV 


141 al. (see 


2 7 Vv 2 / w.2 , x e \ y b Q Lo , 
a see OLKOULEVNV © AVATTATWOAVTES ~ OUTOL KAL * EVUAOE TAPELO LY, 
1ere only t. 


m Matt. ix. 23 || Mk. ch. xx. 10 only. Judg. iii. 26. Nahum ii.3. Wisd. xviii. 19. Sir. xl. 6 only. (-Bos, ch. xxi. 34.) 
n ch. vi. 12. (absol.) Jer. xxi. 2. o = ch, xiii. 8 reff. p = ch. xii. 6 reff. q ch. xii. 22 reff. 
rch, viii. 3 reff, s = ch. ix. 30 reff. t here bis only +. u ch, viii. 7 al. vy =ch. 

xxiv. 5. w ch. xxi. 38. Gal. v.12 L.P. Dan. vii. 23 LXX. Ps.x.1 Aq. x ch. ix. 20 reff. 
y ch, xvi. 28 reff. 

4. emortevoay Ec 13. 40. om 2nd tw B. aft tw o1Aata(sic) ins Tn didaxn 
moAAa, omg Te, D. ins kat bef eAAnvay AD 13. 40 vulg copt. rec Tod. 
bef 7A., with HLP rel Chr, Ge Thl-sif: txt ABDEN achkm p 138 vulg syr coptt 
arm Chr, Thl-fin. for yuv. Te, Kat yuvaikes D. 

5. E transposes twy ayopaiwy avd. T. tovnpous to beg of ver. rec ins ameBouv- 
tes bef tovdaio1, with DE b k o Ge; ins o aed. aft «vd. HLUPadf gh m, and aft 
kat mposdaB. c 137: om ABN p 138. 36. 40. 142 vulg syrr coptt arm. om (Aw- 
cayres and cat, transposing mposAaB. to beg of ver, HLP b df gh1o 142: txt ABEX 
p 18. 36. 40 vulg syrr coptt arm.—or de ame.0. covd. cuvopeWayTes, omg kK. Tposd., D. — 
(Awoarres mposAaBomevot, omg all the rest, 66 eth. rec twas bef avdpas, with 
DHLPX rel: txt ABE a hk p 13 vulg sah Thl-fin.—(rw. av. bef twv ay. D.) aft 
Tovnp. ins ameiOnoartes HK, aft mposAaf. syr. om «at oxAor. D eth. eBopu- 
Bovoay D. rec emiatavtes Te (for x. em.), with HLP rel Chr Ge Thl-sif: cas 


exioTevoay(sic) 13: txt ABDENX a k m p 13 Thi-fin. 


Thl-fin, so (exe A) in vv 6, 9. 


tacwvos ADE dhk1lm 


rec ayayew, with HP rel Chr Ge Thi: rposayay. 


Ee 187: avayay. L 11: egayay. D-gr 104 copt xth-pl: txt ABN a b k 0 p 18. 36. 40, 


producere vulg D-lat E-lat. 


6. esupavy DE a b Chr: evpoy 81: txt ABHLPN? p 36 Gc Thi. 


om Toy (as 


unnecessary: or from similarity of endings, -pov tov) ABDN p: ins EHLP rel 36 Chr 


(Ee Thl. tacwvav DD}, 
Bowytas A lect-2. 


(ameOavev) kK. avacrivat is reproduced in 
1 Thess. iv. 14. 4. mposexAnpod. | 
were added (as if by lot, that being deter- 
mined by God, who gave them the Holy 
Spirit of adoption: ds kal evepyetra: ev 
ipivy tots mictevouow, 1 Thess. ii. 13) to 
the great family of which Paul and Silas 
were members. The sense is passive, 
not middle. ‘The word is not uncommon 
in Philo. oeB. “EAA. | See reff. 

The aptitude of women for the reception 
of the Gospel several times appears in 
this book,—see above, ch. xvi. 13 ff., and 
below, vv. 12, 34. 5. mposdaf. | 
Having taken to them, as their accom- 
plices, to assist them in the 6xAomojoa 
which follows. a&yopaiwy | Such men 
as Aristophanes calls roynpds Kat a-yopas, 


— Demosthenes, epitpiupa ayopas, — 
Xenophon, tv Gyopatovy bxAov,—Plu- 
tarch, dyopalovs Kal dvvauévous bxAov 


cuvayayeiy: see many other instances in 
Wetstein, who mentions the modern ‘ ca- 
naille’(canalicole). Cicerocalls them ‘sub- 


tives D}(txt D?). 
aft Bowy. ins kat AeyorTes D. 


aft Twas ins aAAous BE. 
aft ovrot ins ero D}. 


rostrani:’ Plautus, ‘subbasilicani.’ ‘These 
may be alluded to in of 75101 cuudvaderat, 
1 Thess. ii. 14. (See note on ayopaio, 
ch. xix. 38.) émot., having fallen 
upon,— beset. *Idgovos | With whom 
(ver. 7) Paul and Silas lodged. He ap- 
pears, perhaps (?), again with Paul at 
Corinth, Rom. xvi. 21, but did not aceom- 
pany him into Asia, ch. xx. 4. 6. 
moXttdpxas| The following inscription, 
found on an arch at Thessalonica, is given 
from Boeckh, No. 1967, in C. and H.i. 395: 
TOAEITAPXOVYTwWY Bwoiratpov Tov KdAeo- 
matpas Kat ovkiov Tlovytiov Zexouvdov 
TlovBAtov @Aaoviov SaBewou Anuntpiov 
Tov Pavotov Anuntpiov tov NikoToAews 
Zwidov Tov Tapyeviwvos Tov kat Mevioxov 
Taiov AyiAAnwv Tlorerrov ... . Here 
we have this very title applied to the Thes- 
salonian magistrates, shewing the exact 
accuracy of our narrative; and, curiously 
enough, we have three of the names which 
occur here, or in the Epistles, as companions 
of Paul: viz. Sosipater (ef Berawa, ch. xx. 


ABDE 
HLPxs | 
bedfs 
hklim 
op ls 


5—10. 


TIPABEIS, AMOSTOAON. 


189 


e L 
7 ods *Urrodédextat “ldcwv: Kalb ovToL TavTes 9 GTEVAVTE * Luke x. 38. 


fal , , / 
Tav »doywatwv Kaicapos mpadocovow, Baoihéa déyovTes 
\ \ 
8 de érapakav dé Tov 4dyXov Kab 


c av ie ’ a 
étepov eivat Inoodr. 


James ii. 25 
only+. Tobit 
vii. 8. 

1 Mace. xvi. 
15 only. 

= here only. 


x t U > , a 9 Neg , Naa 
TOUS ‘TodLTapYaS aKOVOYTAaS TaUTA, kat ‘NaBovtes TO (Rom. iti, i 


g € \ f \ lal 9 / \ lal cal h 3: / 

ixavov ‘apa tod “lacovos Kai TOV NowTav ” awédXvCAaV 
© YL, Ss \ , ; \ \ IS a STE rs 

10 of dé adeApot ebOéws | dua vuKTOS * EEérreprpay bor srt bref 


> , 
avuTous. 


tov Té IlavAov Kat tov Lirav eis Bépovayv, otruves | rapa- 


f ch, ii, 33 reff. 
ich. v. 19 reff. 


e ch. xy, 24 reff. 
XxVi. 32 reff. 
Luke xii. 51. xix. 16, 


John iii. 23. ch. v. 21, 22. 


reff.) 
2 Kings x. 


7B 


xii. 17. xiii. 





35. xv. 35 al. 
d ver. 13. 
g=here only. see Lev. xxv. 26. h = ch. 
k ch, xiii. 4 only, Gen. xxiv. 54, 56, 59. l absol., 
ix. 39. x. [32] 33. 1 Cor. xvi. 3al.fr. Gen. xiv. 13. 


7. [mpacoovow, so ABDEHLPRabedfghklop13 Chr We Thl-sif.] 
etepov bef Aeyovtes evar A B(sic: see table) Nac fhk13 vulg syr: Aey. ew. er. E: 


txt DHLP rel vss Chr-comm (ec Thl-sif. 
8. for Tov oxA., THy moAw KH. 
(-tas D?) trav. D. 
10. om ev@. dia vurr. A. 


ekereuwav bef Sia vueros XN. 


kat eTapatey Tous TOA. Kal TOY UXA. akovgayTes 


rec ins tys bef 


vurtos, with EHLP rel Chr Ge Thi-sif: om BDN am p 13. 40 Petr Thl-fin. 


om te D 3. 32. 42. 57. 95! sah: Se p!. 


4: see Rom. xvi. 21, and note); Secundus 
(of Thessalonica, ch. xx. 4); and Gaius (the 
Macedonian, note, ch. xix. 29). Thy 
oik. avacr. | The words presuppose some ru- 
mour of Christianity and its spread having 
before reached the inhabitants of Thessa- 
lonica. 7. otro. mavtes| All these 
people, i.e. Christians, wherever found. 
A wider acquaintance is shewn, or at least 
assumed, with the belief of Christians, than 
extended merely to Jason and his friends. 
amévaytt .. wpaca.| Not ‘do this in 

the face of the decrees, which would require 
TovTo with mpaoo., but as E. V. The 
‘8dypara in this case would be the Julian 
‘leges majestatis.’ Baowdda i.7.A. | 
This false charge seems to have been 
founded on Paul’s preaching much at Thes- 
salonica concerning the triumphant tapou- 
ota of Christ. This appears again and 
again in his two Epistles: see 1 Thess. 
i. 10; ii. 19; iii. 13; iv. 13—18; v. 1, 2; 
2 Thess. i. 5, 7—10; ii. 1—12: and par- 
ticularly 2 Thess. ii. 5, where he refers to 
his having often told them of these things, 
viz. the course, and destruction of Anti- 
christ, by whom these Jews might perhaps 
misrepresent Paul as designating Czsar. 
9. A\aBovrTes TS ikavev | ‘ Satisda- 

tione accepta ;’ either by sureties, or by a 
sum of money, or both. They bound over 
Jason and the rest (tivas adeAdous, ver. 6) 
to take care that no more trouble was given 
by these men: in accordance with which 
security they sent them away; and by 
night, to avoid the notice of the dxAos. 
10.| It does not follow, because 
Timotheus is not mentioned here, that 
therefore he did not accompany, or at all 
events follow, Paul and Silas to Berea, He 
has never been mentioned since he joined 


Paul’s company at Lystra. The very inter- 
mitted and occasional notices of Paul’s com- 
panions in this journey should be a caution 
against rash hypotheses. The general cha- 
racter of the narrative seems to be, that 
where Paul, or Paul and Silas, are alone or 
principally concerned, all mention of the 
rest is suspended, and sometimes so com- 
pletely as to make it appear as if they were 
absent: then, at some turn of events they 
appear again, having in some cases been 
really present all the time. I believe Timo- 
theus to have been with them at Thessalo- 
nica the first time, because it does not seem 
probable that Paul would have sent to them 
one to confirm and exhort them concerning 
their faith (1 Thess. iii. 2) who had not 
known them before, especially as he then 
had Silas with him. And this is confirmed 
by both the Epistles to the Thessalonians, 
which are from Paul, Silvanus, and Timo- 
theus. From these Epistles we learn that, 
during his residence among them, Paul 
worked with his own hands (1 Thess. ii. 9; 
2 Thess. iii. 8) to maintain himself: and 
from Phil. iv. 15, 16, that the Philippians 
sent supplies more than once towards his 
maintenance. Both these facts, especially 
the last, seeing that the distance from 
Philippi was 100 Roman miles, make it 
very improbable that his stay was so short 
as from three to four weeks: nor is this 
implied in the text: much time may have 
elapsed while the wA7j6os moAv of ver. 4 
were joining Paul and Silas. See further 
in Prolegg. to 1 Thess., Vol. III. § ii. 2 ff. 

Bépotav | According to the Anto- 
nine Itinerary 61, according to the Peu- 
tinger Table 57 Roman miles (S.W.) from 
Thessalonica. Bercea was not far from 
Pella, in Macedonia Tertia, Liv. xlv. 30, at 


190 


m here only. 
Exod. 
xxxili, 8. 

n ch. ix. 20 


TIPAREIS ATOZTOAON. 


XVII. 


f > \ \ m > , a ] / 
ryevomevol eis THY cUvaywyny “amnecay Tov ‘lovdatwr. 
nh | n bY: Ly 2 oO > LA a > / 

ovTot O€ Noav °evyevéoTepor TOV ev Mecacanrovixn, 


ee = (Luke P olTwe 9 6 fE , XxX ; r , i 8 fal i 
(L S €OECAVTO TOV OyOV PETA TAGNS Tpo ULLaS, 


xix. 12. 

1 Cor. i. 26) 

only. (Job 

i, 3. 2 Macc. = ee 

x.130nly.) TAUTA * OUTWS. 

p ch. x. 41 reff. 

q ch, viii. 14 
reff. 

yx = Mark iii. 5. 
ch. ii. 29. y. 
26 al. 

1 Chron. 
xxix. 22. 

6 2 Cor. vili. I], ¢ 4 
12,19. ix.2 U7TO 
onlyt. Sir. 
xly. 23 only. 
(-os, Rom. 
i. 15.) 

t Luke xi. 3. 
xix. 47 only. 
see ch. ii. 46 reff. 

xiii. 50 reff. 
xi. 1 reff. o— 

e ch. vii. 12 reff. 


avopav YovK »¥ or{you. 


u = ch. iv. 9 reff. 
y ch. xii. 18 reff. 
ch. ii. 25 (from Ps. xy. 8). 


ovtes Kat “TapaccovTes TOUS 
tov Lladxov ° éEarréatevXav of aderdpol tropeverOar *' as 


\ > ec / cd M4 \ 
tro Kal’ apépav “avaxpivovtes Tas ‘ypapas, el ™ Exot 
12 qrodXol pev odv €& av’TaOv érricTevear, 

A rn BE ‘iS la) lal x > “ A 
kal tov “EdXXnvidov yvvarkov Tov *Eevoxnwovev Kat 
13 id \ »” e Z , \ lol 

@s 6€ éyvwoav ol *aTO THs 
@cocarovixns lovdaior bt Kai ev TH Bepola * katnyyédn 
tov IlavAov 6 ® Noyos Tod ” Geod, HAOov Kaxel ° cadev- 


d 


dyrous. 34 evOéws 6€ TOTE 


v ver. 2 reff. w ch. vii. 1 reff. x ch. 
z= ch. ii. 5 reff. a ch. xiii, 5 reff. b ch. 
2 Thess. ii. 2 only. (ch. xvi. 26 al.) 1 Mace. vi. 8. d ver. 8. 


fsee note. 4 Kings ii. 11 B (€ws, A). 


rec Twy tovdaiwv bef arnecav (correction of order), with ABDX ak m p 18. 36 vulg 
Thl-fin: txt EHLP rel Chr @e Thl-sif.—eisnecay E vulg. 


11. evyevers D-gr. 
for maons mpoduuias, Tappno.as E-gr. 
36: ins BHLP rel Chr, ec Thi. 

12. twes wey ovy avtwy D. 
nmotnoay D 137. 


ins 77 bef @ecc. D. 


aft Aoyov ins Tov Oeou E. 
om To (as unnecessary) ADER ah p 138. 


exe: D1(txt D? or S) Ec] Ge Thi-sif. 
om ovy E a! Thl-sif. 
for eAAnv. to oAryo: D! has eAAnvayv kat Twy evexXnMovwY 


aft erior. add tives be 


avbpes K. ‘yuvaikes ikavor emiotevoay (Girecorum et non placentium et viri et mulieres 


plures crediderunt D-lat : 


eAAnvidwy, and ins kat bef avdpes, D?-gr: for Ist kat, 


yuvaicwy D>: for avbp. Kk. yuv., avdpwv ovk oAvyot DS: ux. emior. are omd by D-corr). 


18. om tys DE. 


ott (0) Aoy. (Tov) Beov Katnyy: es Beporay [Kat] emorevoay 


‘kat nAOov [ers avtqv] D(o Tov are insd by 1°, car and ers avrqy omd by D-corr). 
rec om Kat Tapacoovres, with EHLP rel «th Chr (ec Thi Cassiod: ins AB D?(rac- 


covtes D1!) Nac m p 18. 36. 40 vulg syrr copt arm. 


D Syr. 


at end ins ov d:eAiumavoy 


14. for ev@. 8e tore Tov, Toy pev ouv D Syr: statimque D-lat: om tore c 40. 137 syr 


sah. o. ad. eam. ameAdery D. 


the foot of Mt. Bermius. It was afterwards 
called Irenopolis, and now Kara Feria, or 
Verria, and is a city of the second rank in 
European Turkey, containing from 15,000 
to 20,000 souls. (Winer, Realw. C.and H. 
i. 399 f.) Wetstein quotes a remarkable 
illustration from Cicero in Pisonem, c. 26 :— 
‘Thessalonicam omnibus inscientibus noc- 
tuque venisti, qui cum concentum ploran- 
tium et tempestatem querelarum ferre non 
posses, in oppidum devium Bercam pro- 
fugisti.’ 11. evyevéorepor | Theophyl. 
and (Ee. explain it by émemkeorepo, but 
this is rather its resulé, than its mean- 
ing :—more noble is our best word for it ; 
—of nobler disposition ;—stirred up, not 
to envy, but to enquiry. TavTa | Viz. 
the doctrine of ver. 3, which Paul and Silas 
preached here also. 12.) The designa- 
tion conveyed in ‘EAAnvldev is to be sup- 
plied before av5pav also. So eis macay 
aéAw x. tTérov, Luke x. 1. See Winer, 
edn. 6, § 59. 5. 13.} of a6 Tt. O., 
as E. V., of Thessalonica. No inference 


* ws (see note) ABEN p 13. 40: om D ble 


that they came from Thess. can be 
drawn from this expression: but it is as- 
serted below. See Heb. xiii. 24. 

HAGov Kaket oad.| Not, as E. V., ‘they 
came thither also, and stirred up...., 
which destroys the force of the sentence : 
but they came, and stirred up there 
also... .: no journey having been related 
of them before, but a precisely similar act of 
exciting the people. From the distance, 
some time must have elapsed before this 
could take place: and that some time did 
elapse, we may gather from 1 Thess. ii. 18, 
where Paul relates that he made several 
attempts to revisit the Thessalonians (which 
could be only during his stay at Berea, as 
he left the neighbourhood altogether when 
he left that town), but was hindered. 

14. ds éwi +. 6.| The various readings 
seem to have arisen from not understand- 
ing @s,—which cannot, here or any where 
else, be redundant (as De Dieu, Raphel, 
Wolf, Heinrichs, &c.): nor can it well here 
signify that his going, ‘as if to the sea,’ 


11—16. 


\ € , 
emt tiv Oaraccar, * bréuewéev Te 6 TE Yiras Kat 0 Tipo- 


Geos éxel. 


\ 
16 Of 8 » Kabiotavovtes Tov 
al - , - » I \ 
"AOnvdv, cal *XaBovres * évtodnv mpos Tov Lirav Kat 


TIPAZEIS AMOZTOAON. 


191 


g = Luke ii. 43 
only. Num. 
xxi. 19. 

Jos. Antt. vi. 
9 


iv re 

EWS h (-avecv) 
here only. 
= 2 Chron. 
Xxviil. 15, 
Josh. vi. 23. 


Ilaiarov aryaryov 


Ld iv id / »”- x > f il > / i ¥ E 
Tipobeov, iva ws taxiota EMwow Tpos advTor, | eEnetay, i= Luke ii. ts. 


ch. xxiil, 23. 


a a /- “ 
16 €y d€ Tats ’AOjvais ™ éxdexouévov avtovs Tod Ilavnov, * olinx 18. 


n / \ i) a > ca) > > lal P@ nr 
TapwEvveTo TO TVEVLA AVTOV EV AUTW EMPOVVTOS 


reff, m 1 Cor. xi. 33. xvi. 11. 


xix. 21 (of Paul). Rom. i. 9. 
p w. particip., = ch. viii. 13. xxviii. 6. 


o Syr sah: ws HLP rel 36 Chr Gc Thi. 


Heb. x. 13. xi. 10. 
xiii. 5 only. Deut. ix.18. (-voos, ch. xv. 39, of Paul.) 
viii. 16. xii. 11. 


Col. iv, 10. 
2 John 4 
only. 
lch. xiii. 42 
n 1 Cor. 
John xiii. 21. ch. 
Paul principally. 


James y.7 only}. Gen. xliii. 9 al. 
o -= Lukei. 47. 
1 Cor, ii. 11. v. 3, 4. xiv. 14, &e. 


rec vreuevoy, with HLP rel 36 Chr We 


Thi-sif: vreueway BR ae p: ameueway KH 13: erewevay m Thdrt Thl-fin (corrections 


to suit constr) : txt AD Syr sah. 


rec for te, Se (correction of characteristic re, 


and to avoid recurrence), with DHLP rel vulg coptt Chr Thdrt: txt ABEN ¢ m p 13 


syr wth Thl-fin. 


exet bef o Te ciAas H. 


om 2nd te D sah. 


15. rec cafiotwytes (corrn of unusual form), with DDEHLPN? 13 rel : aroxabiotwytes 


36: katactavovtes D!: cadiomavres(sic) N!: txt AB p. 
with EHLP rel 36 Chr: om ABDN c m p 13 am fuld tol Thl-fin. 


rec aft ny. ins autor, 
ins twy bef ad. 


K. mapndOev Se THY Pecoadiav: ExwAVON yap ets avTous Kypviat Tov Aovyov" AaB. Be 
D. for evToA., emiotoAnv E-gr Syr: add mapa mavAov D: am avtov E Syr arm. 


ins Toy bef tiv. BN p 13. 


(ins D8 or 4), 


for wa ws Tax., oTws ev Taxet D. 
16. for avtovs, avtov D!(txt D3) 8196 Syr.—om Tov mavaov N}. 


om ro D! 


rec Oewpouyte (corrn to agree with avtw. This is much more prob 


than that, as Meyer suspects, avtw should have been altered to the gen to suit the 
gen absol before), with DHLP rel Chr, He Thi-sif: txt ABEX a k p 13. 36. 40 Chr, 


Thdrt Euthal Thl-fin. 


was only a feint, to deceive his enemies 
(as Beza, Piscator, Grot., Olsh., Neander, 
&e.): for, as there is no mention of any 
land journey, or places passed through on 
his way to Athens, there can be little 
doubt that he did really go by sea. But 
&s em r. 0. 1 believe simply to indicate the 
direction in which the Berwan brethren 
sent him forth. gs is used thus before 
participles and prepositions, without any 
assignable reference to its (more usual) sub- 
jective reference in such a connexion. Thus 
Hermann on Soph. Philoct. 58, says ‘ cogi- 
tationem significat particula os. Sed multo 
usu factum est, ut aliquando etiam ibi usur- 
paretur, ubi non opus esset respici id, quod 
quis in mente haberet.’ We have the same 
expression in Pausan. li. 25, cataBavrwy 
d¢ (the walls of Tyrius) os én) OdAacoar, 
évtav0a of PdAauor Tw@Yv Ipolrov Ouvyare- 
pwr cicty,—and Diod. Sic. xiv. 49, keAcvoas 
kata taxos AdOpa wActy ws em Suparo- 
otovs,—and Polyb. passim in Wetst.,—e. g. 
Kabjkovoay (tiv SeAounelav) ws em) Od- 
Aacoav, v. 59,—and with the same signifi- 
cation. Where he embarked for Athens, is 
not said: probably (C. and H. i. 403) at 
Dium, near the base of Mt. Olympus, to 
which two roads from Bercea are marked 
in the ancient tables. 15. kaG.or. | 
So Odyss. v. 274, rods w éxéAcvoa Tv- 
Aovde kaTaoTHoat Kal epeooat,—and Arrian, 
Ind. xxvii. 1, karaotioew adrovs méxpt 


Kopuavias. Who these were is not said. 
The course of Timotheus appears to 
have been, as far as we can follow it from 
the slight notices given, as follows :—when 
Paul departed from Bercea, not having been 
able to revisit Thessalonica as he wished 
(1 Thess. ii. 18), he sent Timotheus (from 
Berea, not from Athens) to exhort and 
confirm the Thessalonians, and determined 
to be left at Athens alone (1 Thess. iii. 1), 
Silas meanwhile remaining to carry on the 
work at Berwa. Paul, on his arrival at 
Athens, sends (by his conductors, who re- 
turned) this message to both, to come to 
him as soon as possible. They did so, 
and found him (ch. xviii. 5) at Corinth. 
See Prolegg. to 1 Thess., Vol. III. 
*AOyvav] See a long and interesting de- 
scription of the then state of Athens, its 
buildings, &c., in C. and H. chap. x. 
vol. i. pp. 407 ff.; and Lewin, i. pp. 268 ff. 
It was a free city. Strabo (ix. 1) gives an 
epitome of its fortunes from the Roman 
conquest nearly to this time: ‘Pwyato 
® otv mwapadaBdvres avtovs dynmoxpatov- 
pevous eptAatay thy avrovoulay aborts 
kK. Thy €Aevbeplay. emimecwy F 56 Mibpt- 
datikds méAEuos TUpdyvyoUus avTOIsS KaT- 
éotnoev ovs 6 BactAeds eBobrAeTo, Toy & 
ioxtoavTa pddiwTa Toy “Apiotiova xk. 
TavTny Biacduevoy Thy méAtv. ek TO- 
Auopkias éAav SvArAas 6 Tav ‘Pwpalwv 
Hyeuov exddace’ TH TéAEL OE ovyyvaunv 


192 


q here only +t. 
éAala Kata- 
Kap7ros, 

Ps. li. 8 (10). 
Hos. xiv. 7. 
Katwduvos, 
1 Kings i. 
10, xxx. 6. 
Sta TOmwWY 
Kkatadev- 
Spwr, Niod. 
Sic. xvi. 31. 
veavias 
kataBootpuxos, Eur. Phen. 146. 

u here only. see Heb. iii. 13. 

w Luke xiv. 31. ii. 19. ch. iv. 15. xviii. 27. xx. 14 only. 

x = ch. xiv. 13 reff. y here-only t. 

ver. 2l only. Ruth ii. 10. 


17. ins ro.s bef ev 77 wy. D 137 syr-mg (copt) sah. 
18. rec om Ist Ka: (as unnecessary), with EK c f k 36 vss Be Thi: 


rel Syr Chr. emixouptay ADEN c k p. 


haps) rel Chr: om ABEN acc a1 p 18. 40 Thl-fin. 
txt ADEHL P(perhaps) 8 a ¢ f k 13. 36 coptt Thl-fin. 
m 36 Chr Ge Thl-sif: cvveAaBov D1(txt D-corr’). 


Zveme, Kad wéxpe viv ev edevdepia TE éotl 
kK. Tip mapa tots ‘Pwpalors. See also 
Tacit. Ann. ii. 53. 16. Katetdwdov | 
This &rak Acyduevoy is formed after the 
analogy of Kardumredos, Kd0vdpos, &e. 
See reff. The multitude of statues 
and temples to the gods in Athens is cele- 
brated with honour by classic writers of 
other nations, and with pride by their own. 
A long list of passages is given in Wet- 
stein. The strongest perhaps is from Xen. 
de Repub. Ath., who calls Athens éAn Bo- 
pds, bAn Cdua Oeots Kal avabnua. 
17.] The ogy (as De W. remarks against 
Meyer and Schneckenburger) does not ne- 
cessarily give the consequence of what has 
been stated in ver. 16, but only continues 
the narration. See above on ch. xi. 19. 
éy Tq Gyopa]| Strabo (x. 1) speak- 
ing of the Eretrians in Euboa says that 
some suppose them to have been named 
amd ths "A@hynow "Epetplas, h vov éotw 
ayopd. (as distinguished from the Cera- 
micus, which was the old forum). It was 
the space before the orod roixidn, where 
the Stoics held their 5:aA¢ters. 18. 
*Emxovpetwv| The Epicurean philosophy 
was antagonistic to the gospel, as holding 
the atomic theory in opposition to the crea- 
tion of matter,—the disconnexion of the 
Divinity from the world and its affairs, 
in opposition to the idea of a ruling Pro- 
vidence,—and the indissoluble union, and 
annihilation together, of soul and body, as 
opposed to the hope of eternal life, and 
indeed to all spiritual religion whatever. 
The Epicureans were the materialists of 
the ancient world. The common idea 
attached to Epicureanism must be dis- 
carded in our estimate of the persons men- 
tioned in our text. The summum bonun 
of the real Epicureans, far from being a 
degraded and sensual pleasure, was @ra- 
patia of mind, based upon pdéynois,— 


TIPAZEIS ATIOTTOAON. 


4 xaTeiSmAov OvTaY TV TOLD. 
Th ovvaywyn Tois “lovdaious Kai Tois * ceBopévows, Kal 
év TH ayopa “ Kata “ Tacav “ jhyuépav Tpos TOvs ¥ TapaTuy- 
xavovtas: 18 twes 5€ Kat 
fpiriocodwv “ cuvéBaddov 
x Oéddou 6 Y omreppodoyos 


r ver. 2 reff. 
v here only +. 
1 Mace. iv, 34. 
Demosth. 269. 19. 


KV 


17 * GueNéryeTo ev ov eV 


lal > i \ - cal 
tov ’Emvxoupelov Kal XToixav 
> a / oo” 7 xX 
avTo. Kai Twes Edeyov Ti av 
€ 
oUTos eye; ot € * Bevov 


s = ch. xiii. 43 reff. t ch. xiii. 27 reff. 

w. dat., Jos. Antt. ii. 9.5. absol., Xen. Apol. Soer. 11. 
yuvaréi a. Adyous, Eur. Iph. Aul. 890. 
z =: Matt. xxv. 35 al. Luke, here and 


mapatuxovtas D1(txt D4). 
ins ABDHLPR p13 
rec ins tay bef ctoikwy, with DHL P(per- 
rec otrwikwy, with B p rel Chr: 
cuveBardov Labed'ifgh 
GeAy D(txt D8): Gere ¢ 13. 40. 


perhaps the best estimate of the highest 
good formed in the heathen world ;—and 
their ethics were exceedingly strict. But 
the abuse to which such a doctrine was 
evidently liable, gave rise to a pseudo-Epi- 
cureanism, which has generally passed cur- 
rent for the real, and which amply illus- 
trated the truth, that ‘corruptio optimi est 
pessima.’ For their chimerical arapaéla, 
Paul offered them thy eiphyny thy brep- 
éxovcay mdvta voor, Phil. iv. 7. 
Yreikdv | So named from the orod moilAn 
(see above), founded by Zeno of Cittium 
in the fourth century B.c., but perhaps 
more properly by Cleanthes and Chrysip- 
pus in the third century B.c. Their philo- 
sophy, while it approached the truth in 
holding one supreme Governor of all, com- 
promised it, in allowing of any and all ways 
of conceiving and worshipping Him (see 
below, vv. 24, 25),—and contravened it, in 
its pantheistic belief that all souls were 
emanations of Him. In spirit it was di- 
rectly opposed to the gospel,—holding the 
independence of man on any being but him- 
self, together with the subjection of God 
and man alike to the stern laws of an in- 
evitable fate. On the existence of the soul 
after death their ideas were various: some 
holding that all souls endure to the con- 
flagration of all things,— others confining 
this to the souls of good men,—and others 
believing all souls to be reabsorbed into the 
Divinity. By these tenets they would ob- 
viously be placed in antagonism to the doe- 
trines of a Saviour of the world and the re- 
surrection,—and to placing the summum 
bonum of man in abundance of that grace 
which évy dc@evela teAcirat, 2 Cor. xii. 9. 
tives EXeyov .... of S€] These are 
not to be taken as belonging the one to the 
Epicureans, the other to the Stoics,—but 
rather as describing two classes, common 
perhaps to both schools,—the one of which 


—————n 


17—19. TIPAREIS ATLODTTOAON. 


193 


r > > 
aS§auuoviwy SoKxet ’ KaTayyerevs eva’ OTL TOV Inoody = bere only. 
Xe: 


n. Mem. i. 
MS ‘ / / a > els 
kal tiv °avactacw “evnyyerifero [adtois]. 19 © ere phere omyt. 
(-AAetv, ver. 


/ fal N 
AaBomevol Te avTod emi Tov “Apetcoy Tayov iyyayov Sra 
ec absol., Matt. 


Xxii, 22, 23, 30|| L. John xi. 24, 25. ch. xxiii. 8. e >and 


constr., Matt. xiv. 31. Luke ix. 47. ch. xxi. 80, 33. Isa. iv.1. (acc. ch. ix. 27 reff.) 
katayyeAXeus &. for ot de, odev D'. om last clause D. rec autos 
bef eunyyeArCero, with 36: om avtots BLPR! rel syr sah arm Chr: avrov evnyy. avtois 
a 14, 27-9. 68-9. 105-6 Syr copt xth-pl: txt AEHR%cfk mp 13 vulg Thl. (The 
varr have principally been produced by avtov being inserted after avacracw, it being 
imagined that the resurr of Jesus was intended. Hence the origl avrois was trans- 
posed and altered, and, from avrov and avrots being alternately erased, finally dis- 
appeared altogether. So Meyer.) 
19. wera de nucpas Tivas emtAaB. avtov nyayov avToy emt TOY aploy Tory. TUYOavomeEvoL Kat 
Aey. D 137 syr. (om tov D!: ins D?: mw. Se nu. tw. are marked with ast in syr.) 
for re, de B p 13. 36 coptt. aptov ADEN, so ver 22. 


d constr., ch. xi. 20 reff, 


despised him and his sayings, and the other (ver. 22) is translated ‘ Mars’ Hill. We 


were disposed to take a more serious view of 
the matter, and charge him with bringing in 
new deities. omeppodoyos | o7reppo- 
Adyos cldos éotly dpyéov AwBauéevov Ta 
omépuata’ e& ov of “A@nvaio: cmepwodAdyous 
exdAovy Tovs mepl éumdpia Kal aryopas 
diarpiBovtas, dia Td avardéyeoOar Ta ex 
Tay poptiwy amoppéovta, Kal Bdia¢jv ex 
tovrwy. Kustath. ad Odyss. e. 490, where 
Damm observes, orepuodoyety, ‘verbum 
recentiorum ; dicitur ém) tév dAaovevo- 
pbévav dmcbddws em) pabhuacw ex Tiwev 
mapakovouaTwy, Si quis quid arripuit forte 
ex disciplinis, eoque se imperite jactat 
babbler is the very best English word: as 
both signifying one who talks fluently to 
no purpose, and hinting also that his talk 
is not his own. Eévov Sap. | adice? 
Swxpdtys ... . Kawa Sadia eispépwr, 
was one of the charges on which Athens 
put to death her wisest son. daiudria 
is not plural for singular, as Kuin.: nor 
merely, though this is somewhat more pro- 
bable, marks the category, as Meyer: nor 
can it refer (Chrys., Theophyl., Gicum., 
Hammond, Heinrichs) to Jesus and the 
avdoracis, mistaken for a goddess (a 
sufficient answer to which strange idea 
is, that 4 avaotacts is merely a state- 
ment in the mouths of others, of the 
doctrine taught by Paul, which he would 
hardly ever, if ever, specify by this 
word,—compare vv. 31 and 382): but 
alludes (as De Wette) to the true God, 
the God of the Jews, and Jesus Christ 
His Son: the Creator of the world (ver. 24), 
and the Man whom He hath appointed to 
judge it, ver. 31. Katayyehevs | Com- 
pare ver. 23, end; which is an express 
answer to this charge. 19. emda. | 
No violence is implied : see reff. emt 
Tov” Apevov wayov| There is no allusion 
here to the court of Areiopagus, nor should 
the words have been so rendered in E. V.,— 
especially as the same ’Apefouv mayou below 
Vou. Il, 


have in the narrative no trace of any ju- 
dicial proceeding, but every thing to con- 
tradict such a supposition. Paul merely 
makes his speech, and, having satisfied the 
curiosity of the multitude who came toge- 
ther on Mars’ Hill, departs unhindered :— 
they brought him up to the hill of Mars. 
Wordsworth believes he finds a_ trace 
of a judicial proceeding in “Avdpes *A@7- 
vaiot, denoting rather a public apology 
than a private discussion: and in the con- 
version of Dionysius the Areopagite. But 
what words other than those would St. Paul 
have been likely to use in making a speech 
to a concourse of Athenians? for no one sup- 
poses it to have been a private discussion. 
And why should not Dionysius have been 
present ? Asa convert of note, he would 
naturally have his title attached. The 
following note is borrowed from Mr. Hum- 
phry’s Commentary :—‘It might be ex- 
pected that on the hill of Mars the mind of 
the stranger would be impressed with the 
magnificence of the religion which he 
sought to overthrow. The temple of the 
Eumenides was immediately below him: op- 
posite, at the distance of 200 yards, was the 
Acropolis, which, being entirely occupied 
with statues and temples, was, to use the 
phrase of an ancient writer (Aristides), av7’ 
avadjuatos, as one great offering to the 
gods. The Persians encamped on the 
Areiopagus when they besieged the Acro- 
polis (Herod. viii. 52): from the same 
place the Apostle makes his first public 
attack on Paganism, of which the Acro- 
polis was the stronghold. Xerxes in his 
fanaticism burnt the temples of Greece 
(Aschyl. Pers.: Cic. de Leg. ii. 10). 
Christianity advanced more meekly and 
surely: and though the immediate effect 
of the Apostle’s sermon was not great, 
the Parthenon in time became a Christian 
church (Leake, Athens, p. 277). Athens 
ceased to be a kareldwdos méArs,—and 


194 


f Mark i, 27. 

g = 1 Pet. iv. 4, 
12 only +. 
(ch. x. 6, 23 
reff.) 2 Macc. 
ix.6. Diod. 
Sic. xii. 53, 
of Gorgias, 
7@ fevt- 
Covre THs 
Aéfews €&- 
emAnge Tovs 
"AOnvatous. 

h = here (Matt. 


TavTa Eval. 


PxawvoTepov. 


vi. 13. Luke v. 18, 19, xi. 4. xii. 11. 1 Tim. vi. 7. Heb. xiii, 11) only. (Soph. Aj. 149.) 


v. ll. 1 Cor. xii. 17. Mark vii. 35. Ps. xvii. 44. 
m ver. 18, n = Matt. v. 13. ch. xix. 27 al. 


9. 4. (-pta, Luke xxii.6. -pos, Mark vi. 21. -pws, 2 Tim. iv. 2.) 
¢ q ch. xi. 13 reff. 


see ver. 22. Winer, edn. 6, $ 35, 4. 


om 2nd 7 BD. amo gov D)1(Wtst). 
Syr eth: nxarratio doctrine D-lat. 


20. pepers D: erspeper R!: add pnuata DE. 
* tiva Oérex (mistake in writing tt av; which was the easier on acet of 


20, 21.] 


IIPAZEIS, ATIOSTOAOQN, 


XVIL 


i Luke vii. 1. Heb. 
= ch. it. 12 only. 1 ch. ii. 10 only +. 
o Mark vi. 31. 1 Cor. xvi. 12 only+. Polyb. xx. 

p = Matt. xiii. 52. Isa. xlii. 9. compar., 


Acyouevn E p: katayyeAAouevn D-gr 


[Phas lost a few words in vv 


the plural tavra) A B(sic: see table) & p 13. 40, que hec sint sah: twa Beda a 69: 
tiav Beker P: Ts ay OeAoe DEHL rel vulg(quidnam velint hec esse) Chr He Thi. 


tavta bef GA. C137: om tava E. 
21. aft emd. ins ets avrous D-gr sah. 


Thl-fin. } 


[mukatpovy, so ABDERN ¢ p 13. 40 Ge 


rec for 2nd », ca (corrn to avoid the awkwardness of the recurrence of 


n with different meanings), with EHLP p rel 36 vss Bas Chr: txt ABDX vulg syr sah. 


aft akovei ins tt ABN, so vss but om the mz aft Aey. 


(The repetition has 


originated in the transposition for elegance.) 


22. om o ABN Thi-sif. 


the repugnance of the Greeks to images 
became so great, as to be a principal cause 
of the schism between the churches of the 
east and west in the eighth century.’ 
The hill of Mars was so called according to 
Paus. i. 28. 5, bts mpdtos “Apns éevtavda 
expl6n. It was on the west of the Acro- 
polis. The Areiopagus, the highest criminal 
court of Athens, held its sittings there. To 
give any account of it is beside the pur- 
pose, there being no allusion to it in the 
text. Full particulars may be found sub 
voce in Smith’s Dict. of Gr. and Rom. Antt. 
Suvap. yvav.| A courteous method 
of address (not ironical, as Kuin. and Stier). 
21.| A remark of the narrator (as I 
believe, Paul himself, see Prolegg. to Acts, 
§ ii. 14) as a comment on the kav and 
EeviCovra of the verse before. evKaLpa, 
waco, Gloss. Vet. It is not a classic Attic 
word : evxatpeiy obdels eipnre TAY Tadaidy, 
“EdAAnves 5é€, Morris, “oyodhyv &yw,” Kal 
“eb sxod7s exw,” od “ oxXodAd(w” 7d Be 
* etxaipeiv ” mdvtn addxiumov, Thom. Mag. 
On this character of the Athenians, 
compare that given of them, Thueyd. 
iii. 38, wera kKawwdtnTos wey Adyou ara- 
Tacbat &pioro:, where the scholiast evi- 
dently has our text in his mind; tadra 
mpos tovs “AOnvalous aivitreta, obdév 
Tt meAeTavTAas TAHY A€yetvy TL Kal akovew 
kawdv:—Demosth. (Philippic. i. p. 43), 4 
BobrAcobe, cimé ot, wepiidvTes abtay mv- 
Oéc0at Kata Tv Gyopay Aéyetal Tt Kat- 
vév; yevoiro yap kv ti Kavdtepov 4) 
Maxedav avip «.7.A. (so also in Philipp. 


for en, ermey & 180. 


Epist. pp. 156, 157.) The comparative, 
kaivdTepoy, is used as here by Theophr. in 
giving the character of a loquacious person : 
olos épwrjaat Exes wep) Todde eimeiy kat- 
vdv; Kal eriBarov épwrav Mh Aéyeral te 
kavdtepov ; It implies, as we should say, 
the very last news. 22.| The Com- 
mentators vie with each other in admiration 
of this truly wonderful speech of the great 
Apostle. Chrysostom: todrdé éart Td eipn- 
Hévoy TG GamooTéAw, eyevdunv Tots avd- 
ows @s &vouos, va KepSjow avduous- 
-AOnvalois yap Snunyopav, ovK amd mpo- 
bntav ovdé ard Tod vduov Sier€xOn, GAN 
amy Bwuod tiv mapalverw emroinoato- 
amd Tay oixeiwy avTo’s éxeipsoato Boy- 
pdtv: dd ovK elmevy “tvouos,” GAN 
““&s &vouos.” ‘The oration of Paul be- 
fore this assembly is a living proof of his 
apostolic wisdom and eloquence: we see 
here how he, according to his own words, 
could become a Gentile to the Gentiles, to 
win the Gentiles to the Gospel.’ Neander, 
Pfl.u. L., p. 317. And Stier very properly 
remarks (Reden der Apostel, ii. 131), ‘1 
was given to the Apostle in this hour, what 
he should speak ; this is plainly to be seen 
in the following discourse, which we might 
weary ourselves with praising and admiring 
in various ways; but far better than all so- 
called praise from our poor tongues is the 
humble recognition, that the Holy Ghost, 
the spirit of Jesus, has here spoken by the 
Apostle, and therefore it is that we have 
in his discourse a masterpiece of apostolic 
wisdom.’ The same Commentator gives the 


rE A , 0 r / e f ‘ ev e © XA r 
éyovtes Avvayeba ywovar tis ) ! Kawn aitn 1) UTo cov ABDE 
LU . ia / 7 

Narovpevn ‘didayyn; 29% Eevifovra yap Twa * eishépers 
\ ’ \ - a 4 

eis TAS ‘akoas Hu@v: Bovro“EOa odv yva@vat * TL av * BEXOL op 

21’ A@nvaiot dé travtes Kat ot | érLdnmovvTes 
1) 

m £évou ” eis ovdEev ETEpov ° n’KalpouY 7) NEYEW TL 4) aKovELW 

1ortabeis 5é 6 labios é€v péow TOD 


HLPNa 
bedfg 
kim 


13 


— 


20—23. 


IIPAS EIS ATIOSTOAON. 195 


5) a isc 
"Apelov mayou &bn "Avdpes ’AOnvaior, * Kata mavta § wg *=eb-iii. 2 


t Seuordatpovertépous Uuas Oewpa: 23 " Stepyomevos yap Kat * is 
poverrépous by pxdmevos yap kab *: 


== 1 Gor. =. 
2 Cor. vi. 


lal a 13. 
Yavabewpav ta ‘ ceBacpata vuadv ebpov Kat * Popov ép t rere ontys. 


» Y érreyé ~Ayvooto Ceo 
@ Yéreyéyparto * Ayvootm Gee. 


14, (-ovia, ch. xxv. 19 only.) compar., ver. 21. 
a, THY KAKLaVY TOV TOLNKLATWY, Diod. Sic. xiv. 109. 


xiii. 7 only +. 


= Xen. Cyr. 


A > > lal lii. 38. 58. 
°0 otv Payvoodvtes HPO 
xiy. 10. 13, 
u absol., ch. viii. 4 reff. v Heb. 


w 2 Thess. ii. 4 


only. Wisd. xiv. 20. xv. 17 BN F(not A). Bel and Dr. 27 Theod. only. x here only. Jer. 
vii. 31 al. y Mark xv. 26. Rev. xxi. 12. Heb. viii. 10. x. 16 only. Num. xvii. 2, 3. z here 
only+. Wisd. xi. 18. xviii. 3. 2 Macc. i. 19. ii. 7 only. a 1 Cor. vii. 24. b ch, xiii. 27 reff. 


23. for avabewpwv, Sucropwy Di(txt D*, perspiciens D-lat) ; wrropwy Clem,. 


oeBaora &. 


substance of the speech thus: ‘He who is 
(by your own involuntary confession) wi- 
known to you Athenians (religious though 
you are),—and yet (again, by your own 
confession) able to be known,—-the all- 
sufficing Creator of the world, Preserver 
of all creatures, and Governor of mankind, 
—now commandeth all men (by me His 
minister) to repent, that they may know 
Him, and to believe in the Man whom He 
hath raised from the dead, that they may 
stand in the judgment, which He hath 
committed to Him. avdpes AO. | 
The regular and dignified appellation fami- 
liar to them as used by all their orators,— 
of whose works Paul could hardly be altoge- 
ther ignorant. kata m., inevery point 
of view: sce reff. Sercrdarpover- 
Tépovs| carrying your religious reve- 
rence very far: an instance of which fol- 
lows, in that they, not content with wor- 
shipping named and known gods, wor- 
shipped even an wrknown one. Blaine is 
neither expressed, nor even implied: but 
their ewceeding veneration for religion laid 
hold of as a fact, on which Paul, with ex- 
quisite skill, engrafts his proof that he is 
introducing xo new gods, but enlightening 
them with regard to an object of worship 
on which they were confessedly in the dark. 
So Chrysost.: Sewo., touréctiv evAaBeo- 
Tépous.... . Hsmep eykaud(ew aitovs 
Soxe?, oddev Bapd A€ywv. To understand 
this word as E. V. ‘foo superstitious’ (‘su- 
perstitiosiores,’ Vulg., so Luther, Calov., 
Wolf), is to miss the fine and delicate 
tact of the speech, by which he at once 


parries the charge against him, and in 


doing so introduces the great Truth which 
he came to preach. The word itself 
has both senses: deroidaluwyv, 6 evoeBns, 
Hesych. :—év +@ towovrT@ (in battle) yap 
5) of Setoidaluoves ArTov Tovs avOpmmous 
goBodyra, Xen. Cyrop. iii. 3.58: and 
on the other hand, Theophrast. Char. 16, 
explains Seiodamovla by SeAia mpds Td 
doiudviov: and Pollux, evoeBhs, Peay ém- 
peAns, 6 5& UrepTimar, Seroidaluwy Kad derol- 
Oeos. The character thus given of the 
Athenians is confirmed by Greek writers: 


n (nv D?) yeypaumevoy D. 


“Baumol Spuyras. 


rec ov and toutov (see note), with 


thus, Pausan. i. 24. 3, "A@nvatois wepicod- 
TEpdv Tt i) Tois &AAols es TH Deia ort 
omovoyjs. See other instances in Wetstein. 
Josephus, ¢. Apion. ii. 11, calls them eice- 
Beordtous Tév “EAATYov. 23.] avad., 
looking over, ‘reconnoitring.’ Ge- 
Baop.] not, as E. V., ‘devotions :’ but 
objects of religious worship, temples, 
altars, statues, &e.: see reff. Kai | 
over and above the many altars to your 
own and foreign deities. moAAG yap Tay 
EevixGy lep@y mapedé~avto, . . . Kal 62) Kal 
Ta Opdkia kal Ta Spdyia, Strabo, x. p. 472. 

a&yveorw 0d] To an (not, the) un- 
known God. That this was the verita- 
ble inscription on the altars (not as Jerome 
on Tit. i. 12, vol. vii. p. 707, ‘Inscriptio ara 
non ita eratut Paulus asseruit: 7gnoto Deo: 
sed ita: Diis Asie et Europe et Africe, 
Diis ignotis et peregrinis. Verum quia 
Paulus non pluribus Diis ignotis indigebat 
sed uno tantum ignoto Deo, singulari verbo 
usus est’), the words @ émeyéypamro, on 
which had been inscribed, are decisive. 
Meyer well remarks, that the historical fact 
would be abundantly established from this 
passage, being Paul’s testimony of what 
he himself had seen,—and spoken to the 
Athenian people. But we have our nar- 
rative confirmed by the following: Paus. 
i. 1. 4, €vravdar na Bwuol OeGv Te dvoma- 
Couevwy ayvdotwy, Kal tpdwy Kad Tat- 
dwy ToY Ohoews kal Padhpov:—Philos- 
tratus, Vita Apollon. vi. 3, cwppovérrepoy 
To mep) mavtwy Oeay cb A€yeLY, Ka TavTa 
-AChyngw, o8 Kal ayvdoray Bamdvwy 
On which Winer well 
says, that it by no means follows that each 
altar had the inscription in the plural, @co?s 
ayvéoro.s, but more naturally that the 
plural has been used to suit Bwot, and 
that the inscription on each was as here. 
The commonly cited passage of (Pseudo-) 
Lucian, Philopatr. 9, and 29, v}) thy &y- 
vwotov ev “A@jvas, is no testimony, the 
dialogue being spurious, and the reference 
to our text evident. The origin of such 
altars has been variously explained : Diog. 
Laert. (vita Epimenid.) says, that Epime- 
nides, on oceasion of a plague, advised the 


O 2 


196 


c1 Tim. v. 4 
only+. Eur. 
Phen. 1331. 
(see ch. iii. 
12 reff.) 

d ch. xiii. 5 
reff. 

e here only t. 

ch. ix. 20 reff. 

g Matt. xi. 25. 
(Gen, xxiv. 


1.) 

h Josh. iii. 11, 13. ich. viii. 16 reff. 
ii. 13. iv. 3. x. 13. James iii. 7. 1 Pet. ii. 13 only. 
liv. 17. n here only. Prov. xii. 9. 


TIPAZEIS ATOZDTOAON. 


4 
meveTat ™ rposdeopevos TWOS, 


Num. y. 6. 
Sir. iv. 3 alt. 


XVII. 


cedaeBetre, *to0dT0 eyo IKxatayyé\rw ipiv. **o0 Oeds 6 
© goujaas Tov © KoopoV Kal TaVTA TH EV ava, ‘ ovTos ® ovpa- 
rc rn $ ’ of 
yoo kai “hs ibrapyov * KUpios ovK év * yeupotroutois 
lal k tal 95 Oe c \ la) ] ] fa} / m fal 
vaois * karouKkel, 2° ovdé Uo Yepav ‘avUpwoTWaV “ VEpa- 


abtos Sib0vs mace Conv Kab 


1 Rom. vi. 19. 1 Cor. 


k ch, vii. 48 (reff.). 
Proy. xxix. 26. Isa. 


m = here only. 


A2EHLPR? 13. 36 rel vss Clem Ath Chr Cosm (Ee Thi Aug: 0 and tovtoy p: txt 


AIBDN! vulg Orig Jer. 


vuwy B'(Tischdt). 


24. rec kup. bef utapx., with DHLP rel Clem, Chr Iren-int: txt ABEXN ak mp 18. 


40 vulg(cum sit dom.) Clem, Thdrt, 
25. for ovde, od¢ D!(txt D*). 
13 rel vss Chr Thdrt, Cosm: 

avp. bef xeipwy &. (P def.) 
lectt-12-3. om avtos H 16. 37. 
Athenians to let go white and black sheep 
from the Areiopagus, and on the spots 
where they lay down to erect altars TO 
arposyjkovrt Geg : d6ev, he adds, érs kal voy 
eat ebpeiy Kata Tovs BShuwous tav ~A@n- 
valwy Boos avwvimovs. Kichhorn con- 
jectures that they may have been ancient 
altars erected before the use of writing, 
and thus inscribed in after-times. But 
I should rather suppose that the above 
anecdote furnishes the key to the practice : 
that on the occurrence of any remarkable 
calamity or deliverance not assignable to 
the conventionally-received agency of any 
of the recognized deities, an unknown God 
was reverenced as their author. That the 
God of the Jews was meant (as supposed 
by Caloy., Wolf,al.)is very improbable. 
«Quod ignotis Diis altare erexerant, signum 
erat nihil ipsos tenere certi : habebant qui- 
dem ingentem Deorum turbam sed 
dum illis permiscent ignotos Deos, hoc ipso 
fatentur nihil de vera Divinitate se habere 
compertum. . ... Inde apparet inquietudo, 
quod se nondum defunctos fatentur, ubi 
popularibus Diis litarunt,’ &e. Calvin. 
$....TovTo} The dv and todrov of the 
rec. have probably been alterations from 
reverential motives. The neuters give 
surely the deeper, and the more appro- 
priate sense. For Paul does not identify 
the true God with the dedication of, or wor- 
ship at, the altar mentioned : but speaks 
of the Divinity (rb @etov) of whom they, 
by this inscription, confessed themselves 
ignorant. (It may however be a warning 
of the uncertainty of @ priori internal 
evidence for readings, that De Wette and 
Meyer suppose the masculines to have 
been altered to produce this very sense, 
and to avoid the inference that Paul iden- 
tified the unknown God with the Creator.) 
But even a more serious objection lies 


Thl-fin. 

ree avOpwrav (probably an error), with EHL 

txt ABDN a p vulg Clem, Thdrt, Tren-int.— 

ins ws bef mposdeomevos N!(N® 
E-lat Thdrt(twice, but once in only one ms) Iren-int. 

56. 100 Chry. 


karoixot D1(txt D§). 


disapproving) 25 D-lat 
for Tivos, avros D§: om D! 
ott ovtos o douvs Dt 


against the masculines. The sentiment 
would thus be in direct contradiction to 
the assertion of Paul himself, 1 Cor. x. 20, 
& Ovovory, Sarpoviots Kal ov beg over. 


Compare also our Lord’s words, John iv. 
22, suets mposkuveite & ovK ofbarTe. In 


evoeBeite, we have another confirmation 
of the sense above insisted on for deratdar- 
povestépovs. He wishes to commend their 
reverential spirit, while he shews its mis- 
direction. An important lesson for all 
who have controversies with Paganism and 
Romanism. Katayy.| (See above, 
katayyedet’s ver. 18.) Iam declaring,— 
making manifest, to you. ‘duels me mpo- 
erdBere, onal’ ep0ace tuav 7) Oepameia 
To eudy Khpuyua. Chrys. 24.] «No 
wonder, that the devil, in order to diffuse 
idolatry, has blotted out among all heathen 
nations the recognition of Creation. The 
true doctrine of Creation is the proper re- 
futation of allidolatry.’ Roos. Einl. in die 
bibl. Geschicht., cited by Stier, Red. der 
Apost. ii. 140, who remarks, ‘Only on the 
firm foundation of the Old Testament doc- 
trine of Creation can we rightly build the 
New Testament doctrine of redemption: 
and only he, who scripturally believes and 
apprehends by faith the earliest words of 
Revelation, concerning a Creator of all 
things, can also apprehend, know, and 
scripturally worship, THE MAN, in whom 
God’s word, down to its latest canonical 
Revelation, gathers together all things.’ 

ovx év xeup.] A remarkable remi- 
niscence of the dying speech of Stephen: 
see ch. vii. 48. Mr. Humphry notices 
the similarity, but difference in its conclu- 
sion, of the argument attributed to Xerxes 
in Cicero, Leg. ii. 10: ‘Xerxes inflammasse 
templa Grecia dicitur, quod parietibus 
includerent deos, quibus omnia deberenf 
esse patentia et libera, quorumque hie 


ABDE 
HLPRa 
bedfy 

hklm 

opl3 


24—27. TIPAHEIS ATOSTOAON. 197 


\ \ A iv ans 

° arvony Kai Ta Travta, 26 éroincéy Te €& Eévos E aiparos | ih Beni 
rant 

mav €0vos pare 1 Katotxety Yémt TravTos * mposeoTrou 5 oertaas 13. 


A Hom. ll. ¢. 
THs *yhs Sopicas ‘mpostetaypévous “Karpovs Kal Tas 2. 
Y Opolecias Tis 


‘ : is 2 q Ww. ger, Her: 
n ry a 7 iii. 10 al! 

V xatoixlas avtav, *7 XY fnteiv tov Y Oeov, ‘iy'* 

XXXVili. 12. 

li, 23. x. 42. xi. 29. ver. 31. 

only. (ch. x. 33 reff.) 

xix. 12 Alius in Hexapl.) 

x. 20 only. Exod. xxxiii. 7. 


yr = Luke xxi. 35. (xii. 56.) Gen. xi. 8. s Luke =f 22. ch. 
Rom. i. 4. Heb. iv. 7 only. L.P.H. Num. xxxiv. 6. = here 
u absol., Gal. iv. 10. Gen. i. 14. vy here only +. (- ben Exod. 
where only. Exod. xxxy.3. Dan. ii. 11 Theod. x = Rom. 
y here only. 1 Chron. xxi. 30. 
(but d:50us D-corr! °F?) : Sovs H Clem, Chr,. om Kat Ta mavTa 13 Syr. 
Steph (for kat ta) kara, with HL P(“certe videtur,” Tischdf) rel Thdrt, He Thl-fin. 
(Meyer thinks nara ravta ver 22 was still in the copyist’s mind. At all events, it 
seems to be an error): kat kata 40: txt ABDE(X) p 36 vulg syr eth arm Clem, Chr 
Thdrt, Cosm Thl-sif—om ta N!. 

26. om te DE syr: Se m. om amatos ABN p 13. 40 vulg copt eth Clem Bede: 
ins DEHLP rel 36 syrr Thdrt, Chrsepe Cosm Ce Thi Iren-int. (Meyer well remarks on 
the omission, that it is more likely to have happened owing to evos GulLUT OS, than that 
amwatos should be a gloss on evos,—for that this would be rather given by av@pwrov.) 

for eOvos, yevos a c 23. 69. 96. 1104-37-42 vulg syr-mg Clem Thl-fin Iren- 
int. avOpwrov D-gr. rec tay To Tpoowmov (corrn for ease of constr), with HL 
rel Chr Thdrt Cosm: trav mposwrov EP Thdrt,: txt ABDN p 18. 36 Clem. 
rec mpotetay., with D1 13 b f k, prefiniens Iven-int: terayp. a 141. 69: txt 
AB D-corr! or 2 KHLPR rel vss Clem Amm Chr Cosm (ec Thl. Kata opobeciay 
D!-gr(txt D®) Iven-int. 

27. ins wadiota bef (yrew D-gr. rec for @Oevv, kupioy (in this case we can 
hardly suppose xup. to be genuine, as De W. and Meyer, simply from the & priori 
difficulty of Paul having used the expression when speaking to heathens : the copyists 
are uniformly so careless where these two words are concerned, as to leave such con- 
siderations very uncertain), with EP rel Cosm Thi-sif: ro (for 71, or Te To 2) Oevoy eat 


D Iren-int: txt ABHLX a d p 13. 36. 40 vulg syrr coptt eth Chr Ge Thl-fin Hil Ambr. 


mundus omnis templum esset et domus.’ 
Where Paul stood, he might see the 
celebrated colossal statue of Athena Polias, 
known by the Athenians as 7) ©ed, standing 
and keeping guard with spear and shield 
in the enclosure of the Acropolis. 
25.| Oepamevetar, is (really and truly) 
served. So eds ov puntnpicera, Gal. 
vi. 7. mposd.| evdetobar wev eott Td 
TAYTEAMS mh Exe? mposdeioOa Se Td Exe 
fev fepos, ert Se SetoOa mpds TO TEAELOV. 
Ulpian (in Wetst.). As the assertion 
of Creation contradicted the Epicurean 
error, so this laid hold of that portion of 
truth, which, however disguised, that school 
had apprehended: ‘Omnis enim per se 
divim natura necesse est | Immortali vo 
summa cum pace fruatur. |... .. | Ipsa 
suis pollens opibus, nihil indiga nostri,’ 
Luceret. i.57. There is a verse in 2 Mace. 
xiv. 35, remarkable, as compared with the 
thoughts and words of Paul here: o¥, cupie, 
Tav bAwy amposde}s timdpxwy, evdoKhoas 
yaov THiS ons KaTacKnVecews ev Tuiy 
yeverGat. tivés | neuter, as referring 
to the temples and statues offered by the 
Athenians. fwnv K. mvojv| He is 
the Preserverv, as well as the Creator, of 
all; and all things come to us from Him. 
Compare, on Ta wavta, David’s words, 
1 Chron. xxix. 14, o& Ta mwavta, Kal ek 


Tav cov dedékamev oot. 26.] e& Evas 
[aip.] was said, be it remembered, to a 
people who gave themselves out for airé- 
xPoves : but we, must not imagine that to 
refute this was the object of the words: 
they aim far higher than this, and contro- 
vert the whole genius of polytheism, which 
attributed to the various nations differing 
mythieal origins, and separate guardian 
gods. It is remarkable, that though of all 
people the Jews were the most distin- 
guished in their covenant state from other 
nations of the earth, yet to them only was 
given the revelation of the true history of 
mankind, as all created of one blood: a 
doctrine kept as it were in store for the 
gospel to proclaim. Not, ‘ hath made of 
one blood,’ &e., as E. V., but caused every 
nation of men (sprung) of one { blood] to 
dwell, &e. See Matt. v.32; Mark vii. 37. 

jTavTos Tpos@mov]| The omission 
of the art. may be accounted for by the 
words following emt (see Middleton, vi. 1): 
or, perhaps, by the parallelism of may 
€Ovos, mavtbs mposmmouv: or perhaps, as 
mas oikos "IoparjA, ch. ii. 36, because mpés- 
wmov THs yns is regarded as one appel- 
lative. See note on waoa oikodoun, Eph. 
li. 21. KOUpsner eres 6p08.] He who 
was before (ver. 24) the Creator, then 
(ver. 25) the Preserver, is now the Gover- 


198 


z = here (Luke 
xxiv. 39. 


Heb. xii. 18. . 

i John 1.3) > waKpav b 

Haase a ae 5 ‘* i 
10. opt., : 

ami Oe en eee 


Mark xii. 34. d 


Luke vii. 6. 

xv. 20. 

John xxi, 8. 

Eph. ii. 13, 

17. (ch. xxii. 

21 reff.) 

Deut, xxx. 11. 
li. 30. viii. 16 reff. 
ii. 5, vi. 14) only. 
xviil. 15 reff. 

xi, 7,10. Rom. xv. 1. 
vii. 14. o= here (Matt. ix. 4, xii. 25. 
only+. Xen. Mem.i. 4.18. (2 Pet. i. 3, 4. 


éopev. 29 Kryévos obv 


e cf. 1 Pet. i. 5, 22. 
Gen. vii. 14, 21 al. 
i = here only. 


WynAabnoacay D: -caev a 3. 64. 95!. 105: -cerey EX 40 Cie. 
for kat (bef evp.), 7 AD 36. 40 vulg(not tol) sah Iren-int. 
rec xaitoye (alteration to more usual word; the readg xa To is not, as 


(txt D4). 
Dp! 


TIPASEIS ATOZTOAON. 


> \ c c ‘\ e 4 e cal 
ajo EVOS EKAGDTOV 17){LOSV 


c w. gen. partit., Luke iv, 40. xvi. 5. ch. ii. 3. xxi. 26. 


Xen. Mem. i. 1. 14. 
(Rom. ii. 13 reff.) 
m = here (Rev. xiii. 16, 17 ald.) only +. 

b. iy. 12) only +. 
Exod. xxxi. 3.) 


» XVI 


/ 
el apa ye *Wnradyjoeay aitov Kai evpotev, * Kat * ye ov 


1 Urapyovta: 78 ° éy 


/ \ > / e / 
Kivovpeba Kat § éopév, OS KAL TWES 


Umdpyovtes ToD Oeod ov«K | dfeiro- 
/ a DI ’ vA X /8 m J. 
pev vomitey xpvo@d 7) apyipe i MOm ™ yapaypate 
n / A oO > lal / > Q if p . p @ a 3 
Téxyns Kat °évOupncews avOparrov, ? To €lov €lvat 


1 Thess. ii. 11 al. L.P. d ch. 


f = here (Matt. xxiii. 4. xxvii. 39 || Mk. ch. xxi. 30. xxiv. 5. Rev. 


g emphat., Matt. ii. 18. xxiii. 30 al. h ch, 
k = ch. iv. 6 reff. = Cor. 
n = here only. (ch. xviii. 3 reff.) 3 Kings 
(Job xxi. 27 Symm.) p here 


avto D} 
evpo.oav 


Meyer thinks, any sign that rec is genuine, but merely that ro in the marg had been 
sometimes prefixed to the ye, sometimes substituted for it), with P?& a Chr Cosm Thl- 


fin: ca:to: AE Clem: cat re D: txt BH LP! p 18. 36 rel Did Thl-sif. 


(wy D3) ap D. vuwy All. k m. 

98-marg 105: om D1(txt D®). 
28. avtn D}(txt D3/?]). 

nuas B 33. 68. 95-6. 105-37 copt. 

int Aug Ambr Ambrst Quest Pac. 


aft ecuev ins To Kal nuepay D. 
Twy k. vu. bef twes D. 
for tov, Tovtov D?} e |? 192, 21. 96 Iren-int: 


ov Makpav ov 
umapxoyvtos E lect-12 Clem: amexovra 69. 


wstep D. 
om tointwy D Iren- 


avtou E2 35. 68: ipsius E-lat vulg Hil: tovtwy 3: rovto 137. 


29. ins oure bef xpucw D!. 
7 apyupw &. 
zeth. 


nor of all men: prescribing to each nation 
its space to dwell in, and its time of en- 
durance. TposteT., not mpot., ap- 
pointed, ‘ordered by Him?’ 27.) tn- 
tetv does not depend on eémolnoev, but 
gives the intent of the above-mentioned 
providential arrangements: that they 
might seek God. dv kipioy (as rec. and 
two uncial mss. have) has probably been a 
careless mistake ofa transcriber: tf 7d Oetdv 
éorw, which appears to have been the read- 
ing of D, is one of its own strange glosses. 

el dpa] if by any chance, denoting 
a contingency apparently not very likely to 
happen, see Hartung, Partikellehre, i. 440. 

Wnradyoeray | Originally an AZolic 
form, but frequent in Attic Greek, for 
Wndadjoauev, see Luke vi. 11. On the 
word itself, compare Aristoph. (Pax, 691) : 
mpoTov pey ovy | ebnAadauevy ev oxdTo 
7a mpayuara, | vuyl 8 aravra mpds AvVxvoy 
BovAetcouev. These lines,as Mr. Humphry 
observes, ‘seem at once to illustrate the 
figurative use of the verb, and to express 
the condition of man prior and subsequent 
to revelation.’ KOU ye". 2] / NOL 
that Her is distant from us, but that 
we are ignorant of Him.’ See Rom. x. 
6,8; Jer. xxiii. 23, 24. kal ye, ‘et qui- 
dem :’ see Hartung, Partikellehre, i. 398 f. 

28,] There is no justification for the 
pantheist in this. It is properly said 


Xpvoiw n apyvpww AE 40 Damase Thl-fin: xpuoiw 
for rat, n D-gr Iven-int : om coptt zth-rom. 


avOpwrov E-gr 


only of the race of men, as being His off- 
spring, bound to Him: proceeding from, 
and upheld by, and therefore living, moving, 
and being ix Him :—but even in a wider 
sense His Being, though a separate objec- 
tive Personality, involves and contains that 
of His creatures. See Eph. i. 10, where the 
same is said of Christ. év adt@ must not be 
taken for ‘4y Him: the subsequent cita- 
tion would in that case be irrelevant. 

Cop. xiv. éop.| ‘A climax: out of God we 
should have no Life, nor even movement 
(which some things without life have, 
plants, water, &.), nay, not any existence 
at all (we should not have deen). Meyer. 
Storr’s explanation of (@uev by ‘ vivimus 
beate ac hilare,’ and Kuinoel and Olshau- 
sen’sof éouev by ‘ real being,’ i.e.‘ the spiri- 
tual life,’ ave evidently beside the purpose ; 
the intent being to shew the absolute de- 
pendence for every thing of man on God,— 
and thence the absurdity of supposing the 
Godhead like to the works of his (man’s) 
hands. Tov yap k. y-éop.| Aratus, in 
the opening lines of the Phenomena.... 
mdvtn 5 Aids KexphucOa mayTes* TOU yap 
kal yévos eouev. Kleanthes also, Hymn. 
in Jov. 5, has é« ood yap yévos eoper. 
Aratus was a native of Tarsus, about 270 
B.C., and wrote astronomical poems, of 
which two, the @amwdéueva and Sitornpela, 
remain. Kleanthes was born at Assos, in 


wae TLVES 


a 


28—33. IIPAZEIS ATOSTOAON. 199 


iva \ \ i , a Ls \ 

duotoy. 89 rods mev odv Iypovous Tis * ayvolas § UTTEpLOay 2 constr» ch. 

© <6 t \ t a u / n > fal / , Tr : 

6 Oeds ‘ra ‘vbv “rapayyéddrc Tots avOp@mois TravTas * Tinh. iv. is. 
1 Pet. i. 1 

= > = 

H méedAEL 7 Kpivey THY *oiKovméervny év » Sikatoctyny, © év *Tevit wx. 4. 


ch, iii. 17. 

Yaravtayou “ wetavoetv, 81 * Kabotre Yéatnoev rwépav ey only. Levit. 
Did od ? Ui] Tag Pp xxi. 14. 

Deut. xxii. 3. 


? 8 \d feo f / fe \ a h2 , = a 
av pe @ WPLOEV, TLOTW © TTAPAGTV OV TAO, avacT)aas Umepioay 
Tea Ae a 32 2 , 5 cen a, i ae THs idtas 
QUTOV ~ €K VEKPOV. ~ QAKOUGQAVTES € aAVvVacTad lV VEKPWV agdadetas, 
Dion. Hal. 
Antt. ii. 66. 


oi pev * éynevafov, ot dé eiav ’Axovoopefad cov repi 


t ch. iv. 29 reff. 


A \ , er c fo Ien 2 uch. i. 4 reff. 
Tovtrov Kat waduw %81ottTws o Iatnros ™éEANOev ex Vitus 

xvi. 20. Luke 

ix. 6. ch. xxiv. 3. xxviil. 22. 1Cor.iy.17 only. Isa. xlii. 22. (-x7, ch. xxi. 28.) w absol. 

ch, ii. 38. iii, 19. xxvi. 20 al. x = ch. ii, 24 reff. y = here only. z= Rom. 

iii. 6 (kOgpov). Psa. ix. 8, xcv. 13. xevii. 10. a = ch, xix. 27 reff. b absol., ch. 

xxiv. 25. Rom. ix. 28. xiv. 17 al. Ps. as above (z). Sir. xiv. 26. c = Matt. xii. 24. Luke 

xi lo, 1 Cor. vi..2. d attr., ch. i. 1 reff. e = ch. x. 42. (ver. 26 reff.) f here 


g = ch. xvi. 16 reff. 
2 Mace. vii. 27 only. Proy. 
m 2 Cor. vi. 17, from Isa. 


only. Jos. Antt. xy. 7.10, ior. mapetye T, Adyou 7. BaBa mwatdas. 
h ch. ii. 24 reff. i 1 Cor. xv. 12 reff. k here only+. Wisd. xi. 15. 
ee Aquil. (8vaxA., ch. ii. 13.) 1 Rom. y. 12 reff. 

30. aft THs ayvo.as ins TavTys D! vulg. Kat Tous Xpov. mev ovv Hh}: et tempora 
quidem vulg. mapioev D}(txt D-corr): mepiiwy D4 103: despiciens vulg. 
atayyeAAe BR}. rec taot (alteration, to agree with avOpwroas. Meyer and De 
Wette’s idea, that mao was altered to raytas to soften the assertion that God com- 
manded av. act mayvtaxov,—is in the highest degree improbable), with HLP rel spec 
wth Ps-Ath, Chr Thdrt Cosm Cc Thi Iren-int : wa mavtes D': omnibus ut omnes Syr: 
txt ABD4EN 13. 36.40 Ath Cyr Chron: ut omnes ubique penitentiam agant vulg 
D-lat coptt Aug. 

31. ree Sot: (explan of kaGorr), with HI rel Chr Ge Thl-sif: kafo 18. 36. 180: txt 
ABDEPX® a ¢ 13 Ath Thdrt, Eulog Cyr Chron Thl-fin. for ev nm. Kp., Kpewat D: 
judicari Iren-int; judicare Aug. om 2nd ev D-gr. aft avdpi ins imoov D 
Tren-int. maperxe(sic) D, maparxe 32.57, exibere D-lat. 

32. [eurav, so BEN. | rec maAw wept Tovtov. 38 scat ouTws, With HLP rel 36 
Chr (Ec Thl-sif: txt AB(DE)X 13. 40 arm Thl-fin.—om koa DE. 


Troas, about 800 B.c. The Apostle, by not instrumental, properly speaking, here 


the plural, seems to have both poets in his or any where else. Its judicial use is only 
mind. The rov refers to Zeus in both 
cases, the admission being taken as a por- 
tion of truth regarding the Supreme God, 
which even heathen poets confessed. The 
kat has no connexion here, but is (see 
above) part of the verse in Aratus. 
30. treptdmv] In this word lie treasures 
of mercy for those who lived in the times 
of ignorance. God overlooked them: i.e. 
corrected not this ignorance itself as asin, 
but the abuses even of this, by which the 
heathensunk into deeperdegradation. The 
same argument is treated more at length in 
Rom. i. ii. The maou of the rec. and tva 
mavres of D! have both been corrections 
occasioned by the apparent difficulty of ro?s 
ayvOpoémois mavras. The genuine reading 
gives the emphatic mdvtas naytaxod, fol- 
lowing on the foregoing assertion of vv. 25, 
26, its proper place. 31. KaOdre | 
See var. read. and reff. :—used by Luke 
and him only : ‘ seeing that, inasmuch as. 
éy Sixatog.] dixatoc. is the cha- 
racter of the judgment,—the element, of 
which it shall consist. ev avdpi} Not, 
‘in (by) @ man,’ but by (i.e. in the person 
of) the man: the art. is omitted after the 
preposition: see Midd. vi. 1. The éy is 


a particular case of its usage of investiture 
or elementary condition : in the judge the 
judgment consists, is constituted ; he is its 
vehicle and expression. See ref. 1 Cor. 
and note for examples of this use. 
miot. K.T.A.] ‘ Quia res erat vix credibilis, 
argumentum adfert eximium.’ Grotius. 
32. avaor. vexp.| Perhaps here, 
‘ when they heard of aresurrection of dead 
men, viz. of that of Christ, vexp@v being 
generic. But the same words are used 
in ref. 1 Cor. m@s A€yovow ev dbyiv tives 
OTL GVaOTAGLS VeKp@Y OvK eat; so that 
I would rather take them here to mean 
that they inferred the general possibility of 
the resurrection of the dead, as a tenet of 
Paul’s, from the one case which he men- 
tioned. ot .... ot 8€] We must 
not allot these two parties as some have 
done, the former to the Epicureans, the 
latter to the Stoics: the description is 
general. The words akovodpeba .... 
need not be taken as ironical. The hear- 
ing not having taken place is no proof that 
it was not intended at the time: and the 
distinction between these and the mockers 
seems to imply that they were in earnest. 
33. otrws] ‘In this state of the 


200 TIPAZEIS AIOSTOAQON. XVII. 34. 


f i Fs) y \ \ ” , ae 
nasabove(m).™" yégou avTov %* twes Se avopes °KoArANOEVTES avT@ 
Matt. xiil. 49. Os 
ch. xxiii. 10. 

1 Cor. v. 2. 
Col. ii. 14. 

2 Thess. ii. 7 
only. Gen. 

XXxVv. 2. 
och. y. 13 reff. 
p absol., ch. 
xv. 5 reff. 
q = ch. xix. 39. 
r w. ek, here 
only+. w. 
a7. ch. i. 4. 
1 Chron. xii. 


[dé] radra * ywpiabeis ex TOV’ AOnvov HArGev eis KopwOor, 
9 \ Caadex’2 , > a7 >, , ‘ 

2 Kal evpwov tiva “lovdatoy ovoyate ‘Axvdav, Llovtexov 
°7@ * yéver, “ rporpatws édyAvOoTa amo Tis Itadias, Kat 
IIpicxirrXay yuvaica avtov, bia TO ‘ SuateTaxévar _Krav- 


8. 8 r / 6 4 \ 4 5 / 9) 8 a “Pp , 
s Mark vii. 26. tov yopiver al TAVTAS TOUS OVOALOUS ATO TS M/S, 
ch. iv. 36, 
ver. 24. t =ch. vii. 19. 2 Cor. xi. 26. Esth. ii. 10. uhere only. Deut. xxiv. 5. (-70s, Heb. 
x. 20.) v Luke viii. 55. 1 Cor. vii. 17 al. L.P., exc. Matt. xi. 1. Ezek. xxi. 19. (-Tayn, ch. vii. 53.) 


84. exoAAnOqoay D'(txt D4). 
apeom. ins evaxnuwv complacens D. 
Tiyuwa E, 


Cuar. XVIII.1. om d¢ ABX a 13 vulg copt: ins (D)EHLP rel 36 Chr e Thl.—kat 
pera tavta Syr eth.—avaxwpnoas Se, omg peta Tavta, rec aft xwpioers ins 
o mavdos (inserted just as de was omitted, at beginning of an ecclesiastical portion), 
with AEHLP rel 36 Chr: om BD 138 vulg sah Aug. for ex, aro D. 

2. eAndvéa D}(txt D?). retaxevat DELP fk m 13: Texevai(sic) N!: mpostetax. 
a d: diatetaxOevar 137-73. kAavdtos D)(txt D-corr'): om B. om 
tous D. rec (for 2nd amo) ex (prob corrn to suit xwpic8. ex in ver. 1. So De 
Wette: Meyer thinks the amo to have been a corrn to suit amo rns wtar., but the other 
suppn is much more likely, the same verb occurring in both), with HP ¢ fh 1 Chr: om 


for o (bef apeom.), tis D: om B. aft 
om ka yuv. ov 6. D: aft yuv. ins 


p ’ U > 4 \ ‘d Foire / 
éeniatevaay, ev ols Kai Arovucvos 0 Apeorrayitns Kat yuvn be ate 
’ cr 3.4 
ovopatt Adpapis Kai 4 érepo. avy avtois. XVIII. 1 Mera 018 


13: txt ABDELN rel. 


popular mind: (with an expectation of 
being heard again ?) 34. Atovicatos 
6 ’Ap.| Nothing more is known of him. 
Euseb. H. E. iii. 4; iv. 23, relates that he 
was bishop of Athens, and Niceph. ii. 11, 
that he dieda martyr. The writings which 
go by his name are undoubtedly spurious. 
yuvy | Not, as Chrys., de Sacerd. 
iv. 7, vol. i. p. 412, seems to infer from the 
form of the expression,—7KoAovOnoey aiTa 
meta THs yuvakds, the wife of Dionysius : 
this would have been % yuv7 avrod. 
Cuap. XVIII. 1.] Corinth was at this 
time a colony (see note, ch. xvi. 12), the 
capital of the Roman province of Achaia, 
and the residence of the proconsul. For 
further particulars, see Prolegg. to 1 Cor. 
SP alte 2. *lovdatov| It appears that 
Aquila and Priscilla were not Christians at 
this time: it is the similarity of employ- 
ment only which draws them to Paul, and 
their conversion is left to be inferred as 
taking place in consequence : see yer. 26. 
Ifovttkoy tr. y.| It is remarkable, 
that Pontius Aquila is a name found in 
the Pontian gens at Rome more than once 
in the days of the Republic (see Cicero, ad 
Fam. x. 33; Suet., Jul. Cas. 78; Smith’s 
Dict. of Biogr., art. Aquila, Pontius) ; 
whence some have supposed that this may 
have been a freedman of a Pontius Aquila, 
and that Movr. tO yéver may have been an 
inferencefrom hisname. But besides that 
Luke’s acquaintance with the real origin of 


aft puns ins o Ke katwKnoer(-cay D-corr!) es Thy 


Aquila could hardly but have been accu- 
rate,— Aquila, the translator of the O. T. 
into Greek, was also a native of Pontus. 
From the notices of Aquila and Pris- 

cilla in the Epistles, they appear to have 
travelled, fixing their abode by turns in dif- 
ferent principal cities, for the sake of their 
business. In ver. 19, we have them left at 
Ephesus (see also ver. 26); in 1 Cor. xvi. 
19, still there; in Rom. xvi. 3 ff., again at 
Rome; in 2 Tim. iv. 19, again at Ephesus. 
Sia TO Siateraxevar . . .| Suet. 

Claud. 25, says, ‘ Judzeos impulsore Chresto 
assidue tumultuantes Roma expulit : but 
as he gives this without any fixed note of 
time,—as the words ‘impulsore Chresto’ 
may be taken in three ways (as indicative 
either (1) of an actual leader of that name, 
or (2) of some tumult connected with the 
expectations of a Messiah, or (3) of some 
dispute about Christianity),—Neander well 
observes, that after all which has been said 
on it, no secure historical inference respect- 
ing the date of the event, or its connexion 
with any Christian church at Rome, can be 
drawn. It was as a Jew that Aquila was 
driven from Rome: and there is not a word 
of Christians here. If one could identify 
this expulsion of the Jews with that of the 
‘mathematici’? in Tacitus (Ann. xii. 52), 
which took place Fausto Sulla, Salv. Othone 
Coss. (A.D. 52), we might be on surer 
ground,—but this is very uncertain, and 
even improbable. The two could hardly 


XVIII. 1—5. TIPABEIZ AIOZTOAON. 201 


w = here only. 
see ch. x. 28. 
? ? tal Ng? , 3 \ a \ = x here onlyt. 
y Trap auTOLS Kal npyageto, nO0aV yap OKNVOTTOLOL FT?) y ch. ix. 43 reff. 
*" Zz ebsol., Matt. 


na Lal , © Yj 
’ rposmGev avtois, ° Kal Sia TO * opoTexvoy eivas ¥ Ewevev 


A ” bn \ = i. 2: a 
bréyvn *°duedéyero dé ev TH ouvaywyh IKaTa Tay %® x 

3 \a ig \ <iii. 14. 
cadBBarov, ° érebév te “lovdaious cal ”EXAnvas. * ws b€ Tonnix. 4. 
f be 25 N fo / or v/ Ne ce 1 Cor. ix. 6. 
KaTnrOov amo tis Maxedovias 6 te Lidas Kai O Tr- 1 Thess. iio 


, / lal / € rn / 8 
H00e0s, & cvveiyeTo TH OY O Iladros, ® StapapTupoOMEVOS 4 here only+. 
(-rrovecy, Isa. 
b = Rev. xviii. 22 (ch. 
reff. absol. ch. xix. 
e=ch. xix. 26. 2 Cor. 
g 2 Cor. 


xxii. 15 Symm. -mowta, Deut. xxxi. 10 LX X-mss. & Alius in Hexapl.) 
Xvii. 29) only. Sir. xxxvili. 34. (-viTyS, ch. xix. 24.) C=—ch. xvii. 2 
8,9. xx.9. Sir. xiv. 20, BR F(not A). d ch. xiii. 27 reff. 
v.11. Wisd. xvi. 8. f = ch. viii. 5 reff. w. a7ro, ch. xi. 27. xii. 19. xv. 1. 
vy. l4 reff. Wisd. xvii. 20. h ch. viii. 25 reff. 
axatav D, simly syr-mg. avtw D}-gr(txt D2). add o mavaos D. 
3. om eva: D. ewecvey KHL Chr Thl: manebat E-lat. mpos avtous D. 
[npya¢ero, so AB'!DE k 13: npyaovto XR}. ] om last clause D. rec 
Thy Texvnv, With H rel 36 He Thl: txt ABELPN ¢ g 113. 40 Chr. 

4. om ver am! fuld lat-mss-in-Bede: e:smopevomevos de ets THY TUVaywynY KaTa Tay 
caBBatov dieAcyero kat evTieis TO ovoua Tov KUpiov inoov Kat (om Kat D-corr) emiOey de 
ov movey tovdaovs adAAa Kat eAAQVas D; simly vulg-ed syr-mg aft caBBarov ins 
evT Gels TO OvOMa TOU KUpLoU LnGOV. for may, wavy H: mayta 138. 

5. for ws de katndOov, mapeyevoyTo Se D. om tys L h k, for 0 Te, ToTe 
D}-gr: ot: 0. om o bef tu. D 42.173. rec for Tw Aoyw, Tw mvevmatt (sub- 
stitution from misunderstanding : or perhaps, as Meyer, originally a scholium on ovv- 
eixeto, and thence has usurped the place of the origl tw Aoyw), with HP rel 36 syr-mg 


arm Chr Gc Thl: txt ABDELX ec 13. 40 vulg syrr coptt eth Bas Chr-ms Thdrt. 


om 6 bef av. D. 


have been united. Thecircumstancerelated 
by Dio Cassius, lx. 6, which seems to con- 
tradict Suetonius and our text,—rovs "Iov- 
dalous mAcovdcavtas avOis, ste XadeTas 
ay &vev Tapax7s br) TOU bxXAOUV opav Tis 
adrAews eipxXOjvat, ov eénAace mev, TH SE 
matpio voum Ble xpwuevous eKeAevoTe LY 
cvvabpot(ecbat,—probably describes a step 
taken by Claudius previously to this ex- 
pulsion, which not improbably occasioned 
the tumults which made the expulsion 
necessary. The edict soon became in- 
valid, or the prohibition was taken off: we 
find Aquila at Rome, Rom. xvi. 3, and 
many Jews resident there, ch. xxviii. 17 ff. 

3. npyaleto| “The Jewish Rabbis 
having no state pay, it was their practice 
to teach their children a trade. ‘ What 
is commanded of a father towards his 
son?’ asks a Talmudic writer. ‘To cir- 
cumcise him, to teach him the law, to 
teach him a trade. Rabbi Judah saith, 
*He that teacheth not his son a trade, 
doth the same as if he taught him to 
be a thief :’ and Rabban Gamaliel saith, 
‘He that hath a trade in his hand, to 
what is he like? He is like a vineyard 
that is fenced.” C. and H. i. p. 58. 

The places where Paul refers to his 
supporting himself by his own manual 
labour are,—ch. xx. 34 (Ephesus) :—1 Cor. 
ix. 12 ff.; 2 Cor. vil. 2 (Corinth) :—1 Thess. 
ii.9; 2 Thess. iii. 8 (Thessalonica). In 
2 Cor. xi. 9, we learn that supplies were 
also brought to him at Corinth from Mace- 


diauaptupovpevos D! 40. 65 Thl-fin. 


donia, i. e. Philippi, see Phil. iv. 15. 

oKyvototot | The general opinion now is, 
that Paul was a maker of tents from the 
‘cilicium,’ or hair-cloth of Cilician goats. 
Thus Kuinoel, citing from Hug and Eich- 
horn, says of the former, “Ad hance sen- 
tentiam comprobandam monuit, Ciliciam, 
Pauli patriam, refertam fuisse hircis et 
capris villosis, eorumque villis Cilices usos 
esse ad conficiendum pannum, Cilicium 
inde dictum. Suidas : KiArkos tpdyos: 6 
dasts* TowvTo yap ev KiAtkia yivoyvtat 
Tpayot, GOev Kal Ta ex TOY TpLX@Y CUV- 
TiWWeueva KiAikia Kadovvtat. Hoe panno 
usos esse milites, nautas, Nomadas, ad ten- 
toria conficienda, v. Vegetius, de Re Mil. 
iv. 6. Plin. N. H. vi. 28, ‘ Nomades, in- 
festatoresque Chaldzeorum scenite .... et 
ipsi vagi, sed a tabernaculis cognominati, 
que cilictis metantur, ubi libuit.’ Solin. 
33, ‘Scenitz caussam nominis inde ducunt, 
quod tentoriis succedunt, nec alias domos 
habent, ipsa autem tentoria czlicina sunt; 
ita nuncupantur velamenta caprarum pilis 
texta.’” Ifit be objected, that Paul would 
hardly find the raw material for this work 
in cities far from Cilicia, it may be an- 
swered, that this would not be required in 
the fabrication of tents from the hair- 
cloth, which doubtless itself would be an 
article of commerce in the markets of 
Greece. Chrysost. calls Paul sometimes 
oKnvoppados, sometimes oxutotéuos, a 
leather-cutter, imagining that the tents 
were made of leather ; ém) oxnvoppaelou 


202 


i Rom. xiii. 2. 
James iv. 6. 
v. 6. 1 Pet. 

5 (from 
Prov. iii. 
34) only. 
3 Kings xi. 
34. Hos. i. 6 
only. 

os ch. xiii. 45 
reff. 

l ch. xiii, 51 
reff. 

m = ch, xiii. 11. 
Matt. xxvii. 
25. Rom. i. 
18. ii. 2, 9. 

2 Kings. i. 16. 

n = ch. xx. 26. 
Gen. xxiv. 8. 

o Luke i, 48 al3. 
2 Cor. v. 16. 
L.P. fexc. John viii. 11.) Ps. exii. 

q ch. xiii. 43 reff. pee ‘xvi. 14. ver. 13 only. 

Vili. 49. xiii. 14. ch. xiii. 15. ver. 17 only +. 

w absol., ch. xy. 5 reff. 


om Tors covd. AH 177). 
vulg Syr syr-w-ast arm Bas Thl-fin : 
xuptov bef ino. D. om ing. P. 


"KaQapos éy@ 


TH ovvaywyy. 


IIPABEITS ATOSTOAON. 


lal ’ , \ \ >] a 
tots ‘lovdaious tov ypiorov "Inoodv. 


tal vA > / 
TOV oe QKOUVOVTES 
p Matt. xi. lal.+ Wisd. vii. 27. xix. 19. 


AVE 


ft dvTiTasoomevey 


be -" a \ ok 4 ip 
é avtov Kai * BXacdhnpuovytov | éxtiwakdmevos Ta iwatia 

Ss \ > \ To ec ce lal m > \ \ \ ig nr 

elev Tpos avtous To aiwa buav ™ ert THY Kehbadnv vpov 
a cal > la 

°amo Tov °vov Els Ta EOVN Tropevcomat. 

7 \ p \ b] lal S @ ? >? / \ > , 

Kat ? wetaBas éxeiOev Oev eis olkiay Tivos dvopmaTt 
b] s \ , e 9S nr 
lovorou " ceBopévou Tov ' Geov, ov 7 oikla tv § cvvopopodca 
8 Kplomos o€ 6 

nr / \ cA A Vv by > lal \ \ 
OTEVOEV TW KUPLW GUY OAW TW ‘ OLK@ GUTOV, KaL TOAXOL 


t > / u , , 
apxyltavvaywyos “ emt- 


, 9 / \ 
“emtatevoy Kat é€Samriforto. 
2 Macc. vi. 1, 9, 24 only. 


t Mark y. 22, &e. Luke 
v ch. x. 2 reff. 


s here only +. 
u = w. dat., ch. xvi. 34 reff. 


ins ewat bef 7. xpioT. (see ver 28) ABDR ab dk 013.36 
om EHLP rel Chr Thdrt He Thl-sif. 


ins 


6. at beg ims moAAov de Aoyou vyetwouevou Kat ypapwy Sdtepunvevouevwy D syr-meg. 


‘for avTIT ATO; [e]7t taoo. D!-gr (txt 1D) ): 
aft soaeee ins o mavAos D tol. 


very imperf in vv 6, 7 

avtov Db k o sah Th: sif; pref, 40. 69. 

mopevouot DIH'L syrr Chr(some mss). 
7. om «ka D1(? ins D?). 


aviictauevwy 15-8. 36. (D!- “EE. is 
aft Ta iwatia ins 
eya al p vuw ly vvy D'(?) (and lat). 


for exeiOev, [amo tov aku |Aa D}(?) 137. 


evsmA ev A D1(?) 8 a 13 vulg Syr syr-mg sah eth Thl-fin: txt BD?EHL rel 36 syr-txt 
copt Chr Ee Thl-sif. ovopat[o|s D'(txt D?): om A 2. 30. 104 eth. ins 
tit.ov bef tovarou B! D?-gr syr; Titov EPN 7.15. 36. 81 vulg copt arm Jer, and (omg 
tovaTov) 2. 80 Syr sah Cassiod (originally prob a mistake arising from ovowatuovor., 
the tT. being taken for the abbreviated form of tiT0v or tTiT10v): om AB2D!1HL eth 


Chr ec Thl-sif. 
8. 0 Se apxic. kpiom. D. 
oavtes HL ec m Mec-ed Thi. 


cvvonopoovoa AD. 
eus Tov Kupiov D. 
at end add miorevovtes Tw Oew Sia T. ovomaros 


for cuv, ev H}, akou- 


Tov Kuplov nuwy incov xpiaTtov D, somewhat simly syr-w-ast. 


éoTws Sepuata eppamre (in Catena). 

5.] See ch. xvii. 15; 1 Thess. iii. 6. 

ouvelxeto TO Adyw] ‘ When Silas and 
Timotheus returned from Macedonia, they 
Sound Paul anxiously occupied in dis- 
coursing to the Jews” his I believe to 
be the meaning: that they found him ina 
state of more than ordinar y anxiety,—more 
than usually absorbed in the work of testi- 
fying to the Jews (see reff.):—a crisis in 
the work being imminent, which resulted 
in their rejection of the word of life. (On 
the whole character of his early preaching 
at Corinth, see notes, 1 Cor. ii. 1—5.) Thus 
only, the d€ in ver. 5 and that in ver. 6 will 
both be satisfied: he discoursed in the 
synagogue, &c.....but when Silas and 
Timotheus returned, he was earnestly 
occupied in discoursing,&c. But, as they 
opposed themselves and blasphemed, &c. 
Wordsworth adopts the view that after 
the arrival of Silas and Timotheus with 
supplies from Macedonia, Paul gave up his 
tent-making and gave himself up (cuvet- 
xeTo) to preaching. But surely this is 
ungrammatical. The aor. (as kat7A@ov) 
and imperf. (cvvelxero) require the render- 


ing ‘when they returned, they found him 
ouvexbmevov.’ 6.] atya as inch. xx. 
26. The image and nearly the words, are 
from Ezek. xxxiii. 4. De Wette should 
have known better than to call a citation 
from the LXX an‘ unpaulinifder Sprad= 
gebraud).’ amd Tod viv] Not abso- 
lutely, only at Corinth: for ver. 19 we find 
him arguing with the Jews again in the 
synagogue at Ephesus. I have adopted 
the punctuation of Lachmann, erasing the 
colon after éyé: Ishall henceforth with a 
pure conscience go to the Gentiles. 

7.| In order to shew that he henceforth 
separated himself from the Jews, he, on 
leaving the synagogue, went no longer to 
the house of the Jew Aquila (who appears 
afterwards to have been converted), but to 
the house of a Gentile proselyte of the gate, 
close to the synagogue: q.d. ‘in the sight 
of all the congregation in the synagogue :’ 
for this seems to be the object in mention- 
ing the circumstance. 8.] On this, a 
schism took place among the Jews. The 
ruler of the synagogue attached himself to 
Paul, and was, together with Gaius, bap- 
tized by the Apostle himself (1 Cor. i. 14) : 


ABDI 
HLPr: 
bedf 
hkln 
013 


6—12. 


TIIPASEIS ATIOZTOAON. 


203 


9 e€l7rev Oé 0 KUpLOS x éy X vUKTL bu Y Opaatos TO Ilaviw x 1 Thess. v. 2 


only. Ps. 
Ixxxvii. 1. 


M7 dood, adrXrXa Aare Kal 7) Z oLtwmHans, 19 4 SLdTL EY y ch. vii. 31 
» 2 1) Ui Hf) I ff. 

a? \ a Spee Ea op fi / d nie A / Te AO 
Epub META TOU, Kal OvOEIS °eTLOHGETAL ToL “TOD © KaKaGAL * Luke i, 2 al. 


an “4 
oe, *OuTe Nads éotl por ToS ev TH TWodEL TAUTH. 


Acts, here 
Paul, 
Isa. 


only. 
neyer. 
xii. 14. 


1 f éxaOicev O€ éviavTov Kat phvas b& 8 SuddoKwr ev adTOIS * Luke i. 13 a1. 


Tov ®oyov Tod Oeod. 


12 Tadrdlwvos b6€ ' avOurrdtouv évtos 


L.P. princi- 
pally. Isa. 
xii. 2. 


b ch. x. 38 reff. 


rn a A € re) an n 
tis “Axalas ixateréotnoav * opoOvpadov ot “Lovdatoe TQ c = here ony. 


d constr., 1 Cor. x. 13 reff. 
xi. 1 reff. h ch. xiii. 7 reff. 


9. om o D. 


e ch. vii. 6 reff. 
i here only +. 


Gen. xliii. 18. 
f = Luke xxiv. 49. Judg. xi. 17. g ch. 


k ch. i. 14 reff. 


rec 5: opauatos bef ev vues, with EHLP rel syr copt eth Chr He: 


51 op. Tw mavdw ev vuxTt D Thi-sif: ev opawats Tys vuKTos C: ev opamatt (omg ev vu.) 


A, as also Syr: txt BN am 13. 40 vulg arm Thl-fin. 
10. at beg ins aAAa@ (but marked for erasure) X'. 


[eort, so ABDR. | 


gewwons(sic) D1(txt D4). 
om ca D-gr EK. 


11. rec re (for 5¢), with E-gr HLP rel Syr eth Chr Gc Thi: txt ABN a ec m 13 vulg 


E-lat syr coptt.—ka exad. D. 


add ev kopiww0w D Syr syr-w-ast; exes 40 demid sah 


arm. aft eviavt. ins «. eva & (but « is marked for erasure by X!). for ev 
avt., avtous D-gr 4 Syr eth; avrois 37. 56. 100. 
12. vec avyOurarevovtos, with EHLP rel Chr Me Thl: txt ABDN 36. 40. ou 


tovdaror bef cuofuuadoy B g coptt. 


and with him many of the Corinthians 
(Jews and Gentiles, it being the house of 
a proselyte), probably Aquila and Priscilla 
also, believed and were baptized. 
9. AGA. K. py} oiwm.| So, for solemnity’s 
sake, we have an affirmation and negation 
combined, John i. 3. See also Isa. lviii. 1. 
10. émt8. cou] See ref. and examples 
of this usage in Wetst. :—shall set on thee, 
as E. V. Aads éoti por modus] See 
John x.16. As our Lord forewarned Paul 
in Jerusalem that they would not receive 
his testimony concerning Him, so here He 
encourages him, by a promise of much suc- 
cess in Corinth. The word Aaos, the ex- 
press title beforetime of the Jews, is still 
used now, notwithstanding their secession. 
11.] The year and a half may extend 
either to his departure, or to the incident 
in vv. 12 ff. Meyer would confine it to 
the latter, taking éxd#ioev in the sense of 
‘remained in quiet : but (see reff.) it will 
hardly bear such emphasis: and secing 
that the incident in vv. 12 ff. was a notable 
fulfilment of the promise,—for though they 
set on him, they could not hurt him,— 
I should be disposed to take the other 
view, and regard ver. 12 to fxavds, ver. 18, 
to have happened during this time. 
12. TahkAtwvos} His original name was 
Marcus Annus Novatus: but, having been 
adopted into the family of the rhetorician 
Lucius Junius Gallio, he took the name of 
Junius Anneus Gallio. He was brother of 
Lucius Annzus Seneca, the philosopher, 
whose character of him is in exact accord- 
ance with that which we may infer from 
this narrative: ‘Nemo mortalium mihi tam 
dulcis est, quam hic omnibus : ‘ Gallionem 


for Tw mavAw Kat, TVVAGANTaYTES MeO EavTwY 


fratrem meum, quem nemo non parum 
amat, etiam qui amare plus non potest.’ 
He is called ‘dulcis Gallio”’ by Statius, 
Silv. ii. 7. 32. He appears to have given 
up the province of Achaia from ill health : 
‘Tilud mihi in ore erat domini mei Gal- 
lionis qui cum in Achaia febrem habere 
ccepisset, protinus navem ascendit, clami- 
tans non corporis esse sed loci morbum.’ 
Senec. Ep. 104. He was spared after the 
execution of his brother (Tacit. Ann. xv. 
73): but Dio Cassius, Ixii. 25, adds, of 
adeApol borepoy éemamdAovTo, and Huseb. 
Chron. ad ann. 818 (4.D. 66), says that he 
put an end to himself after his brother’s 
death. av@umdrov | See note on ch. 
xiii. 7. Achaia was originally a senatorial 
province (Dio Cass. lil. 12), but was tem- 
porarily made an imperial one by Tiberius, 
Tacit. Ann.i. 76, ‘ Achaiam ac Macedoniam, 
onera deprecantes, levari in presens pro- 
consulari imperio, tradique Cesari placuit.’ 
Claudius (Suet. Claud. 25) ‘ Provincias 
Achaiam et Macedoniam quas Tiberius ad 
curam suam transtulerat, senatui reddidit.’ 

7. “Axatas] The Roman province 
of Achaia contained Hellas and the Pelo- 
ponnesus, and, with Macedonia, embraced 
all their Grecian dominions. It was so 
called, according to Pausanias (vii. 16. 7), 
because the Romans ex eupdoavto” EAAnvas 
50 ’Axaiay téTe TOD ‘EAAnVIKOD TmpoEeoT7- 
xérwy (the Achaian league). “ The Bypo 
is mentioned three times in the course of 
this narrative (see vv. 16,17). It was of 
two kinds: (1) fixed in some public and 
open place : (2) moveable, and taken by the 
Roman magistrates to be placed wherever 
they might sit ina judicial character. Pro- 


204 


lch. xii, 21 
reff. 

m Rom. i. 26. 

xi. 24. Gal. = 
i. 8, 9 al. 

n here only. 

Jer, xxxvi. 
(xxix.) 8. 
1 Mace. i. 11 
only. Xen. 
Mem. iii. 11. 
10. 

o ver. 7. 
Jonah i. 9. 

p = ch. vill. 35 
reff. 

q ch. xxiv. 20. 
Rey. xvill. 5 is) 
only. 1 Kings TOU 
xxvi. 18. , 2 

rhereonly+. oOUAOWaL E€LVAL. 
(-yta, es 1 A 
xii. 10. B 

s here only. NPLaTOS. 

3 Macc. lii. 14. 


bu iy aitiay aytTTOS ViTapxXew dve(AnmT0, Kat Kata Adyov, Diod. Sic. iv. 11. 
u ch. xv. 2 reff. 

w ch. xvii. 28. xxvi. 3. Eph. i. 15. 

(Exod. vi. 1.) 

z Ww. acc., ch. ix. 27 reff. 


Heb. xiii. 22. Job vi. 26. 


1 John ii. 7. 


jv. 3. 


- x = Matt. xxvii. 4, 24. 
;, = Xen. Mem. ii. 6. 12. 


TIPAZEIS AMOZTOAON. 


“| } lal s Wag x £2 , c lal 
ovoatot, SKaTa Soyo av “HnVETXOLNVY VLWP. 


X Vile 


Tlavrw Kat iyyayov adtov émt TO 1 Bia 13 Néyovtes OTe 


15 ef O€ 


, £ , , \ 
UEntipata eat Tept ‘ Noyou Kal QvOMaTwWY Kal VOMOU 
w kal twas, *dpeobe adtot: KpiTns eyo TOUT@V OU 
16 \ y > / > \ ’ A nr 

Kal aTnANacEevy AuUTOUS ATO TOU 
17 2 érvAaBdpevor S€ waves LwoOévynv Tov 


t =2Cor.xi.1,&c. 2 Tim. 

vy =2Tim.i.13. Tit. i. 9. ii. 8. Heb. 
Exaotos Tav Kab’ éavTov Epa. Xen. Cyr. 
y here only. Ezek. xxxiv. 12. Wisd. xvil. 8 


em Tov TavAoy Kat emievTes Tas xerpas D; ins eid. T. X. avTw syr-w-ast sah. 


for em, Tapa &, mpos avGumarov mpo Tov Bn 


13. ins cataBowvres kat bef Aeyovtes D. 


teristic order), with DEHLP rel 36 vulg Chr : 


weber H AO: avatpemer 1. 65. 133. 


patos syr-w-ast. 


rec ovtos bef avam. (corrn of charac- 
txt ABN ah k 13 arm Thl-fin. 


14. om ov» (see note) ABDEN ab c 0 18. 36. 40 vulg syrr sah eth arm Chr Thi: ins 


HLP rel @e.—om ny Ld m 25: 
avecxouny BR! 13; 


nm Al. 


ins avdpes bef wovdaroe D vulg. 


so, omg av, A 33-4-6 (confusion arising from avnverx.)- 
15. ree (nrnua (corrn to suit adicnua and padioupynua above : 


the plur has a mean- 


ing, see note), with D1 HLP rel 13 Chr (ec Thi-fin: txt AB D‘-gr E-gr 8 a ¢ 40 vulg 


syrr coptt arm Thl-sif. 
EHLP rel 36 syrr sah Chr: 


for ect, exeTe D-gr. 


txt ABD 13 vulg copt zth. 


rec aft «pitns ins yap, with 
for BovAopat, BeAw D. 


16. aredvoey D'(txt D4, abjecit D-lat) 133. 


17. [a |roAcBopevor D)-gr(txt D4). 
with DEHLP 13 rel syrr sah eth Ge Thl 
vulg copt Chr-comm(but om mavTes too). 


rec aft mayres ins o1 eAAnves (see note), 


3 ot covdaror 36. 180 ; 1ovd. 15-8 : om ABX el 


ins peta (2 there is a space, but the 


writing has perished) bef cwoGevny D: adprehendentes eum ... cum Sosthenen D-lat. 


bably here and in the case of Pilate (John 
xix. 13), the former kind of seat is in- 
tended. See Smith’s Dict. of Antiquities, 
under ‘Sella’ See also some remarks on 
the tribunal—‘the indispensable symbol 
of the Roman judgment-seat,’ in the Edin- 
burgh Review for Jan. 18 N75 yap alle 
C. and H. vol. i. 494. 13. mapa rT. 
vopov| Against the Mosaic law :—the exer- 
cise of which, as a ‘religio licita,’ was al- 
lowed to the Jews. 14.| Though Mss. 
authority is so strong against the ovv, I 
have retained it, as also has Tischdf. { ed.7}. 
Its omission may be easily accounted for, 
from the copyists finding it unnecessary 
and seemingly out of place : but on no sup- 
position can its insertion be rendered pro- 
bable. It stands very appropriately here, 
referring to the complaint of the Jews, 
either as uttered by them, or perhaps re- 
capitulated by Gallio:—‘ Ye have charged 
this man with lawless conduct. If now 
this had really been so 4 
Kata Adyov | See reff. We have the oppo- 
site apa Adyov in 2 Mace. iv. 36, 





av jvecx. tp.] I should have borne with 
(patiently heard) you. 15.] ¢nrh- 
nara has apparently been altered to Cate 
to suit the sense, there being but one 
question before Gallio. But the plural ex- 
presses contempt: If it is questions, &c.: 
as we should say, ‘a parcel of questions.” 
See ch. xxiii. 29. évopatav] e. g- 
Paul asserted Jesus to be the Christ, which 
the Jews denied. This to a Roman would 
be a question of names. 7. kad’ tpas, 
with emphasis: see reff. So Lysias (ch. 
xxiii. 29) declined to decide Paul’s ease; 
and Festus (ch. xxv. 20), though he did not 
altogether put the enquiry by, wished to 
judge it at Jerusalem, where he might have 
the counsel of those learned in the Jewish 
law. 17. wavres | Apparently, all the 
mob, i. e. the Gentile population present. 
Sosthenes, as the ruler of the synagogue 
(apx. = either the ruler, or one of the 
rulers; perhaps he had succeeded Crispus), 
had been the chief of the complainant Jews, 
and therefore, on their cause being rejected, 
and themselves ignominiously dismissed, 


ABDE 
\ X\ ‘ > / e \ > , LPR a 
n € 
Tapa Tov vopov “avarreier ovTos TOUS avOparrous bedftg 
i) , \ / 1 4. / \ lal I > / h k 1 m 
céBecbar tov Ocdv. 1 wéddovTos Sé Tod Ilavdov P avot- 
‘\ / Ss e / \ \ > / 
yew TO oToma elev 0 Laddiwy mpos TOUS lovdaious 


El pév [ody] jv Vadienud te 7) t badvovpynua Tovnpov, o 


013 


13—18. 


TIPASEI> ATIOSTOAON. 


205 


4 a 
*apyiouvaywyov étuTrtov » éumpocbev tod | Byuwatoss Kal eersrem 


ovdév TovTov TO L'adriwve ° Euerev. 
»” a nr 
ert ‘ arpospeivas ° nuépas © ixavads, Tois adedpots ! atrota€- 


vii. 6. 2 Cor. 
v. 10. 

c constr., here 
only. (1 Cor. 
ix. 9 reff.) 
Job xxii. 3. 


18°OQ §€é Ilatdxos 


/ lal 
apevos § é£ér eu eis THY Yuplav, Kal ovv abTo@ I pickiANa aitsoi., here 


kai ’Axvnras,  Keipapevos év Keyypeais tiv Kxepadiyv 


1 Tim. i. 3. v.5 only. Judg. iii. 25 A. 
21. Mark vi. 46. Luke ix. 61. xiv. 33. 
Viii. 13. 7. g ch. xy. 39 reff. 


eweArdev EHLPN. 
Ror Phas 7. . os. © @ yahrAw.. 
ins twy B}. 


18. aft wavaos ins edn N}(erased by N3). 


maevoey 2, enavigavit H-lat. 


was roughly treated by the mob. From 
this, certainly the right explanation, has 
arisen the gloss of “EAAnves. The other 
gloss, of *Iovdato., has sprung from the 
notion that this Sosthenes was the same 
person with the Sosthenes of 1 Cor. i. 1, a 
Christian and a companion of Paul. But, 
not to insist on the improbability of the 
party driven from the tribunal having 
beaten one of their antagonists in front of 
the tribunal,—zhy did they not beat Paul 
himself? 'There is no ground for supposing 
the two persons to be the same, Sosthenes 
being no uncommon name. If they were, 
this man must have been converted after- 
wards ; but he is not among those who ac- 
companied Paul into Asia, either in ver. 18, 
or ch. xx. 4. The carelessness of Gallio 
about the matter clearly seems to be a 
further instance of his contempt for the 
Jews, and indisposition to favour them or 
their persecution of Paul. Had this been 
otherwise meant, certainly «af would not 
have been the copula. ‘So little did the 
information against Paul prosper, that the 
informers themselves were beaten without 
interference of the judge.’ Meyer. 

18.| It has been considered doubtful 
whether the words keip. T. Ke. K.7.A. 
apply to Paul, the subject of the sen- 
tence, or to Aquila, the last subject. The 
former is held by Chrys., Theoph., Aug., 
Jer., Isid., Bede, Calv., Beza, Calov., Wolf, 
Olsh., Neand., De Wette, Baumgarten, 
Hackett, Wordsworth (whose note may be 
profitably consulted), al. :—the latter by 
(Vulg.), Grot., Alberti, Kuinoel, Meyer, al., 
and more recently Mr. Howson, vol. i. p. 
498. But I quite agree with Neander (Pil. 
u. Leit. p. 348, note), that if we consider 
the matter carefully, there can be no doubt 
that they can only apply to Paul. For, al- 
though this vow differed from that of the 
Nazarite, who shaved his hair at the end of 
his votive period, in the temple at Jeru- 
salem, and burnt it with his peace-offering 


Wisd. iii. 9 only. 
2 Cor. ii. 13 only £. 


only. Matt. 
xv. 32 || Mk. 
ch, xi, 23. 
xiii. 43. 
e ch. ix. 23 reff. f = ver. 
(Jer. xx. 2. 1 Macc. xi. 3 only.) Jos. Antt. 


h ch, viii. 32, 1 Cor. xi. 6 bis only. 2 Kings xiv. 26. 


tune Gallio fingebat eum non videre D-lat(txt 
. ev, but the rest is illegible). 


aft Tovrwy 


emAcvoev, navigavit D vulg: ete- 


rec Tyhy Kepadny bef ev keyxpeas, with DEHLP 


(Num. vi. 1—21), Josephus gives us a de- 
scription of a somewhat similar one, B. J. 
ii. 15.1, tobs yap 7) véow KaTamovoupevous 
H Tiw &AdAaus avayrais, Bos evxecIar mpd 
TpidKovTA NMEep@v NS amodwoEL MeAAOLEY 
Quotas, otvov Te apeterbar nal tuphoacba 
Tas Kxduas,—where it appears from éup- 
acac0a (which, as Neander observes, if it 
applied to the end of the time, would be 
tuphoecO [or perhaps rather Opépeuv |), 
that the hair was shaved thirty days 
before the sacrifice. At all events, xo 
sacrifice could be offered any where but 
at Jerusalem; and every such vow would 
conclude with a sacrifice. Now we find, 
on comparing the subsequent course of 
Aquila with that of Paul,—that the former 
did not go up to Jerusalem, but remained 
at Ephesus (ver. 26): but that Paul 
hastened by Ephesus, and did go up to 
Jerusalem: see ver. 22. Again, it would 
be quite irrelevant to the purpose of Luke, 
to relate such a fact of one of Paul’s 
companions. That he should do so apolo- 
getically, to shew that the Apostle still 
countenanced conformity with the law, is a 
view which I cannot find justified by any 
features of this book: and it surely would 
be avery far- fetched apology, and one likely 
to escape the notice of many readers, seeing 
that Aquila would not appear as being under 
Paul’s influence, and even his conversion to 
the Gospel has not been related, but is left 
to be implied from ver. 26. Again, Meyer’s 
ground for referring Keipau. to Aquila,— 
that his name is here placed after that of 
his wife,—is untenable, seeing that, for 
some reason, probably the superior cha- 
racter or office in the church, of Priscilla, 
the same arrangement is found (in the 
best Mss. at ver. 26, and) at Rom. xvi. 3; 
2 Tim. iv. 19. Lastly, the very form of 
the sentence is against a change of subject 
at «eipduevos. There are, from ver. 18 
to 23 incl.,—a section forming a distinct 
narration, and complete in itself,—no less 


206 IIPAZEIZ AIIOSTOAON. XVIII. 


ich. xxi. 23 


ik elyev yap “edynv. '™xativtnoay be eis "Edecor" 


only. 

= Dake zit 2 : ; 
teen, Kakelvous ™KaTéXLTEv °avTov, avTos Sé eiseNO@V Eis THY 
iv. 1. Phil. ‘ p 5 , — 3 y, 20 q 5 P 

i. 80. ocuvayoynv tehéyOn ois “Lovdaious. €pOTOVT@V 


1 — as above [i] 


BSS A a 5% , a S Z, 
Gen O€ AUT@OY ™EmL TAElOVa yYpovoY pEivar OUK * éTEévEUGEY, 
xxxi. 13. 3 \ t 2 , \ : ae / nie , 

m ch. xvi. 1 anra aroTaEapevos Kal €lT@VY TaNW avakap ye 


n = Luke xv. 4. ch. xxiv. 27. xxv. 14. 1 Thess. iii, 1. Dan. x. 13. o ch, (xv. 34 v. r.) xxi. 4. Matt. xxvi. 36 


only. 2 Kings xx. 4. p ch. xvii. 2 reff. q constr., ch. xvi. 39 reff. r= ch. xiii. 31 
reff. s here only. Prov. xxvi. 24. 2 Mace. iv. 10. xi. 15. xiv. 20 only. t ver. 18. u Matt. 
ii. 12. Luke x.6. Heb. xi. l5 only. Exod. xxxii. 27. Judg. xi. 39 A. 


rel vss Chr: om ev keyx. eth-rom: txt (characteristic order) ABN am 13 yvulg Thl- 
fin. arp[o |sevxnv D!, orationem D-lat. 

19. ree karnyrnce (alteration to singular to suit karedimev below), with HLP rel 
36(sic) vulg syr copt Chr: katayrnoas D-gr: txt ABEN k 13. 40 tol D-lat Syr sah zth- 
pl. kat exevous EAP b def gl mo Chr e Thi-sif: kat tw emtovt: caBBatw 
exetvous D: aft epevoy ins Tw ex. oaB. 137 syr-w-ast. kateAerey AHLP 13. 
for avtov, exet (more usual word) ADEN 13 rel 40: txt BHLP 36 Chr. deAckato 
(corrn to more usual form) ABR a 13 Thi-fin: deAeyero D k vulg(but am disputavit) : 
txt EHLP rel 36 Chr Thdrt @e Thl-sif. 

20. for Se, re D'(txt D8) Syr eth. om avtwy 137: avroy D®(txt D§) Lbd 
g?k m?o Thl-fin. mAvoy D. emiuervar 3. rec aft wea ins map avrots 
(explanatory addn), with DEHLP rel Syr syr-w-ob copt Chr ; exe: tol sah arm: mapa- 
pewat avros 25: txt ABN ¢ 13. 36. 40 vulg eth. 

21. (On the whole verse, see note.) [adAa, so ABDEPX b cfg k 0 13 He Thi- 
sif. ] rec ameragato, omg «ai, with HLP rel syr copt Chr Hc Thi-sif: txt ABDEX 
a 13-5. 36. 40. 105-80 vulg eth arm Thl-fin.—om adda amorak. kat Syr. rec 
(aft amerat.) ins avtos, with EHLP rel 36 Thl: om ABDN. rec aft emwy 
ins de: we TavTwS THY EopTHY THY EpXomeVNY ToLnoal ets LepocoAUvua, with (D)HLP 
rel 36.40 demid syrr Chr ec Thl, but D has ryv coprny nucpay solemnem diem, and 
omits the 2nd rnv, D!(corrd by D8) has also de for we: aft @eAovrTos ins sed nune volo 
agere festum venturum in Jerusalem wxth-pl: om ABEN a 13-5. 105-80 vulg coptt eth- 
rom arm. rec aft maAw ins de, with HLP rel 15. 103-80 syr Chr We Thl-sif: 
om AB D(omits mad also) EX a 13. 36. 40 vulg coptt «#th.—Syr demid Thl-fin have 


Kal Wad. 


than nine aorist participles, eight of which 
indisputably apply to Paul as the subject 
of the section: leaving it hardly open to 
question that Keipduevos also must be re- 
ferred to him. There need be no en- 
quiry what danger can have prompted such 
a vow on his part, when we recollect the 
catalogue given by him in 2 Cor. xi. Be- 
sides, he had, since his last visit to Jeru- 
salem, been vdow katarovovpevos (see Jos. 
above, note on ch. xvi. 6, and Prolegg. 
to Gal. § ii. 3): it is true, a considerable 
time ago, but this need not prevent our 
supposing that the vow may have been 
then made, to be paid on his next visit to 
Jerusalem. That he had not sooner paid 
it, is accounted for by his having been 
since that time under continual pressure 
of preaching and founding churches, and 
having finally been detained by special 
command at Corinth. That he was now 
so anxious to pay it (ver. 21), consists well 
with the supposition of its having been 
long delayed. év Keyxpeats| Key- 
xpeal Koun K. Ah amréxwv THs TéAEwS 
boov €EBdouhKkovtTa oTddia. TovTm pmev 
xpavra mpds Tos ex Tis *Agias, mpos 


Kap of avakapyw has perished in D! (supplied by D8). 


dé rods ex TIS ITaAlas TG Acxalw. Strabo, 
viii. 380. There was soon after a Christian 
church there: see Rom. xvi. 1. 18; 
”~Edeoov | Ephesus was the ancient capital 
of Lonia (Ptol. v. 2. 8), and at this time, of 
the Roman proconsular province of Asia,— 
on the Cayster, near the coast, between 
Smyrna and Miletus. It was fumed for its 
commerce, but even more for its magni- 
ficent temple of Artemis (see ch. xix. 24, 
27, and notes). See a full account of its 
situation and history, secular and Christian, 
in the Prolegg. to Eph. § ii. 2—6; and an 
interesting description, with plan, in Mr. 
Lewin’s Life and Epistles of St. Paul, i. 
344 ff. avtov | Perhaps this may be 
said proleptically, referring to his journey 
to Palestine (De Wette): but on account 
of the 5é€ which follows, I should rather 
understand it to mean that the Jewish 
synagogue was (as sometimes the case, see 
Winer, Realw., ‘Synagogen’) outside the 
town, and that Priscilla and Aquila were left 
in the town. Sed€x On, aor., referring 
to one, anda transient occasion: deA€yero, 
imperf., ver 4, of his long stay, and con- 
tinual discourses in the Corinthian syna- 


---xpo 1. 
«OU G, 

ABDE 
HLPNa 
befgh 
kmol3 


19—23. 


TPAZEIS AIOSTOAON. 


207 


X (J la) la! fo) an 
mpos upas tod ‘ Beod Y Bédovtos, “ avnyOn ato Tis vse 1 Cor iv. 


"Edéoov, 2 Kai 


23 kat »trowjoas 


7 ¥ / 
TavTas TOUS maOnTas. 
vii. 6. 


i. 3. 
iii. 24 reff. + 


z— ch. xxi,./, xxv. 13, 
= ch. xv. 33 reff. 


ins kat bef avnx@n EKHLP 13 rel 40 eth-pl Chr: 
zth-rom arm: aft avnx@n ins de N!(&3 disapproving). 


XxaTteNOav eis Kaiodpeay, YavaBas Kai 3) 
“aoTTagapevos THY exKAnolay *xaTéBn # 
xpovev tia ° cEHOev, 4 diepyopevos 
®xabeEjs tiv Varatixny yopav cai Ppvylav, ' ornpivov 
Exod. xviii. 7. 


¢ absol., ch. xv. 40 reff. 
f = Rom. i. 11. xvi. 25 al. 


19: Gash. vi. 
3.) James iy. 
Sir. 
Xxxix. 6. 


els *Avtidxetav. w oe 13 


x ch. viii. 5 reff. 
y absol., = 
Luke, here 
only. = John 
vii. 8, 10. 
xii. 20. Ezra 
vii. 6. Neh. 
xvi. 8. Jonah 
ech, 


ch. vii. 15. xiv. 25. 
d ch. xiii. 6 reff. 


a John ii. 12. 


Ps. 1. 12 (14), 


om ABD a 15. 36. 105-80 vulg sah 


for avnx@n to avaBas, axvAav 


de KateAumev ev epetw avTos yap ev TAoWWw axdels nADev Eis KaLoapelay avaB. de syr-mg 


simly 97. 137: 
ac venit Cesaream Syr. 

22. ins ca bef avaBas D. 
but insd here by mistake.) 


23. ins kar bef kafe=ns N'(N* disapproving). 


Et Aquilam et Priscillam reliquit Ephesi, et ipse iter fecit per mare 
for tns, rou D}(txt D8). 
(This kat was perhaps intended to be placed bef avnxé@n, 


katetns D1(txt D?). rec 


ertoTypi(wy, with DEHLP rel 36 Chr Thi Ge: txt ABN 13.—pref ka D 38. 


gogue. 21.] The omission of the words 
here inserted in rec., de? we maytTws Thy 
EopTyvy Thy €pXomevnyv morjoat eis ‘lepo- 
odAvpa, seems necessitated on the principle 
of being guided in doubtful cases by the 
testimony of our most ancient Mss. The 
text thus produced is the shortest and 
simplest, and the facts, of other glosses 
having been attempted on this verse, and 
of ms. 36 inserting the words without alter- 
ing the construction to suit them, and D 
omitting the kai before avnjxOn, and the 
dé before avaxkduyw, tend perhaps to throw 
discredit on the insertion. The gloss, if 
such it be, has probably been owing to an 
endeavour to conform the circumstances 
to those related in ch. xx. 16. If they 
stand, and for those who read them, it 
may still be interesting to enquire at what 
feast they may be supposed to point. (1) 
Not at the Passover: for the ordinary 
duration of the ‘mare clausum’ was (Livy 
xxxvil. 9) till the vernal equinox. <Ac- 
cording to Vegetins, de Re Milit. iv. 39, 
*ex die iii. Id. Novembr. usque in diem vi. 
Id. Martii, maria claudebantur.2 And we 
are not at liberty to assume an exceptional 
ease, such as sometimes occurred (Philo, 
Leg. ad Caium, § 29, vol. ii. p. 573 ; Tacit. 
Ann. xii. 43; Plin. ii. 47). Hence, if the 
voyage from Corinth at all approached the 
length of that from Philippi to Jerusalem 
in ch. xx., xxi., he would have set sail at 
a time when it would have been hardly 


possible. (2) Not at the feast of Taber- 
macles. For if it were, he must have 


sailed from Corinth in August or Sep- 
tember. Now, as he stayed there some- 
thing more than a year and a half, his 
sea-voyage from Bercea to Athens would in 
this case have been made in the depth of 


winter; which (especially as a choice of land 
or water was open to him) is impossible. 
(3) It remains, then, that the feast should 
have been Pentecost ; at which Paul also 
visited Jerusalem, ch. xx. 16. (The above 
is the argument of Wieseler, Chron. d. 
Apostelgesch. pp. 48—50, who however 
allows too long for the voyage from Corinth, 
forgetting that from the seven weeks’ voyage 
of ch. xx. xxi. are to be taken seven days 
at Troas (xx. 6), seven at Tyre (xxi. 4), one 
at Ptolemais (xxi. 7), juépar mAcious at 
Ceesarea (xxi. 10),—in all certainly not less 
than three weeks.) The Apostle’s 
promise of return was fulfilled ch. xix. 1 fi. 

22. avaBds| To Jerusalem: for (1) 
it would be out of the question to suppose 
that Paul made the long detour by Czesarea 
only to go up into the town from the beach, 
as supposed by most of these who omit d«7 

.. ‘Iepoo. in ver. 21, and salute the dis- 
ciples,—and (2) the expression katéB7 eis 
’Av7., Which suits ajourney from Jerusalem 
(ch. xi. 27), would not apply to one from 
Ceesarea. dom. tT. éx«d.] The pay- 
ment of his vow is not mentioned, partly 
because it is understood from the mere 
mention of the vow itself, ver. 18,—partly, 
perhaps, because it was privately done, 
and with no view to attract notice as in 
ch. xxi. 

23.] PAUL’S VISIT TO THE CHURCHES 
IN GALATIA AND PHRYGIA. Either (1) 
Galatia is here a general term including 
Lycaonia, and Paul went by Derbe, Lys- 
tra, Ieonium, &e. as before in ch. xvi., 
or (2) he did not visit Lycaonia this time, 
but went through Cappadocia : to which 
also the words dieAOdytTa TH diver epiKe 
mépn (ch. xix. 1) seem to point, 7 avw 
Acta being the country east of the Haly S. 


208 TIPABEIS ATIOSTOAON. <V¥E 


r} r 
24 "Tovdatos dé tis “Atro\XNw@s ovopatt, ’AXeEavdpeds 
3 
g a g , oN h / i / >? ” 
TO § yévet, avnp ™ Aoytos, ' KatHvTncev ets “Edecor, : 
1v. \ an al 95 4s 
2k Syvatos wv év tats !ypapais. % ™ovTos tw ™KatTnxn- 
/ \ re) eQ\ “~ o / ‘\ ar St) tg a qs s 
févos THY °P OdoY TOU Kuplov, Kat 4 féwv T@ VY TVEVLATL 


g ver. 2 reff. 

h here only t. 
Herod. il. 77. 

ich. xvi. 1 reff. 





Jer. xxxix. 
(xxxii.) 19. 
1 ch. xvii. 2 


reff. > , \ , > ~ nN \ r >. a 
mehix200  €AdAeL Kal €didacKey taxpiBas Ta TeEpt ToD ‘Inood, 

ren, 

fei 2 , r X , 5) , 9 PLS, 

"this, ~emboTauevos povoy To Bamtiopa “lwavvov: *° Y ovTos Te 

24. Rom. ii. 

18. 1 tes 19. Gal. vi.6only+. Jos. vita $ 65. o = here only. see Luke xx. 21. ch. xiii. 10. Ps. 

xvii. 21. p = ch. ix. 2 reff. (Matt. iii. 3|\.) q Rom. xii. 11 only. r Job xxxii. 19 


t Matt. ii. 8. Lukei. 3. Eph. 
Dan. vii. 19 Theod. 
v ch. ix. 20 reff. 


vat. Philo, vita Mos. iii. ¢ 38, vol. ii. p. 178. s = ch. xvii. 16 reff. 
y.15. 1 Thess. y. 2 (ver. 26 reff.) only. Deut. xix. 18. Wisd. xix. 17 only. 
xxvi. 5. -Beta, xxii. 3. -Bovv, Matt. ii. 7.) u ch. xix. 15 reff. 


(-Bys, ch. 


24. amoAdAwvios D: ameAAns X! 15. 180 scholl copt arm: Apollon eth-rom: Apollo 
vulg E-lat Syr sah.—ovouari bef ar. D 18. yeve. bef adckavdpeus, omg Tw, D. 

25. os nv KaTnxXnMmEVos Ev TH TaTpLd: Toy Aovyov Tov Kupiov D. for Ty odor, Tov 
Aoyov D(as above) a b 0 36. 672. 76. om tov [bef «up. | Bk Thl-sif. ins w bef eAa- 
Aex N} (erased by &*). amedaaret D1, eloquebatur D-lat: eAadAe be B. om 2nd 
tov D 13. 40. 68-9. 137. rec (for ina.) kuptov (see notes. The varn in the art is 
no argument [as De Wette| agst the genuineness of the readg: the constant omn of 
artt aft prepp might easily lead to this: thus we have it omitted also bef kvupiov), 
with HLP rel Chr @e Thi-sif: txt ABDEX ac h 18. 36. 40 vulg syrr coptt 2th arm 


Thi-fin Aug. 


We find Christian churches in Cappadocia, 
1 Pet. i. 1. On this journey, as connected 
with the state of the Galatian churches, see 
Prolegg. to Gal. § iii. 1. KaQcEqs im- 
plies taking the churches in order; regu- 
larly visiting them, each as they lay in his 
route. One work accomplished by 
him in this journey was the ordaining (but 
apparently not collecting) a contribution 
for the poor saints at Jerusalem: see 1 Cor. 
xvi. 1. Timotheus and Erastus pro- 
bably accompanied him, see ch. xix. 22; 
2 Cor. i. 1; and Gaius and Aristarchus, 
ch. xix. 29; and perhaps Titus, 2 Cor. xii. 
18 al. (and Sosthenes? [1 Cor. i. 1], but 
see on ver. 17.) 

24—28.] Apo“tos AT EPHESUS, AND 
IN ACHATA. *AmroA@s | abbreviated 
from ’A7oAA@vi0s: see var. read. 
*AXeEavSpevs | Alexandria was the great 
seat of the Hellenistic language, learning, 
and philosophy (see ch. vi. 9). A large 
number of Jews had been planted there by 
its founder, Alexander the Great. The 
celebrated LXX version of the O. T. was 
made there under the Ptolemies. There 
took place that remarkable fusion of Greek, 
Oriental, and Judaic elements of thought 
and belief, which was destined to enter so 
widely, for good and for evil, into the 
minds and writings of Christians. We see 
in the providential calling of Apollos to the 
ministry, an instance of adaptation of the 
workman to the work. A masterly expo- 
sition of the Scriptures by a learned Hel- 
lenist of Alexandria formed the most ap- 
propriate watering (1 Cor. iii. 6) for those 
who had been planted by the pupil of 
Gamaliel. Adytos | either (1) learned, 


as Philo, Vita Mos. 1. 5, vol. ii. p. 84, Atyum- 
tlwy of Adyio1, and Jos. B. J. vi. 5. 3, who 
distinguishes, in the interpretation of the 
omens preceding the siege, of t8:\@Ta: from 
of Adytot,—or (2) eloquent: so Jos. Antt. 
xvii. 6. 2 calls Judas and Matthias, *Iov- 
daiwy AoyiwTaTro and marplwy etnynral 
vouwv. The etymologists make the former 
the ancient,—the latter asubsequent mean- 
ing. So Thom. Mag.: Aoylous rovs moAu- 
toropas of apxato. ’ArtikiCovtes, os kat 
“Hpddot0s* Aoylouvs 5& Tov’s SiadeKTiKovs 
of totepov. The latter meaning is most 
appropriate here, both because the peculiar 
kind of learning implied by Ady:os would 
not be likely to be predicated of Apollos, — 
and because the subsequent words, duva- 
Tos ev T. ypapats, sufficiently indicate his 
learning, and in what it lay. See on 
Adytos as applied to Papias by Eusebius, 
prolegg. to Matt. § ii. 1 (a) note. 

25.| Apollos had received (from his 
youth ?) the true doctrine of the Messiah- 
ship of Jesus, as pointed out by John the 
Baptist : doubtless from some disciple of 
John: but more than this he knew not. 
The doctrines of the Cross,—the Resurrec- 
tion, —the outpouring of the Spirit,— these 
were unknown to him: but more particu- 
larly (from the words émor. udvoy 7d 
Barr. Iwav.) the latter, as connected with 
Christian baptism: see further on ch. xix. 
2,3. The mistake of supposing that he 
did not know Jesus to be the Messiah, has 
arisen from the description of his subse- 
quent work at Corinth, ver. 28, but by no 
means follows from it: this he did before, 
but not so completely. The same mistake 
has led to the alteration of ’Inaod into the 


24.—28. TIPASEIS ATOSTOAON. 209 
nptato “ rappyoiatecOar év TH cuvaywyh.  aKxovoaytes V°h.ix-27 


\ > , a , ears y ch. xxiii. 15, 
kal YaxpiBértepov avta@ 7 €é&éOevto Tv *dd0v. 27 Bovdo- 
only 


\ > a / ~ I, x = ch, xvil. 5 
dé avtod IIpicKiiXa Kat ’Akdras * TposeraBovTo avTOY, * ret.” 
20. xxiv. 22 
‘ ; (ver. 25 reff.) 
\ | ral a > \ > eh F) 
Hévou O€ avtod ” duedOeiv ” eis Thy Axyaiav © mpotpeWrapevor , oni. 4 rer 
a absol., = ch. 


tag Wor. a lal d2 , > / ie a ae 
ae adedgot Eyparpay tots palntais 4 amodéEacOat adbrov. | ix.2 Fi. 
s s \ A eff. Josh. 
os © tapayevomevos fouveBareTo odUv Tos § TETLIaTEV- ME Josh 
, h§ \ a hi , 98k .? ’ \ n > , c here only +. 
koow "dua tTHS “yadpiTos: *8* evtovws yap Tots “Lovdaiois Pi xiv. 18. 
1 4 m / a acc, Xl. 
duaxaTnr<yxeTo ™ Snwocla émiderxvds Sia TOV ° ypapav ach pret: 
> A ’ a sol., cl 
evar TOV ypiaTov ‘Incour. SeSigge = 
f = here 


only. (c h. xvii. 18 reff.) Job xxxv. 3F(not A). Wisd.y. 8. méya oupBadAerae els TO pavOdverv, Xen. 


Cyr. i. 2. 8. g ch. xy. 5 re h absol., Gal. i. 15, Heb. xii. 28 only. ich. 
xiii. 43 reff. k Luke xxiii. 10 Sa: Josh. vi. 7 (8) osallr. (-vos, 2 Mace. xii. 23 only. -via, Eccl. vii. 8 
A® only.) 1 here only +. m ch, xvi. 37 reff, n = Heb. vi. 17 only¥. (ch. ix. 39, 


al. Isa. xxxvii. 26.) o ch. xvii. 2 reff. 

26. for ovtos, ntos D}(txt D*): ovrws m. om te D-gr H sah eth-pl. 
om t7 D}(ins D4). kat axovoavtos Dl(et quum audivissent D-lat: txt D-corr') Syr. 

rec akvAas kat mptoKiAda (alteration of characteristic order, ef Rom xvi. 

3, 2 Tim iy. 19), with DHLP rel 36 syrr sah Chr: txt ABEN 138 vulg copt «th.— 
akvaa &. efeOovto D: -Oero H. rec ins Tov Ocou bef odov, with HL? rel Chr: 
Tnv 05. Tov Geov ABN ce k m 138. 40 am fuld tol syr sah arm Thl-fin: tT. 05. 7. kupiov E 

g 36.177 demid Syr: tov Aoyov tov kup. 661. 98-marg 105 lect-58: seripturas domini 
Cacia (all these, as shewn by the varr, are supplementary emendations of the simple 
Tnv odov): txt D. 

27. for ver, ev Se tn eheow emiOnuouvtes Tives Kopiv@lot Kal akovTaYTES aUTOU Tap- 
exadouv dteAPery guy avTois els THY TaTpiba avTwy GcuvKaTavevcayTOsS SE avuTOU ot 
epeoiot (adeAdpor syr-mg) eypaway Tos ev KopivOw wabnTas omws amodetwvTat Tov avdpa 


D syr-mg: 
EKKANCtals, 
sif: ouveAaBero 30. 133. 
sel Aug. 
28. aft Synuwoora ims kat kat otxoyv E. 
Tov ino. eat xptotov D sah: 


kuplov of the rec., it having been well 
imagined that he could not teach axpiBas 
7a 7. TOV “Inood if he did not know him to 
be the Messiah: whereas by these words 
is imported that he knew and taught accu- 
rately the facts respecting Jesus, but of the 
consequences of that which he taught, of 
all which may be summed up in the doc- 
trine of Christian baptism, he had no idea. 

état. povov | Meyer well remarks, 
that it is not meant that he was absolutely 
ignorant of the fact of there being such a 
thing as Christian baptism, but ignorant of 
its being any thing different from that of 
John: he knew, or recognized in baptism 
only that which the baptism of John was: 
a sign of repentance. 26. aicprBe- 
otepov | The former accuracy was only in 
facts: this is the still more expanded ac- 
curacy of doctrine. That was merely ra 
mept Tov “Inoov, as He lived and minis- 
tered on earth: this included also the pro- 
mise of the Spirit, and its performance. 

27. wpotpewapevor] probably Pris- 
cilla and Aquila principally. It may have 
been from their account of the Corinthian 
church, that he was desirousto go to Achaia. 

Voz. II. 


D adding os emdnunoas ers THY axatay moAu(moAvy D') cuveBadAeto ev Tats 
es THY axaay bef SieAOew KH. 
om dia Tns xXapitos (D) c 137 vulg(not tol) syr Bas- 


guveBadXero A D-gr 57. 99 Thl- 


ins SiaAeyouevos kat bef emiderxvus D 137. 


om toy E. 


After mpotpey. not Apollos, but the dis- 
ciples (at Corinth) must be understood as 
an object. Otherwise aitév would have 
been expressed. So the remarkable read- 
ing of D. ovveB. | contulit, Vulg. 
contributed, to their help. Sia THs 
xapttos | Bengel, Olsh., Meyer, and others 
join these words with cuvveBdAero, and un- 
derstand them ‘by the Grace of God which 
wasinhim’ But this, from their position, 
is very unnatural; and hardly less so from 
the 6:d, whereas such asense would rather 
require 7 xdpitt. In the only other two 
places where the expression occurs (reff.), 
it refers (1) to the electing grace of God, 
ref. Gal., (2) to the grace assisting be- 
lievers to His service, ref. Heb. So 
that I adopt the more natural rendering of 
the E. V., those who had believed through 
grace. ‘The ydp should be noticed. His 
coming was a valuable assistance to the 
Christians against the Jews, in the con- 
troversies which had doubtless been going 
on since Paul’s departure.” C. and H., 

edn. 2, ii. p. 10. 28. | Sidearn Nee 
xeTo, argued down, as we say,— ‘proved 
it in their teeth : and then the Sia gives 


210 


m constr., ch. 
iv. 5 reff. 

n ch. 1x. 3 reff. 

o ch. xiii. 6 


TIPASEIS AITOZTOAQN. 


XIX. 1 ™ Eyévero 8€ "ev 7t@ Tov "Amro elvae Ev 
Kopiv0@, Tlaidov ° dueXOovta Ta PdvwrepiKa pépn edOetv 


XIX. 


reff. > y e = , s , ‘ 
pheveonlyt. efg “Edeoov kat evpeiy twas paOntas, * eiev TE TpOS 
se ‘ 7 acc. \ _ ¢ + 2 A 
eas. a@vtovs 1 Ei ' rvetpa' ayov* éXaBere * muctevaoavtes ; ‘ot 6€ 
23. n \ \ > , ote ral a / - > > / 
av Agin, Tpos avTov “’AXN “ovd ‘et arvedpa ayiov “ éaTW nNKOV- 
Herod. i. 95 > 7 iar , e \ 9 
anial see gapev. % elmrév Tex Kis tt ody X €BamtiaOyre ; of be elrav 
q ch. i. 6 reff. r ch. viii. 15 reff. s = Rom. xiii. 11. 1 Cor. iii. 5. xv. 2. Eph. i. 13. t ellips., 
ch. v. 9. ix. 5 al. u Luke xxiii. 15. 1 Cor. iii. 2. iv. 3. Gal. ii. 3. vy =ch.x. 18. John 
ix. 25. 1 Cor. vii. 16. Jer. xxxvii. (xxx.) 6. w pres., ch. xvi. 38 reff. x ch. viii. 16 reff. 


Cuap. XIX. 1. for eyevero to «Oe, D syr-mg have @eAovtos Se Tov mavAou kara 
Tnv wWiav BovAny TopeverOat ets tepotoAvma ELEY aUTwW TO TYEULGA UTOTTPEpELY ELS THY 


agiav d1ehOwy Se Ta av. mM. EepxeTat. 
for €A0., SieAGew P: 


amoAAwv A2L 40 Euthal: aweAAnv &} 180. 
kateAbew AEN a b o 13. 40 Jer. 


rec evpwv, ong Te 


ver 2 (alteration to simplify constr and get rid of the characteristic re), with (D)EHLP 


rel sah Chr: txt ABN 13 vulg copt Fulg. 
2. re see above. 

13. 40 am tol syr Jer. 

txt D*) syr-mg, simly sah. 

A B(sic: see table) D?. 


rec aft ot de ins exrov, with HL rel vss Chr, exray P: om ABDE 
GAA ovde TY. wy. AauBavovcw Ties nKovcauey D}(and lat: 
rec ovde, with (D!)EHLP rel 36 Chr Thdrt Mare: txt 


8. em. 8 D a 133 lect-58: o de err. AEN 13 vulg copt Jer: e:ev ovy c syr Mare: 


txt BHLP rel 36 «eth Chr. 
ABER 18: eAcyor D. |} 


the sense of continuity,—that this was not 
done once or twice, but continuously. 
Cuap. XIX. 1—4l.] ARRIVAL, RESI- 
DENCE, AND ACTS OF PatL aT EPHESUS. 
1. 7a dvwrepika pépy| By this 
name were known the eastern parts of Asia 
Minor, beyond the river Halys, or in com- 
parison with Ephesus, in the direction of 
that river. So Herodotus, speaking as a 
Halicarnassian, calls even the neighbour- 
hood of Sardis 7a &yw Tis ’Acias, i. 177 ; 
including in the term, however, many of 
the inland districts, Assyria, Babylonia, &e. 
So that the reading avaroAiwd, which is 
found in three cursives and Theophyl-sif., 
is a good gloss. Tias palntas| These 
seem to have been in the same situation as 
Apollos, see on ch. xviii. 25. They cannot 
have been mere disciples of John, on ac- 
count of moatevoavtes, which can bear no 
meaning but that of believing on the Lord 
Jesus : but they had received only John’s 
baptism, and had had no proof of the de- 
scent of the Holy Spirit, nor knowledge 
of His gifts. 2. éhaB. morteva. | 
The aorist should be faithfully rendered : 
not as E. V. ‘Have ye received the Holy 
Ghost since ye believed?’ but Did ye 
receive the Holy Ghost when ye became 
(not, when ye had become: cf. mposevid- 
pevot elmay, ch. i. 24, and Winer, edn. 6, 
§ 45. 6. b, also note on ver. 29) believers ? 
i.e. ‘on your becoming believers, had ye 
the gifts of the Spirit conferred on you ?? 
—as in ch. viii. 16, 17. This is both 
grammatically necessary (see also Rom. 


rec adds zpos avrovs, with HLP rel vss Chr Mare: 
om ABDEN ac h 13. 36 vulg syr arm; avros 40 lect-12 Thl-fin. 


[ermay, so 


xiii. 11, eyydrepov juay 7 cwrnpla 7} Bre 
émiorevoopev), and absolutely demanded 
by the sense; the enquiry being, not as to 
any reception of the Holy Ghost during 
the period since their baptism, but as to 
one simultaneous with their first reception 
into the church: and their not having 
then received Him is accounted for by the 
deficiency of their baptism. GAN odd | 
On the contrary, not even... 

qjkovcapev| Here again, not, ‘we have 
not heard,’ which would involve an ab- 
surdity: ‘nam neque Mosen neque Jo- 
hannem Baptistam sequi potuissent, quin 
de Spiritu Sancto ipso audissent’ (Bengel) ; 
—but we did not hear, at the time of our 
conversion :—Our reception into the faith 
was unaccompanied by any preaching of 
the office or the gifts of the Spirit,—our 
baptism was not followed by any imparting 
of His gifts: we did not so much as hear 
Him mentioned. éortw cannot, from its 
position, be emphatic, nor does it mean 
“were to be had’? (Wordsw.), as John 
vii. 39. The stress of the sentence is on 
jKovocauev: so far from receiving the Holy 
Ghost, they did not even hear of His exist- 
ence. ‘Tiros only will find an objection to 
this rendering in éoriv (expecting jv): the 
present is commonly used after the aorist of 
declarative verbs or verbs of sense, in the 
clause which contains the matter declared, 
seen, or heard: the action being transferred 
pro tempore to the time spoken of. See 
reff. 3.] Paul’s question establishes 
the above rendering, to what then (odr, 


ABDE 
HLPRa 
befgh 
kmol3 


1—5. 


TIPAZEIS, AILOSTOAON. 


211 


’ aR | / lol ’ 
*Kis to ‘Iwdvvov Barticpa. * elev dé TladXos lwavyns y constr, Latke 


> / fal nN 

¥éBanticey * Banticua * wetavolas, TO Nad *éyor ” els 
\ / ’ z / f 

TOV epxXopevoy © weT avTov *4 iva» musTEevowa, © TOUTéETTLV 


z Mark i. 4. 
Luke iii. 3. 
ch. xiii. 24 
only. 


a = here only. 
> oe a n° s \ > / > \ aa 
els Tov Inooty. © axovcavtes 5é * éBarricOnaay * els TO (sept) 
3. xii. 16. Mark iii. 9. b w. eis, ch. x. 43 reff. c¢ w. person,ch, xiii. 25 ee 
d arrangemt of words, John xiii. 29. Rom. xi. 31. 1 Cor. ix. 15. 2 Cor. ii. 4. Gal. ii. 10. e Matt. 
xxvil. 46. Mark vii. 2. ch. i. 19. Rom. (i. 12.) vii. 18 al4. Philem. 12. Heb. ii. 14 al5. 1 Pet. iii. 20. 
4. for Se, re H 192 wxth Thl-sif. ins o bef wavAos D a 180 lect-58. rec 


aft wavyns ins mev (see ch i. 5), with EHLP rel syrr copt Chr Mare ec Thl: om ABDN 


a 13.40 vulg sah. 


rec ins xpiorov bef ino., with HLP rel 36 Chr: for rov eno., 


xpiorov D-gr: add xp. 105 lect-12 D-lat sah eth-pl arm : om ABER a 13. 40 vulg syr 


copt zth-rom Jer Fulg. (13 def.) 


if ye did not so much as hear of the Holy 
Ghost at your first believing) were ye bap- 
tized? If the question and answer in 
ver. 2 regarded, as in E. V., the whole in- 
terval since their conversion, this enquiry 
would have been more naturally expressed 
in the perfect. See Gal. iii. 27, where 
there is the same necessity of preserving 
the historical sense of the aorists. 
eis ti] unto (with a view to, as intro- 
ductory to) what profession? They an- 
swer, unto (that indicated by) the bap- 
tism of John, viz.: repentance, and the 
believing on Jesus, then to come, but now 
(see ch. xviii. 25, note) the object of our 
Faith. 4. eis T. Epx. . . . tva 7.] 
This peculiar inversion of words, see reff., 
seems to mark the hand of Paul. tva does 
not give (as Meyer) the mere purpose of 
his baptism (saying that he baptized in 
order that ... .), but combines, as in 
similar uses of mposedxoua iva and the 
like, the purport and purpose together : 
‘He commanded them that they should 
(purport)—and he spoke to them, that 
they might (purpose).’ See this discussed 
in note on 1 Cor. xiv. 13. 5.| Two 
singular perversions of this verse have oc- 
curred: (1) the Anabaptists use it to 
authorize the repetition of. Christian bap- 
tism, whereas it is not Christian baptisin 
which was repeated, seeing that John’s bap- 
tism was not such, but only the baptism 
which they now for the first time received ; 
and (2) Beza, Calixtus, Calov., Suicer,Glass., 
Buddeus, Wolf, and al., wishing to wrest 
this weapon out of the hands of the Ana- 
baptists, oddly enough suppose this verse 
to belong still to Paul’s discourse, and to 
mean, ‘and the people when they heard 
him (John), were baptized into the name 
of the Lord Jesus’ This obviously is 
contrary to fact, historically: and would 
leave our present narrative in a singular 
state: for Paul, having treated their bap- 
tism as insufficient, would thus proceed on 
it to impose his hands, as if it were suf- 
Jicient. eis TO Ov. T. KU. "Iqoov | 
J 


Two questions arise here: (1) Was it the 
ordinary practice to rebaptize those who 
had been baptized either by John or by the 
disciples (John iv. 1 f.) before baptism be- 
came, by the effusion of the Holy Spirit, 
AouTpdy maduyyevecias ? This we cannot 
definitely answer. That it was sometimes 
done, this incident shews: but in all pro- 
bability, in the cases of the majority of the 
original disciples, the greater baptism by 
the Holy Ghost and fire on the day of Pen- 
tecost superseded the outward form or sign. 
The Apostles themselves received only this 
baptism (besides probably that of John) : 
and most likely the same was the case with 
the original believers. But of the three 
thousand who were added on the day of 
Pentecost, very many must have been 
already baptized by John; and all were 
rebaptized without enquiry. (2) What 
conclusion can we deduce from this verse 
respecting the use or otherwise of baptism 
in the name of the Father, and the Son, 
and the Holy Ghost, in the apostolic 
period? The only answer must be, that at 
that early time we have no indication of set 
formule in the administration of either 
sacrament. Such formule arose of neces- 
sity, when precision in formal statement of 
doctrine became an absolute necessity in 
the church: and the materials for them 
were found ready in the word of God, who 
has graciously provided for all necessities of 
His church in all time. But, in matter of 
fact, such a baptism as this was a baptism 
into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy 
Ghost. As Jews, these men were already 
servants of the living God—and by putting 
on the Son, they received in a new and 
more gracious sense the Father also. And 
in the sequel of their baptism, the impo- 
sition of hands, they sensibly became reci- 
pients of God the Holy Ghost. Where 
such manifestations were present, the form 
of words might be wanting ; but with us, 
who have them not, it is necessary and 
imperative. Dean Howson regards (i. 517 ; 
ii. 18) St. Paul’s question in our ver. 3 as 


Hap, 


XIX. 


6 cat émiOévtTos avTois Tov ABDE 


212 TIPAZETS ATIOSTOAON. 
fch.vii 7 =X Gyoua Tod Kupliov “Inaov 
reff. E p noov. 
g here only. 
Ezek. ii. 2. 
h ch. ii. 4 reff. h 
- ch aay Y €\aXovy me yAoooas Kal i em podnTevov. 
28. of his- , / ame 
toriealinct, WAVTES avopes *aser *! Sadexa. 
here first. 
Vege) ite UI 


al. fr. 

l ch. vi. 2 al. fr. 
Sexadvo, 
ch. xxiy. 11 
v. r. only. 
1 Chron. xv. 
10. Esth. ii. 
12 only. 

m ch. ix. 27 


an \ u eay 
ryouvtes THY “ OOoV 


> lal > , \ / 
oe aiTav Yapwpicev Tors palyrtas, 


n ch. xiii. 31 


reff. Omevos é€v TH *ayoAn Tupavvov 
° ope : ey ase ss 0 x 7) Pp y 

ch. xvii ae €7Tb €7T) dvo, 

ren. 


p ch. xviii. 4. constr., here (ch. xxviii. 
only. Luke and Mark passim. 
xv. 4 || Mk. (from Exod. xxi. 16). Mark ix. 39 only. 
w absol., ch. ii. 6 reff. x ch. xy. 38 reff. 


23 rec.) only. 


Vv >’ i 
€V@T7LOV 


@STE TavtTas Tovs 


r Rom. ix. 18 reff. 


y = Matt. xiii. 49. xxv. 32. 


7 Hoav 6€ ot 
8 eisehO@v 6é els THY 


\ m > Se, / n 3 \ lol lal 08 / 
cuvaywyny ™érappnoiateto “érri phvas Tpels ° Svadeyo- 
XN / \ ‘ nr of fal lal 
mevos Kal P reiQwv ta Tept THS “Bacirelas Tod 4 Geod. 
9@s O€ TWes * EoKANPUVOVTO Kai 


8 yrelGovv * KaKoXo- 
x > A > ’ 
aTrooTas amr 
“xal’ rpépav ° diade- 
10 Zo37o Ooms 
TOUTO O€ é&yévETO 
b 


W rou mAGous, 


lal \ 
KQATOLKOVYTaAS THV 
q Acts, ch. i. 3. viii. 12. xiv. 22 (xx. 25 vy. r.) xxviii. 23. 31 
s ch. xiv. 2 reff. t Matt. 
v =1Cor.i. 29. 3 John 6. 
Luke vi. 22. 2 Cor. vi. 17. Gal. 


u = ch. ix. 2 reff. 


ii. 12 only. (ch. xiii. 2 reff.) Gen. ii. 10. z ch. ii. 46 reff. a here only}. (Gen. xxxiii. 14. Proy. 
xxviii. 19 only.) b constr., ch. i. 19 reff. 
5. aft akxovo. de ins tovto D (vss). om tov D}(ins D3) lect-58. aft ino. 


ins xpiorov D 64. 137 vss syr-w-ast Jer Ambr: add further ess apeow apaptiwy D syr- 


w-ast (and Jer in ver 4). 

6. emBevro(sic) D}(txt D?). 
Mare : 
Tov TavAou. 


D*) lect-58. 


rec ins tas bef xempas, with EL rel 36 Chr 

om ABHPN ec m. (13 def.) —xe1pa D am demid Syr eth, D also places xe:pa bef 

for nAO., evdews eretecev D Jer: continuo venit tol. 
for re, 5 D-gr 0 25 E-lat coptt: om m D-lat arm. 


em avtous D!(txt 
aft yAwooats 


ins erepais et senserunt illi in seipsos quod et interpretarentur ipsi. Twes be syr-mg. 


rec mpoepyt., with EHLP rel Chr: 


epntevoy al: 


txt ABDN 36. (13 def.) 


7. * rec 6€xadvo, with HLP rel Chr Ge Thl-sif: dwdera (see ch xxiv. 11) ABDEN 


ak m 18. 36. 40 Chr-ms Thl-fin. 


8. aft esseA@wy Se ins o mavaAos D Syr eth. 
om ta BD lect-12 vss: 


aia¢ero D syr-mg. 


ins ev Suvauer meyadn bef erappy- 
ins AEHLPX® 13. 36 Chr. 


for @cov, xupiov 36 (so c in ver 10; and for kupiov, Oeov k in ver 20). 


9. Ties wey ovy avtwy D. 


aft Tv odoy ins Tov kupiov E am? demid : tov Geou 


5. 8. 73 Syr. aft Tov mAnGous ins Twy ebvwy. DE b o Syr syr-w-ast. TOTE 
(syr-w-ast) amooras o mavdos D syrr. ins to bef ka nuepay Dc. om ev 
1: but afterwards supplied eadem manu. tupavyiov D-gr 3. 951. rec 


aft tupayvov ins Tivos (see ch x. 22, xiii. 15, xvii. 34, where also D inserts tts), with 
DEHLP rel 36 vss Chr ce Thi, add further amo wpas e’ ews dexatns D 137 syr-w-ast : 


om ABX 27-9. 81 fuld tol coptt. (13 def.) 


10. for wste to €AA., ew |s martes o1 KaToiKouyTes THY agiay [7 |KovTaY TOUS Aoyous 


indicative that the name of the Holy Ghost 
was used in the baptismal formula. But 
the inference seems to me insecure. 
6.] See ch. viii. 17; x. 46, and note on 
ch. ii. 4: and on émpod., ch. xi. 27, note. 
7.) ot wavr.,in all: so Herod. vii. 
4, BaoircioavtTa Ta mayTa erea EE TE K. 
tpihkovta: Thuc. v. 120, rerdytwy 5€ Tay 
mdvtwy ToAAGY. See Kiihner, § 489 e. 
9.] Probably the school of Tyrannus was 
a private synagogue (called Beth Midrasch 
by the Jews), where he might assemble the 
believing Jews quietly, and also invite the 
attendance of Gentiles to hear the word. 
But it is also possible that, as commonly 
supposed, ‘Tyrannus may have been a Gen- 
tile sophist. The name occurs as a proper 
name, 2 Macc. iv. 40 Ed-vat.(Avpavov AB), 
—and with tivos (see var. readd.). 10. 


érn Svo | We cannot derive any certain esti- 
mate of the length of Paul’s stay in Ephesus 
from these words,—even if we add the three 
months of ver. 8,—for vv. 21, 22 admit of 
an interval after the expiration of the two 
years and three months. And his own ex- 
pression, ch. xx. 31, tpreriav, implies that it 
was longer than from this chapter would at 
first sight appear. He probably (compare 
his announced intention, 1 Cor. xvi. 8, with 
his expectation of meeting Titus at Troas, 
2 Cor. ii. 12, 18, which shews that he was 
not far off the time previously arranged) 
left Ephesus about or soon after the third 
Pentecost after that which he kept in Jeru- 
salem. See Prolegg. to 1 Cor. § vi. 

mavtas T.Kat. | Hyperbolical:—all had the 
opportunity, and probably some of every 
considerable town availed themselves of it. 


Ilavvov f xetpas & 7AOev TO & re TO dytov &ém avToUs, eae fgh 


13 


l covda- 
Lee 

ABDE 
HLPN a 
yedfg 


hk mo 
13 


6—13. IIPABEIS, AITOSTOAON. 213 


> / > , a ows 
Aciay axobdcat Tov °doyov Tod ° Kupiov, lovdaious Te Kal °ch,Ri 49 
d = Matt. vii. 


a / \ 
Edrnvas. 1 4Suvduers te ov Tas *TUyovcas 6 eds 22h i 22 
a Y \ a A , ¢ \ ral. i. O$. 
eroier ‘Oud Tov yerpav Llavrov, ! dste Kal emt Tods ¢ yh 
> 6 a g2 / 6 22 GN A h \ > a 3 Mace. iii. 7. 
QOUVUEVOVYTAS aTropEeper ab aTo Tou XP@TOS QUTOV fLuKpas Kal 

. ’ x \ 5) , > A a j- 

‘covdapia 7) * crpxivOia Kat larradracoecOar at avTaV Farnodtes, 

\ , ’ m s \ m Nn 7 Polyb. i. 25.6. 
TAS VOOCOUS TA TE TTVEULATA TA TrOVH Pa exTropever Oa. ov T. TUXOU- 
13 o2 / 8 , \ rn p , > oav amro- 

ETTENELPNT AV € TLVES KAL TMV TrEPLEepNOMEV@V lov- play, id.i. 
42.12. ovx 
° TUX@V av7np ‘said of Moses), Longin. de Subl. 3 9. f ch. xiv. 3 reff. g w. én, 
Rey. xxi. 10. els, Luke xvi. 22. 1 Cor. xvi. 3. Rev. xvii. 3. 2 Chron. xxxvi. 7. absol., Mark xv. 1 only. 


Exod. xxviii. 38 (42). i Luke xix. 20. John xi. 44. xx. 7 only+. k here 

1 = here (Luke xii. 58. Heb. ii. 15) only. Job ix. 34. constr., Xen. Anab. vii. 1. 4. 
Acts, here, &c., 4 times only. Luke only, exc. Matt. xii. 45. 1 Kings xix. 9. 
o ch, ix, 29 reff. p = here only. Xen. @con. x. 10. (ch. 


h here only. 
only +. 
m = Luke vii. 21. viii. 2. 
n = here [and Matt. xvii. 21] only. 
xxviii. 13 reff.) 
Tov Kuptov tovdaior Kat eAAnves D!-gr(txt [but amavtas| D4). rec aft kup. ins 
tnoov, with LP rel Chr Hc Thl: om ABDEHRN a ck 13. 36. 40 vulg syrr coptt arm. 

ll. for te, 5¢ D}-gr(txt D*) a h 38 syr copt Thl-sif. rec emorex bef o deos, with 
HLP rel syrr copt 2th Chr ec Thl-sif: txt ABDEX m 13 am(and demid fuld tol) sah 
arm Thl-fin. 

12. rec emipeperOa (prob corrn to suit em tT. ao8.: see note), with DHLP rel Chr: 
mepip. 96. 142: txt ABEN a 13. 36. 40, deferrentur vulg. for 4, kat 7. 68. 
104-5 vulg-ed(and tol) coptt Thl-fin: 7 «a: D-gr arm. amakAacecba: B! h! o, 

om 2nd ra D. rec efepxedar (more usual word for the going out of 
evil spirits, see Luke iv. 35, 36, 41, viii. 2, 29, 33 al, ch viii. 7, xvi. 18), with HLP rel 
Chr @ec Thi: txt ABDENacdk 13. 36. 40. rec adds am avtwy (supplemen- 
tary insertion), with HLP rel Chr (ec Thi: ef avrwy sah: om ABDEN ac dk 13. 36. 
40 vulg syrr copt arm. 

13. rec (for kar) aro, with LP 13 rel copt Chr He Thl-sif: xa: aro H 25.73. 951-8-9 
(syr) arm: ef de vulg: ex D 43 (the kat has been omd either as unnecessary, or 
perhaps, as Meyer, because it seemed unworthy of St. Paul to couple him with these : 
then the amo or ex inserted, to define the gen more exactly): txt ABEN ac m Syr. 


meptepxouevw D!, 


To this long teaching of Paul the seven 
churches of Asia owe their establishment. 
11. ob tas tvx.] See reff. miracles 
of no ordinary kind. Jn what they dif- 
fered from the usual displays of power by 
the Apostles, is presently related: viz. that 
even garments taken from him were endued 
with miraculous power. 12.] The 
rec. reading, emipéperbai, may have been 
occasioned by the emi preceding: the other, 
again, by the a7é following : in such un- 
certainty the reading of the ancient Mss. 
must prevail. govd.| handkerchiefs : 
see ref. Luke, and notes there. 
ouptk.| not xapkins, but semicinctia, 
aprons, such as servants and artisans use. 
Gupdtepa Atvoe.d7 eiot, Schol. Diseases, 
and possession by evil spirits, are here 
plainly distinguished from each other. The 
rationalists, and semi-rationalists,are much 
troubled to reconcile the fact related, that 
such handkerchiefs and aprons were in- 
strumental in working the cures, with 
what they are pleased to call a popular 
notion founded in superstition and error. 
But in this and similar narratives (see ch. 
v. 15, note) Christian faith finds no diffi- 
culty whatever. All miraculous working is 


an exertion of the direct power of the All- 
powerful ; a suspension by Him of His or- 
dinary laws: and whether He will use any 
instrument in doing this, or what instru- 
ment, must depend altogether on His own 
purpose in the miracle—the effect to be 
produced on the recipients, beholders, or 
hearers. Without His special selection 
and enabling, all instruments were vain ; 
with these, all are capable. In the present 
case, as before in ch. v. 15, it was His pur- 
pose to exalt His Apostle as the Herald of 
His gospel, and to lay in Ephesus the strong 
foundation of His church. And He there- 
fore endues him with this extraordinary 
power. [Wordsw. sees an especial fitness 
in this having occurred at Ephesus (see on 
ver. 19), and refers to God having shewed 
in Egypt that His power was greater than 
that of Satan working by magicians: and 
it may well have been so. | But to argue 
by analogy from such a case,—to suppose 
that because our Lord was able, and Peter, 
and Paul, and in O. T. times Elisha, were 
enabled to exert this peculiar power, there- 
fore the same will be possessed by the body 
or relics of every real or supposed saint, is 
the height of folly and fanaticism. The 


214 


q here only +t. 
TpoTous 
éfopxwoocewy M 
KaTeAuTev, 
Jos. Antt. 
viii. 2. 5 (of 
Solomon). 
(see below 


Ss / 
ce. lt Hoav Cé 
Lu]. 

r Heie cae 
s 2 Tim. ii. 19. 
Isa. xxvi. 13. 


reff, 

u (and constr.) 
Mark v.7 
only. 

(2 Chron. 
xxxvi. 13. 
Neh. xiii. 25 
Bw.) ev- 


ix. 20 reff. w = here only. 
xviii. 25. Jamesiv. 14. Jude 10. Deut. xxxi. 27. 
a = here (Matt. xx. 25|| Mk. 1 Pet. y. 3) only. 
only. Exod.i.9. Ps. xii. 4. 


TIPABEIZ, ATIOSTOAON. 


Num. xxi. 24. xxxii. 22, 29. 


XIX, 


datwy 4 eEopxictav ™ dvoudtew *émt tovs *éyovtas Ta 
TvevpaTa TA ™ ToVNnpa TO *dvoLa Tod * Kupiov "Incod, Né- 
yovres ““Opkifa tuas tov “Incody Y bv Iladdos ¥ xnpvo- 
Twes YKeda “lovdaiov “ apyvepéws EwTa 
viol [ot] todTo * qovobvTes. 
=ch.avils TO ™ rovnpov eirrev avtois Tov “Incotvy ywookw Kai Tov 
IlabAov ¥ ériotapar tpets Sé tives eoté; 16 Kai * paro- 
Mevos 6 avOpwrros em” ators ev © Hv TO ™ TVEDUA TO™ TroVn- 
pov, *KaTakupievoas auorépwv ” ioxucev Kat avT@v, @STE 


opKica, 1 Thess. y.27. Neh. as above, A. e£opkicw, Matt. xxvi.63 only. Gen.xxiy.3. Judg. xvii. 2 A only. 
x constr. (without Ot), ch. ii. 5 reff. 


19 aqroxpiOev Sé TO ™ rvEdpa 


v ch. 
y w. acc., ch. 
zhere only. 1 Kings x. 6. xi. 6. xvi. 13 only. 
Ps. ix. 25. b = Rev. xii. 8 


rec opxiCopev (alteration to suit the plurals preceding), with HLP rel yss Chr @e Thi: 


etopkiCouev a 0 36: txt ABDERX 13. 40 vulg copt Cassiod. 


ins kuptov bef ino. &'. 
ABDEHPN c m 13. 40 Chr. 


om tov D'(ins D). 


rec ins o bef wavaAos, with L rel Ge Thl: om 


14. for ver, ev ois Kat viow (add ewra syr-mg) okeva Tivos tepews nOeAnoay TO avTo 


moinoat €fos etxav Tous TolovTous etopKiCery Kat erseAPovTES Tpos Tov daimoviComevov 
np&avTo emikadetobat TO ovoua AEeyovTEs TaparyyEeAAOMEY GOL EY INnTOU OY TaVAOS KNpYTTEL 
eEeA Oe (e%. bef «np. D!) D syr-mg. twos B(D) E-gr 36 demid Syr copt (altera- 
tion, twes not appearing to the copyist to agree with the definite extra): twas m: txt 
AHLPR 13 rel vulg E-lat syr Chr @e Thi. rec uot bef cxeva (omg it after erra), 
with (D)HLP rel 36 (Syr copt) syr Chr: om m 31. 180: txt ABEN a 13(sic) 141-5-8. 


40 vulg arm (sah). oKeuia A. 


tovdaor Li. om ot (originally per- 


haps owing to ot of viot preceding) ABN a 18. 


15. tore amexpily To Ty. To Toy. | kat | exmev D, rar insd by D4. 


rec 0M avTots, 


with EHLP rel Qe Thl-sif: ins ABD a c m 13. 36 vulg syrr coptt 2th arm Chr Thl- 


fin. 


ins ev bef imoovv B E-gr &3 ¢ 40. 187 syr. 


16. rec epaddouevos, with (D)EHLPN? rel Chr Ge Thi: evaddAou. D: txt ABN}. 
rec em avtouvs bef 0 avOpwros (alteration of characteristic order), with 
(D)HLP vss Chr ec Thl-sif: om ex avrovs a 69. 105 arm: E places it aft ro rovnpov: 
txt ABN ¢ m 13. 40 am(and demid fuld) syr Chr-comm Thl-fin.—e:s avrovs D vulg. 
rec ins kat bef kataxuprevoas, with HLPN! rel 36 vulg Chr: om ABDENS a c 


13. 40 copt arm. 
rel: -cev a: txt BR c 0 18. 


kuptevoas D: kparnoas 15-8. 36. 180: karaxupicevcay AKRHLP 
rec for auporepwy, avtwy (corrn to suit enta above: 


see note), with HLP rel Syr coptt: avrov d: omnium wxth-rom: om E: txt ABDNa 


13. 36. 40 vulg syr-mg-gr Thl-fin. 


true analogy tends directly the other way. 
In no cases but these do we find the power, 
even in the apostolic days: and the general 
cessation of all extraordinary gifts of the 
Spirit would lead us to the inference that 
a fortiori these, which were even then the 
rarest (ovx ai TuXovca), have ceased also. 
13.| See note on Matt. xii. 27, 
respecting the Jewish exorcists. These 
men, seeing the success of Paul’s agency in 
casting out devils, adopt the Name of Jesus 
in their own exorcisms. 14, apx- 
tepéws | The word must be used in a wide 
sense. He may have been chief of the 
priests resident at Ephesus: or perhaps 
chief of one of the twenty-four courses. 
tives does not belong to émrd, see 

ch. xxiii. 23, but stands alone, recalling the 
twes of the preceding verse. Without 
the of it would be, ‘ certain men, &c. were 


evicxucev Ne: 


KaTLOXUCE C. 


attempting this, jeav and roodyres being 
taken together. With it, They were (it 
was) certain men, seven sons, &c. who 
attempted this. 15.] The narrative, 
from describing the nature of the attempt, 
passes to a single case in which it was tried, 
and in which (see below) two only of the 
brothers were apparently concerned. 

No difference between yivdonw and érlora- 
sat must be pressed:—the twoverbs are ap- 
parently used as separating Jesus and Paul, 
so that they do not stand together in the 
same category :—as in E.V., Jesus I know, 
and Paul I know: the One being God in 
heaven, the other man on earth. 

16. apdorépwv | The weight of manuscript 
evidence for this reading is even surpassed 
by its internal probability. There would 
be every reason, as seven have been before 
mentioned, for altering it into adray: but 


ABDE 
HLPRa 
bedf¢ 
hkmo 

13 


14—20. 


\ XN n 9° 
Yyuevous Kat © TeTpavpatiomévous *éxpuyeiy ex TOU olKoU © Luke xx. 2 


Re ey 
EKELVOV. 


Ni 67, a a 

Te Kat “EXAnow tots !xatouxotow Thv "Edecor, 
> , , , , , 

Semerrecev hoBos émt wadvtas avtovs, Kal } éweyanvveTo 

18 qonXXol Te THY ' TreTL- 


\ yy a ? rn 
TO Ovo“a Tov Kuptov ‘Inaod. 


IIPABEIS ATOZTOAON. 


215 


Ezek. 
Xxvill. 16. 


only. 


LF a 8 \ > , e \ an a | Py / . 
TOUTO € €VEVETO YYWOTOV TAGLV OVOGLOLS 4a ch. xvi. 27 al. 


, _ Judg. vi. 11. 
Kal &= ch. i. 19 
reff, 


f constr., ch. i. 
19 reff. 

g ch. viii. 16 
reff. 

h = ch. x. 46 
reff. 


, ” - We 
oTevKoTwy ipxovto * éEouodoyoupevoe Kal | avaryyéddov= j ais. ch. xv. 


\ , lal 
Tes Tas “pases avTav. 


epya tmpatavtwy » cuvevéyxaytes Tas 4% BiBrous * Kat- 


éxaLov 
avTav 


r \ a 5 reff. 
19 (Kavol- 8€ TOV TA ° TEpL- k = Matt.iii.o. 
Mark i. 5. 


James y. 16%. 
Ich. xiv. 27 


rt Shaw s Sy / \ u \ reff. 
evaTrioy TavTo@v Kal ‘ouvepyipicay Tas ™ Tupas m— Matt, wi. 
\ @ - , s rier 
kat ‘ evpov “ apyvpiov * wupiadas TévTe. 
\ A iy 
Y «ata ¥ Kpatos Tod * Kupiou o * Noyos * HvEaVEY Kal » toyveD. 


Luke 


90 AS pitas 

“a Xxill. 51. 

OUT@S Rom. vii. 19. 
(xii. 4.) Col. 
iu. 8 only. 


2 Chron. 


xii. 15. n = ch. xii. 12 reff. o = here (1 Tim. v. 13) only+. (-ya¢eo@at, 2 Thess. 
lii. 11. Sir. iii. 23. ~yéla, Sir. xli. 22.) p = here only. Xen. Anab. vi. 4. 9. q Matt. 
iploala Dane ix. 2: r Matt. xiii. 30. Luke iii. 17 al. Gen. xxxviii. 24. s = ch. 
ii. 25 reff. t here only +. u = Matt. xxvii. 9. 1 Cor. vi. 20. vii. 23. Ps. xlviii. 8. 


v=ch. xxvii. 28. 1 Chron. xx. 2. 


w sing., = here only. 3 Kings x. 29. see Matt. xxvii. 9. 


x Luke xii. 1. ch. xxi. 20. Heb. xii. 22. Jude l4. Rev. v.11. ix.16 only. Deut. xxxiii. 17. y here 
only+. Jos. Antt. viii. 11. 3. z ch. xiii. 49 reff. a intr., ch. vi. 7 reff. b = here 
only. Exod. i. 20. Xen. Cyr. vi. 1. 24. see ver. 16. 


aft expuyey ins avtous A. 
17. ins rors bef .ovd. EP 192. 


om te DE sah. 


om tnv AJE e 1387. 


exegev (mistake: orprep omd as unnecessary) AD 13, ereev E.—qofos bef 


er. D. ins o bef doBos &!. 
18. for te, Se D 36 coptt. 


om tov DP (0! ?) 101-33. 


twistTevovtav D: 


-cavtwy K 28. (Mai 


Tischdf state expr agst Bch that there is in B no insn aft e£ou.) 


19. om de D!-gr: re E syrr eth Bas Chr. 


aft cuveveyxayTes ins kat D. 


cav Ki. om last «at D!(ins D2). 


Twv wept Ta epya D1(txt D2). 
Kkatexavoay EK vulg. cvuvKaTtelng- 


20. rec o Aoyos bef Tov kupiov (corrn of characteristic order), with (E)HLPN? 13, 
36 rel syr copt Chr: txt ABX'.—for xup., @eov HE 21. 73. 106? vulg sah arm. 
OUT WS KATA KpaTos eviTXvTEV KaL N TLoTLS TOV Deov nutave Kat eMANBUVETO (emANOUYE D1) 


D: Syr also has 7 mois tov @ecv. 


no imaginable one for substituting it for 
autav. Two only, it would seem, were 
thus employed on this particular occasion : 
and Luke has retained the word as it stood 
in the record furnished to him. Whether 
any similar occurrence happened to the 
rest, we are not informed: this one is se- 
lected as most notorious. yupvous | 
With their clothes torn off them. 18. | 
The natural effect of such an occurrence 
was to induce a horror of magical arts, &c., 
which some were still continuing to coun- 
tenance or practise secretly, together with 
a profession of Christianity. Such persons 
now came forward and confessed their 
error. The mpdies of this verse denotes 
the association with such practices: the 
next verse treats of the magicians them- 
selves. 19. mweptepya | ‘male sedula’ 
(‘curiosa, Hor. Epod. xviii. 25). tls tv 
meprepywy in Aristenet. Ep. ii. 18, is ‘a 
magician’ (Kuin.). Tas BiBAous | Ma- 
gical formule, or receipt-books, or written 
amulets. These last were celebrated by the 
name of ’E@éo.a ypduuata. So Eustath. 
ad Hom. Od. 7. p. 694 (Kuin.): "Epéoia 
ypdupata—emwdad yap tiwes gaol éxel- 
vat joav, &s Kal Kpotoos ém) tis mupas 


ioxuoev &. 


eimav wpednen: Kat ev “OAvurla 5& hast, 
MiAnoiov kat “Edeciov madadvrwy Toy 
MiAjotoy wh SdvacOat madatew dia To Toy 
ETEpoy Tepl TH AoTpayarw exe TA Epeoia 
yedumata ay yrwobévtwy Kal AvOevTwY 
avT@, TplakovTakis To Ek7s meoet Tov 
*Eoécov. See more illustrations in Wetst. 
They were copies of the mystic words 
engraved on the image of the Ephesian 
Artemis. Eustath. in C. and H. ii. 16. 

apy. pup. mév.] 50,000 drachme, 
i. e. denarii: for the drachma of the Au- 
gustan and following ages was not the 
real Attic drachma, but the Roman de- 
narius—about 84d. of our money: which 
makes the entire value about £1770. That 
drachme and not shekels (Grot., Hamm.) 
are meant, is plain: for Luke is writing of 
a Grecian town, and to a Greek. 20. 
Kata Kpdtos|] “Eo modo dicitur urbs 
aip<icAat Kata Kpatos, que vi expugnatur, 
apud Plut. Apophth. p. 176. Hine lucem 
mutuatur locus, Act. xix. 20, ubi dicitur 
verbum Domini kata Kpdros ioxvev, per 
vim invalescere, quasi oppugnans et vi 
expugnans corda hominum.” Hermann on 
Viger, p. 632. So kara wixpdy, kat’ oAl- 
yov, Ka? tmepBorny, kata Kécpov. See 


216 


e = Luke vii. 


IIPAZEIS AIITOSTOAON. 


XIX. 


21 °Os b€ °érAnpwobOn tadta, *&eTo 6 Tlatdos ev TH 


22 amrooteiNas 6€ Els 


d = Luke ix. , , 
ual © qvevpate * dueAPav tHv Makedoviay cat ’Ayaiay mo- 
Hage. ii 19. seo 0. ol | a a ee eee Lape Lf) 
Hace’ peverOat eis “lepocodvpa, eimov Ott % peta TO ryevéer Oar 
e ch. xvii. 16 ? Loh 8 . A ic , i 8 5 
- rel pe exe "det we Kat “Popny ' idetv. 
ver. 1. \ ; = ~ , 
ech ia av Maxedoviay dv0 tov * dvaxovoiytay atta, Typocov 
15, 26 al. Ay > ae 1 ee f m-_? \ 2 , 
Gen. xiv.a7. Kal "“Kpactov, autos ‘émécyev ypovoy ™els tHv ’Aciav. 
h ra iv. 12 93 22 5. n \ Ne A ee eA Oo 
ioe, = EYEVeTO O€ "KaTa TOV ™KaLpov ™éxEivoy ° Tapayos ° OvK 
nere only. 


k Matt. xxv. 44. 
Rom. xy. 25 
al.+ 

1 = here (ch. iii. 
5 reff.) only. 
Gen. viii. 10, 
12. Xen. 


4 apyupoKoTros 
prep 


Och. xii. 18 (reff.). 
vi. 29 only. (-7etv, Jer. ib.) 


s=here only. eweupav d€,.. xpuaous vaovs, Diod. Sic. xx. 14. 


li. 20. 
w ver. 38. Rey. xviii. 22. 
21. for ws to tavra, Tore D. 
om ev E-gr 40. 68. 


u ch. xvi. 16 (reff.). 
Heb. xi. 10 only. 


Tmopeveobar DP. 


=) / \ rn id rn 
°oruyos Tepl PTAs obod. 
T qTrol@v 
m = Mark i. 39. ch. viii. 40. xxi. 13. xxiii. 11. xxv. 4 al. 


p ch. ix. 2 
r partic., = ch. xy. 29. xvi. 34. 


24 Anuntpios yap Tis ovopate 
S yaovs ‘' apyupods "Apréuidos 


iy a / if 
W qapelxeTo Tois “ Teyvitais ° ovK °OdtynY " EpyaciaL, 


n ch, xii. l only. Num. 
q here only. Judg. xvii.4 B. Jer. 
2 Pet. i. 19. Winer, edn. 6, 3 45. 4. 
t2 Tim. ii. 20. Rev. ix. 20 only. Isa. 
= Col.iv.1. Tit. ii. 7. see Winer. edn. 6, $ 38. 6. 


reff. 


Vv mid., 


Deut. xxvii. 15. (-v7, ch. xviii. 3.) 
(0) mavados bef e6ero DE 137 copt.—om o D 137. 
dveAbew ADEP k. 
Sor uniformity) ADE ab do13: om BHLPR rel 36 Chr Ec Thi. 
rec tepovoaAnu, with HLP rel 36 @e Thl-sif: txt ABEN c k 


ins tyv bef axaay (corrn 
ins kat bef 


40 vulg Chr-comm Thl-fin, tepocoAvooAvua D. 


22. for amoor. Se, kat amoot. D Syr eth. 
diakovovyTwy avtw, diaxovouvy | = -wv? | avtrwy A: for avtw, avTwr e. 
&! has written ez, but marked it for erasure. 
ev Tn acta D sah. 


Tiva xp. 40 arm. 
24, for ovoyati, ny D-gr: om D-lat sah. 


ins os bef rapetxe (repeating the termination of Apteusdos) D. 
(confusion from tos follg) AADE: txt A2BHLPR rel 36 Chr Ec Thi. 


for 
aft avtw 
aft xpovoy ins oAvyoyv D-gr 25: 


om thy EN bk mo. 


om apyupous B. 
Taperxe 
rec epyaciay 


vaov apyupouv &}. 


bef ove oAvyny, with EHLP rel syr Chr Ge Thl-sif: txt ABDN k m 13 vulg Thl-fin. 


Bernhardy, Syntax, p. 241, f. 21. 
tavta| ‘The occurrences of vv. 19, 20. 

év tO wv.| An expression mostly 
used by Paul, see ref. Set] As he was 
sent to the Gentiles, he saw that the great 
metropolis of the Gentile world was the 
legitimate centre of his apostolic working. 
Or perhaps he speaks under some divine 
intimation that ultimately he should be 
brought to Rome. If so, his words were 
literally fulfilled. He did see Rome after 
he had been at Jerusalem this next time: 
but after considerable delay, and as a pri- 
soner. Cf. the same design expressed by 
him, Rom. i. 15; xv. 23--28; and Paley,’s 
remarks in the Hor Pauline. 22. |} 
He intended himself to follow after Pente- 
cost, 1 Cor. xvi. 8. ‘This mission of Timothy 
is alluded to 1 Cor. iv. 17 (see ib. i. 1); 
xvi. 10. The object of it was to bring these 
churches in Macedonia and Achaia into 
remembrance of the ways and teaching of 
Paul. It occurred shortly before the writing 
of 1 Cor. He was (1 Cor. xvi. 11) soon 
to return :—but considerable uncertainty 
hangs over thisjourney. We find him again 
with Paul in Macedonia, 2 Cor. i. 1: but 
apparently he had not reached Corinth. 
See 1 Cor. xvi. 1. c.; and 2 Cor. xii. 18, where 
he would probably have been mentioned, 


had he done so. On the difficult ques- 
tion respecting a journey of Paul himself to 
Corinth during this period, see notes, 2 Cor. 
xii. 14; xiii. 1,—and Prolegg. to 1 Cor. § v. 

*Epaotov| This Erastus can hardly 
be identical with the Erastus of Rom. xvi. 
23, whomust have been resident at Corinth: 
see there : and therefore hardly either with 
the Erastus of 2 Tim. iv. 20: see note 
there. eis tT. "Aotav]i.e. in (but beware 
of imagining eis to be ‘put for’ év, here or 
any where. It gives the direction of the 
tarrying, as in the expressions és ddéuous 
every, Soph. Ag. 80, and drexaprépouy 
eis thy matpida, Lycurg. cont. Leocr., 
p- 158. It is far better to take it thus, 
with Meyer, than with Winer, Gr., edn. 6, 
§ 50. 4. b, as importing ‘in favour of,’ ‘for 
the benefit of’) Ephesus: Asia is named 
by way of contrast with Macedonia, just 
before mentioned. This is evident by the 
following event taking place at Ephesus. 

24. vaots apy.] These were small 
models (apidpyuara) of the celebrated 
temple of the Ephesian Artemis, with her 
statue, which it was the custom to carry on 
journeys, and place in houses, as a charm. 
Chrys. kal m@s 1 vaobs apyupods ye- 
vécOa; tows &s KiPdpia wixpd. Ammian. 
Marcellin. xxii. 13: ‘Asclepiades philoso- 


ABDE 
HLPNa 
bedfe 
hkmo 

13 


21—27. 


4 a rn ss 15 
°5 ods Xavvabpoicas, Kal Tovs ¥ trepl Ta TovadTa épydtas, *°h, xi. 12 


IIPABEIS ATIOSTOAON, 


217 


only. Deut. 


9 "Avd ey: 6 ¢ z2 s n u2 , e i. 41. 
E€LTTEV v PES; ETT LOTAOUVE OTL €K TQAUTNS THS epyacias » y = Luke x. 


Fee ' CPRAES 69 26 \ bp an a3 , b 2 > 
evTopia nuiv * éotiv, 5 Kat ” Pewpeite Kal aKkoveTe ” 6TL ov 
/ , Qn e la) 

poovov “Edécou adda °oxeddov tacns THs ’Acias 6 [ladXos 


ovtos 4 


Touto ‘xwoduvever Hutv TO * wépos els | areneypov ™ édOeiv, 
ara Kal TO THs ™weyarys ° eds iepov "ApTéusdos 4 eis 


fe e , f id \ f vv / ev = 
meiaas ° pmeTeaTHnoEV *iKavoV *OYOV, NEYWV OTL 7%. 
ovK elolv Deol ot ® dia yerpav » yivopevor. 


40,41. mept 
THY Epya- 
olay OvTes 
T7HS Xupas, 
Diod. Sic. i. 


= Luke xii. 
15. John 
XViil. 36. 

a here only +. 
Judg. vi. 12 
Aquil. Proy. 
xu. 4 Symm. 
(-eta@ar, 


27 ob povov Oé 


ovdev 4royioOyvat, * wédreW TE Kai * KaBapeicOat Tis y Gav sY 


‘weyadeloTntos avTins nv OdAn 7 ’Acia kal 7 “oixoupévn 


10. (Dan. iii. 27 [94].) 

xiii. 22 reff.) Josh. xiv. 8. 
f ch. xi. 24 (reff.). 

40. absol., Luke viii. 23. 

only. 3 Mace. v. 17. 

xxxiii. 28 BN F(not A). 

x. 4 reff. q Rom. ii. 26. iy. 3. ix. 8. 


g ch. xiv. 3. 
1 Cor. xy. 30 only. 


ec ch, xiii. 44 reff. 
Nenene ee R ‘ 2 s ee = 
7a ekel TavTa mpos Aakedatmovious meTETTHGEY, Xen. Hell. ii. 2. 5. 


Isa. xxviii. 13. w. TOU and inf., Jonah i. 4. 

lhere only+. (€Aeypos, 4 Kings xix. 3 || Isa.) 
n ch. viii. 9 reff. 

Wisd. ix. 6. 


Mark xvi. 

4. John 

iv. 19. xii. 
19. ch. xxvii. 
d ch. xviii. 4 reff. e=here only. (ch. 


h = Johni. 3. Heb. xi. 3. Gen. ii. 4. i yer. 
k = here 
m = Johny. 24. Job 
o here (vy. 35, 37 v. r.) only +. 
r= ch. xx. 38 al. 


x.5. Jer. xxix. 16. (xlix. 17.) constr. here only. ka@aipery TL THS TOU Beov 66éns, Diod. Sic. iv. 8. 


t Luke ix. 43, 2 Pet. i. 16 only. 
xvii. 31. Rey. iii. 10. xii. 9. Ps. ix. 8. 


25. for ous, ovtos (omg kat) D 137 tol sah: c has ovros but retains kat. 
for epyatas, Texvetas D-gr-corr(-rais D!): 
add mpos avtovus D vss. 


avtTas(sic) X. 
for evrev, edn D. 


syr-w-ast sah. emiotaotat(sic) D. 


Jer. xl. (xxxili.) 9. 


Dan. vii. 27 LXX. Esdr. i. 5 only. u = ch. 


Tol- 
artifices K-lat. 

aft avdpes ins cuvtexvertat D 
rec nur (corrn, as more usual constr), 


with HLP rel syrr eth Chr, He Thl-sif: txt ABDEN c d 13. 40 vulg coptt Thl-fin. 


26. akovete kat Oewperte D Syr. 
ths am Thl-fin.—zpsius Ephesi D-lat. 


om ot: D. 


ins ews bef epec. D-gr 14): 


edeotov D. aft aAA@ ins kar A 


D-gr L 13. 36. 40. 106-80 demid Syr Chr Thl-sif: om BEHPN rel vulg D-lat coptt 


(ec Thl-fin. om ts D}(ins D2) m. 
quidam tune D-lat. om treioas &. 
D-gr. om ot NX? 57. 

27. om de E-gr. 
nu. A c 137. om adda XR}, 


aft ovros ins tis tote D!: hie 
amreotnoev HK. aft ort ins ovtat 


yevomevot D!(yevou. D?) 68. 
new bef kivSuvever D m (-vevoer D2). 
rec apteutdos bef tepov (corrn of characteris- 


To wepos bef Kuv6. 


tic order), with ABLN 13. 36 rel (ec Thl-fin: txt DEHP b f g o Chr Thl-sif Jer. 


rec ovdev, with DEL 13. 36 rel Chr: txt ABHPN df. 
(emendation of constr) ADE vulg Syr: txt BHLPX rel 36 Chr ec Thl. 


AoyioOnaeTat 
BeAAet 


A1l(D!) ae vss Thl: txt BD?EHLPN 13 rel Chr @c.—addAa xabepiobar wedrer(v) D. 
Steph (for te) Se, with HL rel vulg Chr Thl: omae: txt ABEPN c¢ 13 He 


Jer. om ra E e. 


rec THV peyadeoTnTa (see note), with HUP rel vulg 


copt Chr c Thi: txt ABEN ac 13. 36. 40 syr sah.—om 7. wey. avtns D. 


(Mai Tischdf note expr agst Bch that B does not om avrys nv.) 
om 2nd 7 Bk m. 


om Ist 7 BD. 


phus ... . dew celestis argenteum breve 
figmentum quocunque ibat secum solitus 
efierre ... .’ Diod. Sic. i. 15: vaods xpu- 
govs Sto. Dio Cass. xxxix. 20: veds 
“Hpas Bpaxts em) tpawé(ns tivds mpbds 
avaTtoA@y [Spumevos. We may find an 
exact parallel in the usages of that corrupt 
form of Christianity, which, whatever it 
may pretend to teach, in practice honours 
similarly the “ great goddess ” of its ima- 
gination. 25. Ta Totatta | All sorts of 
memorials or amulets connected with the 
worship of Artemis. Dean Howson 
(ii. p. 98) suggests that possibly Alerander 
the coppersmith may have been one of these 
craftsmen: see 2 Tim. iv. 14. 26. | 
The people believed that the images them- 
selves were gods: Ta xaAka@ kal Ta ypamTa 


for nv, n D}. 


kal AlOiwwa wh pabdytes, pnde eOicbevtes 
GydAuara Kal Tyas Oedy, aAAa Beovs 
kaAdetv. Plutarch de Isid. p. 379,c(Wetst.): 
see ch. xvii. 29. And so it is invariably, 
wherever images are employed professedly 
as media of worship. The genitives ’E@. 
and ’Aa. are governed by dxAov. 27. ] 
jptv is best taken as the dativus incom- 
modi, not for 7nuaéy, nor with 7d pépos, 
but with «ivduvede:. p-€pos, as we say, 
department. a\Aa Kai] but that 
eventually even the temple itself of the 
great goddess Artemis will be counted 
for nothing. jeyéA7 was the usual epithet 
of the Ephesian Artemis: Xen. Ephes. i. 
p- 15: duviw te thy matpiov juiv Oedv, 
Thy peydany °Edeciav “Apteuwv. There 
is an inscription in Boeckh, 2963 c, con- 


218 


v ch. xii. 43 
reff. Bel and 
Dr. 22. 

w John i. 14. 
ch. vi. 3, 5, 8. 
ix. 36. xiii. 
10. Isa.i. 4. 

x = Luke iv. 


ws. “Ephiv. Oypadov els TO © Oéatpov 
ol. ev. Xil. 
wal Gen "Aniatapyov Maxeddvas, * cvvexdrpous ILavdou: 
y ver. 27 al. 
see notes. 


: aA K c / 
- avTov ot pabyrtai. 


IIPAREIZ AMOZTOAON. 


XIX, 


¥ céBerar. *% axovoartes bé Kal yevopevot * 7AHpELS * Oupod 
Expafov déyovtes Y Meyady 7 “Aptemis “Edeciov. 9 Kai 
2érrnoOn 1) TOMS THS *ovyyUcEws, 


b ov / b € 
apyunoav Te » omo- 


cuvapTacavTes Taiov Kat 
30 Tlav- 


d 


Nov dé Bovropévou eisedOeciv eis Tov ' dhwov, ovK Elwv 
31 rwes O€ Kai TOV “AcLapya@v, dvTES 


v.17. xiii 
5. en. vi. tS Ly / ‘ Lees / 
he auto irol, TéeuryavTes Tpos avTov © TapexKddovy, 421) 
a here only. 
Gen. xi. 9. 1 Kings v. 12. xiy. 20 only. (-xvveu, yer. 32.) b ch. vii. 57 (reff.). c here bis. 1 Cor. 
iv. 9only+. (-rptGeo@ar, Heb. x. 33.) d ch. vi. 12 reff. e 2 Cor. viii. 19 only +. f ch. 


xii. 22 reff. g constr., ch. viii. 31 reff. 
28. ravta Se akovo. D vss. 


simly syr-mg. om 7 D}(ins D*). 


aft @vuov ins Spauortes ets TO audodoy D 137, 


29. rec aft n mods ins oAy (see ch xxi. 30), with EHLP rel syr sah Chr Gc Thi: pref 


oan, D 36(sic) Syr eth: om ABN 13. 40 vulg copt arm. 


rec om T7s, with 


(D')EX? k 13: ins A B(sic: see table) DCHLPN! rel Chr Thl.—ovvexv0n od. 7 =. 


acxurvns D'-gr. 
macaytes D. 


117-771 : om 100. 


for re, 5e D-gr m copt: om sah arm. 
paxedoves D'(txt D4 Or *): waxedova 15. 180: pakedovias a 56. 
rec ins Tov bef ravAov (with e?): om ABDEHLPR rel. 


ins rat bef cuvap- 


30. rec Tov de mavadov ( possibly from the concurrence of mavdov ravaov), with EHLP 
rel 36 Chr (ic Thl: BovAopevou de Tov mavdov VD: Tov mavaAov Se N83 k: txt ABN! m 13. 
for ovr etwy avtoy o1 wabnrai, or wad. exwAdvoy D(non sinebant D-lat) Syr eth. 


81. for ovres, umapxoyvtes D. 


avtov &! 100. 


taining the words rys weyaAns Oeas apte- 
judos mpo moAews. The same inscription 
also mentions ypauparevs and avOdratos. 
C. and H. ii. 98. The temple of Arte- 
mis at Ephesus, having been burnt to the 
ground by Herostratus on the night of the 
birth of Alexander the Great (B.C. 355), 
was restored with increased magnificence, 
and accounted one of the wonders of the 
ancient world. Its dimensions were 425 x 
220 feet, and it was surrounded by 127 
columns, 60 feet high. It was standing in 
all its grandeur at this time. See C. and 
H. ch. xvi. vol. ii. pp. 84 ff. TiS pE- 
yaXeoTnTOs is the more difficult and pro- 
bably original reading: and that she should 
be deposed from her greatness, whom Kc. 

29. els to O€atpov] The resort of 
the populace on occasions of excitement, 
as Wetst. shews by many instances. So 
Tacit. Hist. ii. 80, ‘Tum Antiochensium 
theatrum ingressus, i ¢llis consultaremos 
est” ‘Of the site of the theatre, the scene 
of the tumult raised by Demetrius, there 
can be no doubt, its ruins being a wreck 
of immense grandeur. I think it must 
have been larger than the one at Miletus; 
and that exceeds any I have elsewhere 
seen. ... . Its form alone can now be 
spoken of, for every seat is removed, and 
the proscenium is a heap of ruins.’ Fellows, 
Asia Minor, p. 274. ‘The theatre of Ephe- 
sus is said to be the largest known of any 
that have remained to us from antiquity.’ 
C. and JI. ii. p. 83, note 3. aovvapTr. | 


avtov E-gr: amici ejus vulg. 


for eauvTor, 


It is not implied that they seized Gaius 
and Aristarchus before they rushed into 
the theatre: compare tposeviduevar elray, 
ch. i. 24, also ch. xviii. 27, and Winer, 
edn. 6, § 45. 6. b. Tdiov] A dif- 
ferent person from the Gaius of ch. xx. 4, 
who was of Derbe, and from the Gaius of 
Rom. xvi. 23, and 1 Cor. i. 14, who was 
evidently a Corinthian. Aristarchus is 
mentioned ch. xx. 4; xxvii. 2; Col.iv. 10; 
Philem. 24. He was a native of Thessa- 
lonica. 31. "Acvapxav}] The Asiar- 
chx were officers elected by the cities of 
the province of Asia to preside over their 
games and religious festivals. Of these it 
would be natural that the one who for the 
time presided would bear the title of 6 
*Aoidpxos: cf. Eus. H. E. iv. 15: but no 
more is known of such presidency. Wetst. 
quotes several inscriptions and coins in 
which the name occurs, and cites many 
analogous names of like officers elsewhere : 
Ciliciareha, Syriarcha, Phoeniciarcha, Hel- 
ladarcha, &c. The Asiarch Philip at 
Smyrna is mentioned by Eusebius (H. E. 
iv. 15) as presiding in the amphitheatre at 
the martyrdom of Polyearp. These Ephe- 
sian games in honour of Artemis took place 
in May, which whole month (another sin- 
gular coincidence with the practices of 
idolatrous Christendom) was sacred to, and 
named Artemisian after, the goddess. In 
Boeckh, Inscr. 2954, we have the decree 
bAov Toy pijva toy emdvupov Tod Belov 
évéuaros elva: ftepby kal avaxeio@at TH 


ABDI 
HLPx 
bedf 
hkm-: 
13 


28—35. 


h S0dvat éauTov eis TO ° Oéatpor. 


TIPAEREIS ATIOSTOAQN. 


82 i1g@dXow pev ovv ' adXO 


219 


h= here only. 


els TAS €pn- 
»” 9S \ a 

Te expagov: Hv yap 1 * éxxAnala lovyKeyupévn, Kal ™oi Kiasadror 
‘ , , 

™ q)eElous ovK HOELcaV Tivos Evexa “ouvednrAVOecay, 33 ex Aa Dici. 
\ ap r Sic. y. 59. 

dé Tod dxAou eo mpocBiBacav *AndeEavdpor, ? mpoBarovtoy th gad BAe 

SC 


avtov tav “lovoaimy: 6 &é ’AreFavdpos 1 KaTaceloas TV \~ vw. 39, 


xen 0erev * atroNoyetabat TH ‘ Syjwo. 


t “lovdaios 


t > ‘\ > , / u b] , id 
é€oTw, pwvn éyeveTo le €K TAVTOV WS 


41. ch. vii. 

38 only. Sir. 
xxvi. 5. 

l ch. ii. 6 reff. 


ml on ix. 19 


34 8 érruyvovTes 6€ 


em @pas Ovo «patovrov Meyary q “Aprepis "Edeoiov. nth. i.e 


35“ xataoteinas Sé 6 *ypampatels Tov dydov gyaly° 


"Avopes “Edéouot, tis ¥ yap éotw 


eg ’ a A 
oKer THY Edeoiwv trodw ” VEWKOPOV *ovgav THS 


ktov els Adyous amoppytous, Polyb. xxiv. 3. 7. 


xxi. 30) only. Jer. xxvi. (xlvi.) 4 AN. 


q ch. xii. 17 reff. 


reff. 
Matt. xiv. 8 


5 only. enced: 
/, a > ‘ KXXV. : 
avOpoTav Os ov ywo- peas 
, only. 
b weyarNs  mpoBiBaoas 
TO meipa- 


ovpB., 1 Cor. ii. 16 reff. p = here (Luke 


r Luke xii. 11, xxi. 14. 


ch, xxiv. 10, xxvi. 24 al3. Rom. ii. 15. 2 Cor. xii. 19 only. L.P. Jer. xii. 1. xxxviii. (xxxi.) 6. 2 Macc. 
xiii. 26 only. s Luke xxiii. 7. ch. xxii, 29. xxviii. 1. Jer. v. 5. t pres., ch. xvi. 38 
reff. u= ch. v. 38, 39. John iii. 25 al. v ch. xiii. 31 reff. w here bis 
only+. 2 Mace. iy. 31 only. x = here only. (E zra vii. 6, &e. )) y Matt. ix.5. Job 


xix. 23. z here only+t. 


vol. i. p. 560, 
32. om ti D 42 vulg. 


ree evexev, with DEHLP rel: 
-AvOnoay L Thi-sif. 


nN yap ekkAno. ny D. 
txt ABN 13. 36 Thl-fin. 


n AcvcTiKy pay eh kK. iepewy éoTtv, Philo de Prof. $ 17, 
a constr., ch. xxiv. 10. re 


= ch. vv. 27, 28, 34. 


mAeoTot D-gr. 
ouveAnAvéacw H: 


33. * cuveBiBacay ABEXN a (corrn, perhaps on acct of the unusual word, perhaps 


to avoid the repetition of mpo): 
D-lat, detrax. vulg : 


avtwv L! b 40 Thi-sif. 
D3 40 Chr Thl-fin. 


o ovv A k demid fuld tol: 
for nAdev, nOcAev NL 


ovv eBiBacav 13(appy): KareBiB. D!, distraxerunt 
tpoeBiBacay D4 or 8 HLP rel 386 Chr (ec Thl. 
BadXortwr, with DLP b?e¢ gmo 13. 36 Thi: 


elz mpo- 
txt ABEH® rel 40 Chr ce. 
o 8 ovy &}. 

for Snuw, Aaw BE. 


TN XEtpt 


34. rec emyvoytav (corrn, to avoid the pendent nominative), with a b 0 36 We: txt 


ABDEHLPR 13 rel Chr Thl-sif. 
KpaCovtes AN. 


om ex D, so vulg coptt. 
om 7 D'(ins D4). 


wse. B13. 
bey. apt. ed. isrepeated in B. 


35. kataceioas DE c 137 Thi-sif: compescuisset D-lat, sedasset vulg E-lat. 


Tov oxAov bet o ypauuarevs B m 130 copt. 
adeApa R!. 


epeo., nuctepay vestram D. 


Geas, with HLP rel eth Chr We Thi: 


OG, tycoOa Se em avrats (scil. rod unvds 
Humepas) Tas EopTas kal THY TOY ApTemiotwy 
mavhyupw. C.and H. ii. 95. Sotvat | 
Kypke remarks: ‘latet in phrasi, quod 
periculum Paulo in theatro immineat.’ 
E. V. adventure himself; an excellent 
translation. 33.] ék Tr. xX. some of 
the multitude. mpocB. urged for- 
ward, through the crowd ; the Jews push- 
ing him on from behind, ‘ propellentibus.’ 

It isuncertain whether this Alexander 
is mentioned elsewhere (but see on 2 Tim. 
iv. 14). He appears to have been a Chris- 
tian convert from Judaism, whom the Jews 
were willing to expose as a victim to the 
fury of the mob: or perhaps one of them- 
selves, put forward to clear them of blame 
on the occasion. 34. emvyvovtes | 
The nom. is an anacoluthon, as in ch. xxiv. 
5 al. See Winer, edn. 6, § 63, i. 1. 


eon E, dixit vulg. for edecioz, 


rec av@pwmos (corn), with D(pref 6 D!) HLP rel syr eth Chr He 
Thl-sif: txt ABEX ac k m 13. 36. 40 vulg Syr copt (sah) eth arm Thl-fin. 
modw bef epec. E coptt. 
for ovoay, eva D: add ka &1(N% disapproving). 


for 
vaokopoy D'(txt D?). 
rec aft weyadAns ins 


om ABDER c 13. 36. 40 vulg syrr coptt Isid. 


They would hear nothing from a 
Jew, as being an enemy of image-worship. 

35. katacr. | When jhe had quieted, 
lulled, the crowd. 6 ypoppateds | 
the town-clerk is the nearest English 
office corresponding to it. He was the 
keeper of the archives and public reader 
of decrees, &c., in the assemblies. Thucyd. 
vii. 10, thy emioroAy émédocav" 6 dé ypap- 
pareds Tis wéAEws TapeAOdv aveyvw Tots 
°*AOnvators. * Among the Ephesian inscrip- 
tions in Boeckh, we find the following: 
M. I. Aup. Atovvo.oy Tov tepoknpuka Kat B 
aciapxov ek Twy tdiwy T. PA. Movvatios 
ptAoceBacTos o YPaMmaTeus a agiapxnoas. 


No. 29902 C. and H. ii. yap 
gives a reason for the es. See 
Herm. on Viger, p. 829. vewkopov | 


Probably a virger or adorner (Suidas says, 
not a sweeper: 6 Thy vewy KooTMaY K. EUTPE- 


220 


c here only +. 


IIPAZEIS AILOZTOAON. 


XIX. 36—41. 


, \ fal r 
ureontrt "Apréuedos Kat tod ° duorreTods ; %6 4 dvavTippyt@v obdv 
ToayaApa 4 eSZ > \ eon w f, ee 
Bioreres OVT@MVY TO eee O€ov €OTL UULAS KATETTAN{LEVOUS UT 
as A€you- 7 pS \ s 37 h2n,/4 \ 
peel fe apXelv Kab pndev 5 TpOTreTES TPATCELW. 7 nyayeTe yap 


dian i. 11. 
here only t. 
Symm., Job 
xi. 2. xxxiii. 


13. (-Tws, 
ch. x. 29.) 
e 1 Pet. i.6 
only. 1 Macc. p ” \ a2 bu , > 
xii. ll. (see AYOVTAL KAL * AVUUTTATOL ELOLV" 
1 Tim. y. 13. 
f ch. ii. 30 ru g 2 Tim. iii.4 only. Prov. x. 14. xiii. 3. 


xxi.7. John vii. 45 al. Dan. iii. 13. 


xiii. 6.) k constr., Matt. xxvii. 39. 
m ver. 24 reff. n= = here only. €m@oL.. 
Heb. iv. 13. 
xiii. p. 932 (Wahl). jou a@yovTt Tov ayopatov, Jos. Antt. xiv. 10. 21. 
ii. 16. q ch. xiii. 7, 8, 12. xviii. 12 only. 


ToUs avdpas ToUTOUS oUTE 
poovtas tiv 'Oeov nuov. 

a lal / U 
avy avT@ ™ TeyviTal ExovoW TpPOS TWa ™ OYor, ° aryopatot 


i here only ft. 

4 Kings xix. 22. 
« 7pos TOUTOUS O Aoyos, Demosth. mpos Aaxp., p- 942, 17. see 
o = here (ch. xvii. 5) only +. Tas Stoikynoers, év als Tas a FOLOUYT AL, Strabo 


see note 8. 


i(epoavAous ovte * BXacdn- 
33 ef ev ody Anunrptos Kal ot 


‘éykanelTwoav AadANXOLS. 


% h absol., Matt. 
(-etv, Rom. ii. 22. -ta, 2 Mace. 
1 fem., here only. 


Sir. ix. 18 only. 
z Mace. iy. 42 only. 
(Rom. ii. 24 al.) 


= Luke xxiv. 21. 2 Mace, 
r constr., ch. xxiii. 28, Sir. xlvi. 19. w. Kata 


and gen., Rom. viii. 33, pass. ver. 40. ch. xxiii. 29. xxvi. 2,7 only. L.P. 


diosmetous D 68: hujus jovis D-lat: joviseprolis E-lat: jovisque prolis vulg. 


36. avavtipntev BIL. 
mpomeres ins Tt &°. 


tovtwy bef ovrwy A b o: om Toutwy &! 13. 


[rpattew, so ABDEHLRX 13 rel(not P m) Chr Ge Thi. | 


att 


87. from nyayete to Tovrous is inserted in the margin of P by a later hand. 


aft rovrous ins ev@ade D syr-mg. 


for oute (twice), unre D. 


rec Tnhv Beav 


(corrn), with D1E?P ab! o 13 @e Thi-fin: txt ABD?E!HLN rel 36 Chr-c Thl-sif. 
‘rec vuwy, with E!-gr HLP rel vulg syr copt «th-rom Chr (ec Thl-fin: txt 


ABDE2N b f 0 13 E-lat Syr ‘sah zth- -pl Chr-e Thl-sif, 
pref 6 ¢ 137. 


88. aft Synuntpios ims ovtos D Syr: 


deav D}(txt D8). 
ot bef kar D}(txt D‘). 


rec mpos tTiva Aoyor bef exovaw (alteration of characteristic order), with 13(appy) : 
txt AB(D)EHLP® rel vulg Chr Thl.—ins avrovs bef twa D, cum aliquo quendam 


D_lat. 


miCwy, GAN ovx 6 capwy) of the temple: 
here used as implying that Ephesus had the 
charge and keeping of the temple. The 
title is found (Wetst.) on inscriptions as 
belonging to Ephesus: 7 :AoceBactos 
Efegiwy BovAn kat o vewkopos Syyos 
Kkabtepwoay emt avOuTarov Medoukaiov IMpeic- 
Kewovu Wndioauevov TiB. KA. ITaAtkov Tov 
ypauparews Tov dnuov (Boeckh, No. 2966) ; 
and seems to have been specially granted 
by the emperors to par ticular cities : thus 
we have éca emeTUXoMEY mapa Tov kuplov 
Kaloapos ’Adpiavod 6¢ *Avtwviov TloAéuw- 
vos SevTepov déyua cuyKAhtov, Kab’ d Sis 
vewkdpor yeydvauev: and on coins of Ha- 
drian, ’Egeciwy Sis vewkdpwy, &e.: and 
similarly of Elagabalus, Nixoundéwy tpis 
vewkdpwv: of Maximin, Mayvfjtey vew- 
kdépwy “Apréudos. See also C. and H. ii. 
p- 89, where will be found an engraving 
of a coin exhibiting both the words vew- 
kédpos and av@dmatos (ver. 38). 

7. Stotrerovs | ‘T'o give peculiar sanctity to 
various images, it was given out that they 
had fallen from heaven; so Euripides of 
the statue of Artemis at Tauris, &v@ “ApTe- 
pus oh abryyovos Bwpuovs Exe, | AaBew 7 
byakua Ocas b party évOdbe | cis Tovsde 
vaovs ovpavod meceiv Uro. Iph. Taur. 
86, and 977, he calls it diorerés &yadua, 
ov’pavov méonaa. So also Pausan. Att. 26, 
7) be ayidtatov. .. eatlv’AOnvas &yar- 
pa év TH viv akpoTdAa.. . ohun 8 és 
avTd exet, Tereiv €x TOU Obpavod. The 
image is described by Pliny, xvi. 72: ‘de 


ipso simulacro Dee ambigitur. Czteri ex 
ebeno esse tradunt : Mucianus ter consul 
ex his qui, proxime viso eo, seripsere, viti- 
gineum, et nunquam mutatum, septies re- 
stituto templo.’ 37.] From this verse it 
appears that Paul had proceeded at Ephesus 
with the same caution as at Athens, and 
had not held up to contempt the worship of 
Artemis, any further than unavoidably the 
truths which he preached would render it 
contemptible. This is also manifest from 
his having friends among the Asiarchs, 
ver. 31. Chrysostom, however, treats this 
assertion of the town-clerk merely as a 
device to appease the people : TovTo peddos" 
TavTa ev mpds Toy djjuov. ya 
refers to the mpowerés with which he had 
charged them: ‘and this caution is not 
unneeded,—for ec.’ see Meyer; and 
Herm. as above, on ver. 35. 38. 
G&yopatot| court-days (the grammarians 
distinguish a@yopatos, ‘ cireumforaneus,’ an 
idler in the market, and aydpatos, as in 
our text: so Suidas: but Ammonius vice 
versd: and the distinction is now believed 
to be mere pedantry): and ayovrat im- 
plies that they were then actually going 
on. They were the periodical assizes of 
the district, held by the proconsul and his 
assessors (see below). The Latin phrase 
for @yopalous &yew was conventus agere, 
or peragere, or convocare; cf. Ces. B. G. 
i. 54; v. 1; viii. 46. Hence the district 
itself was called conventus. See Smith’s 
Dict. of Antiquities, art. Conventus. 


ABDI 
HLPR 
bedf 

hkm 

13 


ee I, 2. 


TIPAEREIS, AIIOSTOAON. 221 


89 .2 82 Saget $e fio a 5) ayo v2 es ae 
€l O€ TL Tept * ETEp@V émeCntette, ev TH ” evvop@ Y EKKAN- § 5,ch- xii. 


‘ 
ota “ ériAvOnoertat. 


*“avatpodis Tavrns. 


40 Kai yap * KwvOuvevomer ¥ éyxandeto- ‘Scie 7 
Oat *oTdcews TeEpl Tis * onpepov, pndevos ” aitlov ° brdp- Gi Cor: ix, 21) 
= \ e > a , ra} d2 § a , a See 
xXevTos epi ov [ou] duvycopeba A arodobvas Noyov TAS Neo", 
4 Kat TavTa eitwy ' arédvcey THy *&,<vrOHe 
vili. 7. 10. 
Vv = ver. 32. 


Y €xxAnolav. 


Judith xiv. 6. 


XX. 18 Mera &€ 76 *ratvcacbar Tov  OdpuBov mpos- = he 


Kadecapevos 0 HatAos tods pabntas Kat * rapaxadécas, 
doTacapevos ™ €&fOev TropevOjvac els [TIV] MaxeSoviar. 


1 


only}. (Mark 
iv. 34 only. 
Gen. xli. 12 
only. ~ots, 
2 Pet. i. 20.) 
x ver. 27 reff. 


\ n SS eee eeges 
2° SvehOay S€ Ta ° wépyn exeiva Kal * rapaxanréoas  abrovs 8% 


Zz = Mark xv. 
7. Luke 

xxiii. 19, 25. ch. xxiv. 5. Prov. xvii. 14. a constr., here only. (ch. xx. 26.) b Luke 
xxiii. 4, 14, 22 only+. (-os, Heb. v. 9.) e ch. viii. 16 reff. d Matt. xii. 36. Luke 
xvi. 2. (Rom, xiv. 12.] 1 Pet. iv.5. Dan. vi. 2 Theod. ech. xxiii. 12 only. Amos vii. 10. 

= ch. xiii. 3 reff. g ch. xix. 21 reff. h Judith vi. 1. ich. xxi. 34 reff. < ch. 
xv. 32 reff. 1 = here only. (ch. xviii. 22 reff.) Xen. Anab. vii. 1. 40. m = ch. xy. 40 
reff. n ch. xiii. 6 reff. o ch. xix. 1. p ch. viii. 5 reff. 


39. for wept erepwy, mepaitepwy (seems like a mistake from itacism) a 13. 36: 


mepaitepw B(Tischdf) : wep erepoy E. 


emi(ntertar (itacism?) Ne do. 


ev Tw vouw exkAnoia D1(so, but exxAnoias D? and lat: txt D4). 


40. onuepoy evkadrcio@a cracews undevos atiov ovtos D. 


Tept ov ov duynoopueba 


( perhaps, as Meyer, from a careless repetition of ov: more likely, as Bornemann in 
loc, inserted by those who placed a colon at vrapxovtos and regarded wept. . . TavTns 
as a new member of the sentence) A B(sic: see table) H L(for of, ovy L!) PRbcefgh 
m 0 syrr arm: om ov DE 13. 36 rel vulg coptt Chr-comm (ec Thl-fin. dovvat 
(prob the simple verb was substituted for the compd rather than vice versi: both 
exprr are in ordinary use) Hubdeg Ge-ed Thi-sif: txt ABDEPN 13. 36 rel Chr 


(Ee-ms Thl-fin. 


ins wept bef rns avotp. (consequent on regarding cvatp. as in 


apposn with the preceding gen :—q.d. viz. concerning this ovorp.) ABEN d k m 36. 
40 D-lat Syr arm Thl-fin: om DHLP rel vss Chr Gc Thi-sif. (13 def.) 


Cup. XX. 1. for mposkad., werareuapevos BEX m 13.36. 40 coptt eth-rom Thl-fin : 


peTaoTeiAcquevos a 69. 98-marg 105: txt ADHLP rel Chr ce Thl-sif. 
rec om mapakadecas (see note), with HLP rel Chr 
Cc Thi-sif: ins AB(D)EX a c m 13. 36 copt Thl-fin.—7apakede[v |oas D! ? 


ins ToAAa bef zapar. D. 


om 6 D. 


for 


aor., amoomacauevos D1: kat aor. EX: aomacapevos re D4 acm 36 Thi-fin. 
mopeved 0a (corrn) ABEX 36 Thl-fin: om D 27.662. 105: txt HLP 13(sic) rel Chr Ge 


Thl-sif. 
2. ins mayta bef ta wepy D. 
avtous, xpno| auevo |s(?) D'-gr(txt D2). 


Pliny, H. N. v. 29 fin., mentions Ephesus 
as one of these assize towns. av0- 
Urarto.| there are (such things as) pro- 
consuls: the fit officers before whom to 
bring these causes : a categoric plural. So 
the Commentators generally. But may not 
the ‘ consiliarii’ of the proconsul who were 
his assessors at the ‘ conventus,’ held in the 
provinces, have themselves popularly borne 
the name? We find in Jos. B. J.ii.16. 1, 
that Cestius, the j7yeudy of Syria, on re- 
ceiving an application respecting Florus’s 
conduct at Jerusalem, meta iyeudvwy 
é€BovAevero,—which 7yeudves were his 
assessors, or consiliarii. (See on ch. xxy. 
12, and Smith’s Dict. of Antt., ut supra.) 

éykad. GX. | let them (the plaintiffs 
and defendants) plead against one an- 
other. 39.| ‘Legitimus ccetus est, 
qui a magistratu civitatis convocatur et 
regitur.’ Grot. The art. points out the 


om tnvy BDELXNabceckmo Thi-fin: ins AHP 13 rel Chr Hc Thl-sif. 
exewn D}(txt D'). 


for mapakadeoas 


regularly recurring assembly, of which they 
all knew. 40.] ydép assumes that 
this assembly was an wnlawful one. 
pndevos «.7.A.] There being no ground 
why (i. e. in consequence of which) we 
shail be able to give an account, i.e. ‘no 
ground whereon to build the possibility of 
our giving an account.’ The reading wep) 
ov ov (see digest) seems to involve the sen- 
tence in almost inextricable confusion. To 
read wep) 77s over. r. and take it in 
apposit. with zep) o&, ‘hujus rei, videlicet 
conventus hujus* (Bornemann), is very 
harsh. 

Cuap. XX. 1—XXI.16.] Journey or, 
Patt TO MACEDONIA AND GREECE, AND 
THENCE TO JERUSALEM. 1.| wapa- 
«kadéoas has probably been omitted on ac- 
count of the two participles coming to- 
gether: or perhaps on account of the same 
word occurring again in ver. 2. 2. | 


222 


q ch. xy. 32. 

rch. xv. 33 
“reff. 

8 ch. ix. 24 
reff. 

t ch. xiii. 13 
reff. 

u = Philem. 1 
2 Mace. iv. 
39. constr., 
Luke ix. 55 
v.r. 2 Mz 
xi. 37. 

v constr., ch. 
iii. 12 reff. 


TIPAS EIS AILOZTOAQON. 


XX. 


IRey@ worAAG HAGev eis THVY “EdAadda, 3* roujoas TE 
Lvas Tpeis, yevouévns avtad *ériBoudhs tro tav ‘lov- 
Salwv pédXrovte * avayecOar eis THv Luplayv éyéveTo 
“Umpopuns * ToD “ UTrootpéde dua Maxedovias. 
/ be avuTo y ” a ZA / Ya v6 
3 elmeto b€ avt@® Yaype Tis “Acias Lwratpos Llvppou 
lal > \ lal 
Bepotaios, Oeccadovixéwy Sé "Apictapyos Kat Lexovdveos, 


4X gyp- 


w—chnii2s Kab Daios AepBaios kal Tiyobeos, “Acvavol dé Tuysxos 


reff. 
x here only ft. 

2 Mace. xv. 

2 only. 
y =ch. xi. 5 reff. 
b = here only. Job xxxvi. 2. 


3. for re, 5¢ D 38 E-lat copt. 


kat Tpodimos. 


z ch. ix. 20 reff. 
(see ver. 23.) 


5 Zohror [5é] *poedOovtes » Ewevov mas 


a =ver.13. 2Cor. ix. 5. (ch. xii. 10 al.) Gen. xxxiii. 14. 


for yevou., kat yevnberons D?: x. yevnGers D!-gr. 


emiBovdns bef avrw ABEX ah 13: txt DHLP rel vulg Chr Ge Th 


pedAAwy EB. ayerOar BE. 


rec yvwun, with B?HLP rel syr-mg-gr: txt 


AB'ER 13. 36.—78eanoey avaxOnvat es cupiay evmev Se TO TyYEUMAa aVTw UTUTTpEdeELY 
d1a THS wakedovias D syr-mg(proceeding as D below as far as efcevat). 
4. for cuveimeto Se avtTw axpl, meAAovTOS ovy eterevat avtov mexpt D(comitari eum 


D-lat). 
demid) «th Bede. 


om axpt tns agtas (to conform to follg; cf note) BX 13 vulg(not 
rec om muppov (see note), with HLP rel syrr «th Chr He 


Thi-sif: ins ABDEN a b m o 138. 36. 40 vulg syr-mg coptt arm Thl-fin Orig-int Bede. 


Bepotos X!: Bepuiatos D-gr}(txt D'). 
for acavot, epeorot D (syr-mg) sah. 


doverius D\(and lat: txt D*). 
for Tuxikos, evtuxos D. 


ins o bef de¢Baros A: dovBl_€ |pios 


5. rec om de, with DHLP rel 36 vulg Syr Chr ec Thl-sif: ins ABEX a ¢ 13. 40 syr 


copt Thl-fin. 
euewvoy (but « erased) &. 


Notices of this journey may be found 2 Cor. 
ii. 12, 13; vii. 5,6. He delayed on the 
way some time at Troas, waiting for Titus, 
—broke off his preaching there, though 
prosperous, in distress of mind at his non- 
arrival, 2 Cor. ii. 12, 138,—and sailed for 
Macedonia, where Titus met him, 2 Cor. 
vii. 6. That Epistle was written during it, 
from Macedonia (see 2 Cor. ix. 2, kavx@- 
pat, ‘1 am boasting’). He seems to have 
gone to the confines at least of Illyria, 
Rom. xv. 19. avtovs | The Mace- 
donian brethren: so ch. xvi. 10 al., see 
reff., and Winer, edn. 6, § 22. 3. “EX- 
ada} Achaia, see ch. xix. 21. 3) 
moijoas | This stay was made at Corinth, 
most probably : see 1 Cor. xvi. 6,7: and 
was during the winter, see below on ver. 6. 
During it the Epistle to the Romans was 
written : see Prolegg. to Rom. § iv. 
péedAAovte avayeoGar| This purpose, of 
going from Corinth to Palestine by sea, is 
implied ch. xix. 21, and 1 Cor. xvi. 3—7. 
Tov vrootp.| The genit. is not (as 
Meyer) governed directly by yvéuns, which 
would be more naturally followed by eis 7d 
im.: but denotes the purpose, as in reff. 
4. axptt. Aotas| It is not hereby 
implied that they went no further than to 
Asia : Trophimus (ch. xxi. 29) and Aristar- 
chus (ch. xxvii. 2), and probably others, as 
the bearers of the alms from Macedonia and 
Corinth (1 Cor. xvi. 3, 4), accompanied him 
to Jerusalem, Xaératpos Ilvppov 


mposeAortes (see ver 13) A(?) B1 E-gr HLPN f gk m. 
for nuas, avroy D-gr. 


Bepotatos |] This mention of his father is 
perhaps made to distinguish him (?) from 
Sosipater, who was with Paul at Corinth 
(Rom. xvi. 21). The name Mvfgfov has 
been erased as that of an unknown person, 
and because the mention of the father is 
unusual in the N. T.:—no possible reason 
can be given for its insertion by copyists. 

’*Aptotapyos | See ch. xix. 29; xxvii. 
2; Col. iv. 10; Philem. 24. Secundus is 
altogether unknown. The Gaius here is 
not the Gaius of ch. xix. 29, who was a Ma- 
cedonian. The epithet AepBatos is inserted 
for distinction’s sake. Timotheus was from 
Lystra, which probably gives occasion to 
his being mentioned here in close company 
with Gaius of Derbe. All attempts to join 
AepBatos with Tiudéeos in the construction 
are futile. Timotheus was not of Derbe, see 
ch. xvi. 1,2: and the name Caius (T'dios, 
Gr.) was far too common to create any dif- 
ficulty in there being two, or three (see 
note, ch. xix. 29) companions of Paul so 
ealled. With conjectural emendations of 
the text (AepB8. 5& Tiuod., Kuin., Valck.) 
we have no concern. *Actavol I. 
x. T.}) Tychicus is mentioned. Eph. vi. 21, 
as sent (to Ephesus from Rome) with that 
Epistle. He bore also that to the Colos- 
sians, Col. iv. 7, at the same time. See 
also 2 Tim. iv. 12; Tit.iii. 12. Trophi- 
mus, an Ephesian, was in Jerusalem with 
Paul, ch. xxi. 29: and had been, shortly 
before 2 Tim. was written, left sick at 


ABDE 
HLPR: 
bedfy 
hkmo 

13 


3—7. 


TIIPAEEI> AITOZTOAON, 


223 


év Tpwad«: 6 9) nets dé° eLerevoaper META TAS * Hmepas Tay © ch. xv. 39 


d rip xii. 3 reff. 


*a%uov ard Dirirtwv, kal HOopev Tpos avTods els ores 


TIv Tpwdda * &ype mpepav mévte, ov ' duetpixrapev nue pas 
7°Ev 8é & 7H pods Tav ®caBBatov * ouvnrywevery rch, xii. 1 


ec / 
eT TQ. 


Luke iv. 13. 
Rom. i. 13 al, 
2 Pras xiv. 


nuav ‘kNacat aptov, 6 IlatdXos * dueNéyero. avtois MéA- ei uke xxiv. 


xx. 1 (19. 
ch. ii. 46 reff. 


Mark xvi. 2. 
k ch. xvii. 2 reff. 


6. om tnv D. 


40.187: kate: 
7. for de, re D Syr eth. 


1 Cor. xvi. 2). see ch. xiii. 14 reff. 


rec axpis, with H rel: aro EX 13: 
d Thl-sif.—for axpt nucpwy mevre, meumtaio D. 
ev» kat D: txt BHLP rel 36 Chr &c Thl. 
om t™77 Ek. 


1. John 
h ch. iv. 5 reff. constr., ch. xiii. 44 reff. 


infra E-lat: txt ABLP 
for ov, orov AEN 13: ov Kat 


aft wia ins tpwrn D-gr. 


rec for nuwy, Tay uadntwy (alteration to suit avtois—see note), with HLP rel Bas Ge 
Thl-sif: txt ABDER a! ¢ 13. 36. 40 vulg syrr copt 2th arm Chr, Thl-fin Aug. 
rec ins tov bef kAaca, with D Ge Thl- fin: om ABEHLP® 13 rel Chr, Thl ae 


Miletus. (See Prolegg. to 2 Tim. § i. 5.) 
5. ovtot| The persons mentioned in 
ver. 4: not only Tychicus and Trophimus. 
The mention of Timotheus in this list, dis- 
tinguished from judas, has created an insu- 
perable difficulty to those who suppose Ti- 
motheus himself to be the narrator of what 
follows: which certainly cannot be got over 
(as De Wette) by supposing that Timotheus 
might have inserted himself in the list, and 
then tacitly excepted himself by the judas 
afterwards. The truth is apparent here, as 
well as before, ch. xvi. 10 (where see note), 
that the anonymous narrator was in very 
intimate connexion with Paul; and on this 
occasion we find him remaining with him 
when the rest went forward. arpoehO. 
x.T.A.] For what reason, is not said: but 
we may well conceive, that if they bore the 
contributions of the churches, a better op- 
portunity, or safer ship, may have deter- 
mined Paul to send them on, he himself 
having work to do at Philippi: or perhaps, 
again, as Meyer suggests, Paul may have 
yemained behind to “keep the days of un- 
leavened bread. But then why should not 
they have remained too ? The same motive 
may not have operated with them: but in 
that case no reason can be given why they 
should have been sent on, except as above. 
It is not impossible that both may have 
been combined :—before the end of the days 
of unleavened bread, a favourable oppor- 
tunity occurs of sailing to Troas, of which 
they, with their charge, avail themselves: 
Paul and Luke waiting till the end of the 
feast, and taking the risk of a less desirable 
conveyance. T hat the feast had something 
to do with it, the mention of wera r. 7. T. 
a¢. seems to imply: such notices being not 
inserted ordinarily by Luke for the sake of 
dates. The assumption made by some (see, 
e. g. Mr. Lewin, p. 587), that the rest of 
the company sailed at once for Troas from 
Corinth, while Paul and Luke went by land 
to Philippi, is inconsistent with ouvetaero, 


ver. 4. From the notice here, we learn 
that Paul’s stay in Europe on this occasion 
was about three-quarters of a year: viz. 
from shortly after Pentecost, when he left 
Ephesus (see on ch. xix. 10), to the next 
Easter. 6. Gpx. Hp. wévre] in five 
days, see reff. The wind must have been 
adverse: for the voyage from Troas to 
Philippi (Neapolis) in ch. xvi. 11, seems to 
have been made in ¢wo days, It appears 
that they arrived on a ee Com- 
pare notes, 2 Cor. ii. 12, ff. 7. ev TH 
pid t. caBB.] We have here an intimation 
of the continuance of the practice, which 
seems to have begun immediately after the 
Resurrection (see John xx. 26), of as- 
sembling on the first day of the week for 
religious purposes. (Tustin Martyr, Apol. 
re 67, p- 83, Says, TH TOU nAlov Acyouevn 
MEPS TAYT@OY KaTe modes } a aypobs pevdv~ 
Twv em. TO avTd TuVEeAEVOLS ylveTat. Per- 
haps the greatest proof of all, that this day 
was thus observed, may be found in the 
early (see 1 Cor. xvi. 2) and at length 
general prevalence, in the Gentile world, 
of the Jewish seven-day period as a divi- 
sion of time,—which was entirely foreign 
to Gentile habits. It can only have been 
introduced as following on the practice of 
especial honour paid to this day. But we 
find in the Christian Scriptures no trace 
of any sabbatical observance of this or any 
day: nay, in Rom. xiv. 5 (where see note), 
Paul shews the untenableness of any such 
view under the Christian dispensation. 
The idea of the transference of the Jewish 
sabbath from the seventh day to the first 
was an invention of later times. 
KAdoat dptov| See note on ch. ii. 42. 
The breaking of bread in the Holy Com- 
munion was at this time inseparable from 
the ayaa. It took place apparently in 
the evening (after the day’s work was 
ended), and at the end of the assembly, 
after the pr eaching of the word (ver. 11). 
avrots, in the third person, the dis- 


224 


l ch. xiii. 42 
reff. 

m ch. x. 9 reff. 

n here only. 
Gen. xlix. 13. 
Num. xxiii. 
28. Ps. 
xxxy. 10 
only. TO- 
govuTov 
TaparetvEew 
xpovor, 
Jos. Antt. i. 
3. 9. mn 

) of time, Matt. TOU 


23. ch. 


x. 30. 
1 Tim. vi. l4 al. Ps. civ. 19. 
xxv. 1,&c. John xviii. 3. 
s ch. i. 13 reff. Acts only, 
only. L. Zech. ii. 4. 


Rey. iv. 4. viii. 10 only. 
t ver. 7 al. 
w 2 Cor. xi. 33 only. 


ITPAZ EIS ATOZTOAON. 


SUrepow ob aucv *ouvnypévot. 
Vv v > / ” b] \ a WwW fa) 5 x 

veavias ovomate Kuvruyos émt Tis uploos, * KaTa- 
hepopevos Umvm Y Babel, 
“él mrelov, * KaTeveyOels 
°rpistéyou KaTw Kai *7pOn veKpos. 


p Mark xiii. 35. Luke xi. 5. ch. xvi. 25 only. Judg. xvi. 3. 
Gen. xy. 17. 


Josh. ii. 15, 18. x 


XX. 


nr id 
Nov 'éEévas ™tH €rratvptov, ™TapéTewev TE TOV NOyov 
‘ ’ 
© wéypt P wecovuKtiou: 8 Hoav Sé€ “Naptrabes * iKaval év TO 
wéxpe Py i yp 


9" Kabefouevos O€ TIS 


* Svadeyouévou tov Llavdou 
avo Tov Umvou éTecev aTrO 
10 © KaTraBas 


b 


q Matt. 
r Luke xxiii. 9 al. 1 Macc. xv. 26. 

v ch. vii. 58. xxiii. 17 
here bis (ch. xxv. 7. xxvi. 10) 


uch, vi. 15 reff. 


only}. Ps. lxxv.7 Aq. Dan. y.20 Theod. Herodian i. 11, of the ayaAua Scometés,—e& ovpavov KarevexOnvar 


Aoyos. (katahopa Aq., Gen. ii, 21. xv. 12.) 
xxii. 7. z ver. 7. absol., ch. xviii. 4 reff. 
only+. Symm., Gen. vi. 16. Ezek. xlii. 6. 

vi. 29. 1 Macc. ix. 19. 


om te D gr. bexpis P. 
acule D. 


8. vroAaurades fi 


ouvnymevor Eh. 


oToat TpioTeyot, Dion. Hal. Antt. iii. 68. 
e = Matt. xxiv. 17. ch. x. 20, 21. i i 


y Luke xxiv. 1 (Johniv. 11. Rev. ii. 24) only. Sir. 
ach. iv. 17 reff. b =ch. xii. 14 reff. c here 
d = Mark 


1 Kings ix. 27. Xen, Cyr. i. 4, 8. 


rec for nuev, noay (see above on nuwy, ver 7), 
with ¢ k: txt ABDEHLP® 13. 36 rel vulg syrr sah arm Chr Thl-fin. 


om 


9. rec KaOnuevos (corrn to more usual form), with HLP rel Chr Ge Thi: txt ABDEX 


a 13. 36. om veavias E. 
om tov bef ravaAov D. 


nat follg, E. kat os npOn D}-gr. 


course being addressed to the disciples at 
Troas: but the first person is used before 
and after, because all were assembled, and 
partook of the breaking of bread together. 
Not observing this, the copyists have altered 
jpav above into Tay mabnTay, and 7jev into 
joav, to suit avrots. 8. Aapwdd. ix. | 
This may be noticed, as Meyer observes, to 
shew that the fall of the young man could 
be well observed: or, perhaps, because many 
lights are apt to increase drowsiness at such 
times. Calvin and Bengel suppose,—in 
order that all suspicion might be removed 
from the assembly (‘ ut omnis abesset  sus- 
picio scandali,’ Beng.) ; Kuin. and partly 
Meyer,—that the lights were used for so- 
lemnity’s sake,—for that both Jews and 
Gentiles celebrated their festal days by 
abundance of lights. But surely the adop- 
tion of either Jewish or Gentile practices of 
this kind in the Christian assemblies was 
very improbable. 9.| Who Eutychus 
was, is quite uncertain. The occurrence of 
the name as belonging to slaves and freed- 
men (Rosenm. and Heinrichs, from inserip- 
tions), determines nothing. émt THs 
@vpiSos | On the window-seat. The win- 
dows in the East were (and are) without 
glass, and with or without shutters. 

katadepopevos Uv. | Wetstein gives many 
instances of the use of karapépouat, either 
absolute, or with eis &rvov, signifying ‘ fo 
be oppressed with, borne down towards, 
sleep” Thus Aristotle, de somn. et vig. 
iii. p. 456. b. 31, ed. Bekk.: 7a dmvwrika 


emt TN Oupid: KaTeXouevos uTvw Baper D. 


for aro, uro DH bo 40 Chr e-ed. 


TEeTwV, OME 


... TavTa... KapnBaplay ... more... 
kal katadepdpevor Kal vuoraCovtes TodTO 
doxovow macxew, Kal aduvarovow aipew 
Thy Keparry Kat Ta BAephapa: and Diod. 
Sic. iii. 57, kateveyOetoay cis trvoy ideiv 
éyw. I believe the word is used here and 
below iz the same sense, not, as usually in- 
terpreted, here of the effect of sleep, and 
below of the fall caused by the sleep. It 
implies that relaxation of the system, and 
collapse of the muscular power, which is 
more or less indicated by our expressions 
‘falling asleep,’ ‘dropping asleep. This 
effect is being produced when the first 
participle is used, which is therefore im- 
perfect,—but as Paul was going on long 
discoursing, took complete possession of 
him, and, having been overpowered,— 
entirely relaxed in consequence of the 
sleep, he fell. In the 4pOn vexpos 
here, there is a direct assertion, which can 
hardly be evaded by explaining it, ‘was 
taken up for dead,’ as De Wette, Olsh. ;— 
or by saying that it expresses the judgment 
of those who took him up, as Meyer. It 
seems to me, that the supposition of a 
mere suspended animation is as absurd 
here as in the miracle of Jairus’s daughter, 
Luke viii. 41—56. Let us take the narra- 
tive as it stands. The youth falls, and 
is taken up dead: so much is plainly 
asserted. (First, let it be remembered 
that Luke, a physician, was present, who 
could have at once pronounced on the 
fact.) Paul, not a physician, but an 


ABDI 


HLPS 


bedf; 
hkm-: 


13 


——— 


8—14. 


TIPARETS AIITOSTOAQON. 


225 


, fal > 
dé 0 Ilatinos ‘ érrérrecev ad’T@ Kal ® ouprepiiaBew elarep f= ver.31. (ch. 


llLigvaBas &€ Kal 
> ah 3 / 
még’ iKavov TE 


ar 16 reff.) 
Esth. vii. 8. 


~My * GopuBeiabe: eg troy) auTov év eure éoTu. g here only. 
KkNaoas TOV apTov Kal 
" Ouidnoas aypt °avyhs, PovTws 4 efi Oev. 
Rt hyayov o€ Tov Taida FavTa, Kai * 


Ezek v. 

only. 
h ch. xvii. 5 
reff. 
= ch. xv. 26 
sr 4) t reff. 

q (ox ch. viii. 31. 

Te Res i ‘, aun ov} k ch. ii. 46 reff. 


1 yeuoapevos, 


tal \ , \ 
tt wetpiws. 18 nuels Sé YarpoedOovtes ért TO Thotov';.gh* 
/ n t > m here only. 
WavnyOnuev eri tHhv “Accor, éxeifev * wédovtes Y ava- “2M: tees i. 
\ x \ , > 25. see uke 
AapBavew tov Iladd\ov. obtws yap 7 dsateTaypévos Ay, , Xi 5 
\ s € \ , con 14,15. ch. 
Xuédrov autos *meleverv. las dé cuvéBarrev aHuiy  xxiv.2° 
only. Proy. 
xxiii. 30. ohere only. Isa. lix.9. 2 Mace. _ xii. 9 only. p = John iv. 6. ch. 
xxvii. 17. see Heb. vi. 15. q= ch. xv. 40 reff r Luke x. 34al. 1 Kings xy. 20. 


s = Matt. ii. 18. v.4. Luke xvi. 25. 
_ only, ( era Sir. xxxiv. [xxxi-] 20. 

ves sit 
vii. 17. xi. 34. L.P., exc. Matt. xi. 1. 


10. 


Gen. xxiv. 67. 

Xen. Mem. iv. 1, 1.) 
y = here bis. ch. xxiii. 31. 
1 Chron. ix. 33. 
n oTpatia, Xen. Anab. y. 5. 4. (-¢, Mark vi. 33.) 


aft ememecey ins er c 106: emeoev em D. 
C: cuumapardaBwy ck 40.105: add avrov a 36. 


t age oat fe u 2 Macc. xv. 38 
w ch. xiii. 13 reff. 
2 Tim. iy. 11 only. Mah i. g vii. 43.) z 1 Cor. 
a here only+. pLexpis evtavda éemeCevoev 


b = here only. (ch. xyii. 18 reff.) 


ovupmepiBarwy C!, and add avrov 
ins kat bef evrev D!-gr. 


11. rec om tov (the force of the art being overlooked, —see note), with D?EHLPN§ 


rel Chr Ge Thl-sif: 


ins ABCD! 13 Thl-fin. 
[axpt, so ABIC2EX Cc-ed Thl-sif.] 


for re, 5¢ D-gr E-gr Thl-sif. 
autns &). 


12. for nyayov Se tov mada, D has aoraComevwy Se avTwy nyayev Tov veaviokoy. 


18. mposedd. (see ver 5) ABLEHP f gh k m o Chr Thi-sif: katead. D Syr. 


for Ist em, ess Dd 138. 

sif: txt ABCEN 13. 40 Thl-fin. 
ver 14) 73-6-8. 99. 100-1 syrr sah: 
ver 14. 


rec (for 2nd em) es, with DHLP rel 36 Chr ec Thl- 

for accoy, Oacoyv, or Pacocov LP o(but not in 
acoy b' f k 18. 106 eth: 
rec nv bef diaterarymevos (jv diar. is St. Luke’s habit almost uniformly, 


vagoy 15-8. 36, and so in 


but it is not the habit of the great uss to alter this order), with DHLP rel Chr He 


Thi: evteraduevos nv C 15. 36. 180: txt ABEN am 13. 


autos EH. 


14. om de Cl(app 


for Ist ers, ews XN}. 


Apostle,—gifted, not with medical discern- 
ment, but with miraculous power, goes 
down to him, falls on him and embraces 
him,—a strange proceeding for one bent on 
discovering suspended animation, but not 
so for one who bore in mind the action 
of Elijah (1 Kings xvii. 21) and Elisha 
(2 Kings iv. 34), each time over a dead 
body,—and having done this, not before, 
bids them not to be troubled, for his life 
was in him. I would ask any unbiassed 
reader, taking these details into considera- 
tion, which of the two is the natural in- 
terpretation,—and whether there can be 
any reasonable doubt that the intent of 
Luke is to relate a miracle of raising 
the dead, and that he mentions the falling 
on and embracing him as the outward 
significant means taken by the Apostle to 
that end P 11.] The intended break- 
ing of bread had been put off by the acci- 
dent. Tov Gpt., as ch. ii. 42. Were 
it not for that usage, the article here might 
import, ‘the bread which it was intended 
to break,’ alluding to apr. above. 

yevodpevos | having made a meal, see 

Vot. II. 


ins ws bef weAAwy D 36. 


rec cuveBuadev (alteration to historic aorist as so freq), 
with CDHL rel 30 vulg E-lat Chr @e Thi: cvveBaddov X?: 


txt AB E-gr PX? 40. 


reff. The agape was a veritable meal. Not 
‘having tasted it, viz. the bread which he 
had broken ;—though that is implied, usage 
decides for the other meaning. ovTas | 
‘ After so doing: see reff. 12.] As 
in the raising of Jairus’s daughter, our 
Lord commanded that something should 
be given her to eat, that nature might 
be recruited, so doubtless here rest and 
treatment were necessary, in order that 
the restored life might be confirmed, 
and the shock recovered. The time in- 
dicated by atyh must have been before 
or about 5 A.M.: which would allow 
about four hours since the miracle. We 
have here a minute but interesting touch 
of truth in the narrative. Paul, we learn 
afterwards, ver. 13, intended to go 
afoot. And accordingly here we have 
it simply related that he started away 
from Troas before his companions, not 
remaining for the reintroduction of the 
now recovered Eutychus in ver. 12. 

13, *Agoov| A sea-port (also called Apol- 
lonia, Plin. v. 32) in Mysia or Troas, oppo- 
site to Lesbos, twenty-four Roman miles 


226 TIPAZEIS AITOSTOAQN. XX. 


Ceis tTHv "Acaov, ¥ avadaBovtes avtov HAOopev eis Mutv- 


c ch. viii. 40 


reff. 
deh xi 4 — Lapymv, 15 eaxeiOev “ aromdevcavtes TH © emrioven ' KaTHV- 
e ch. xvi. 11 / > , fl ‘ ; , 
ait. THOapeEv FavTixpys Xiov. TH 5é€ *érépa ‘ wapeBadopev 
SS herdipulea eee 2 \ s » TT We - k2 L 
nreonlyt- eug Lam“ov, Kal pewwavTes ev lLpwyvrAlm TH *~ Eyouevn 
26 Symm. > AT \ ia re 
Teal. Bowen els Midntov. 1°! Kexpixer yap 0 [LatXos ™ trapa- 
3. Xer = Q rn \ ” ¢ \ on / > n oO 
3. Xen. Cyr arepTaL THY Edecov, oTws pn "YEvNnTAL aVT@ ° Xpovo- 
i= here (Mark a > an aN fa p 2x 8 / > 8 ‘ ” 
iv. 90 re.) Tpibnoar ev TH ola E€OTTEVOEV Yap, EL OUVaTOV EN 
mty + > fal \ c / n a y ) 
a auT@, THY NmEepav THS ImTEvTHKOTTHS * yevétOar * eis 
apa- c , , \ \ rn / , 
mee Iepocodupa. 17’ Aro O€ THs Mudijrov mréuapas eis "Ede- 
Thueyd. iii. a 
ge, (Prov. OV t wereKadécato Tovs m™ pea Butépous THs * éxxAno las. 
k = Mark i. 38. Luke xiii. 33. ch. xiii. 44, xxi. 26. Heb. vi. 9 only. 2 Mace. xii. 39. 1= ch. xv. 19 reff, 


m here only t. Xen. Anab. vi. 2. 1. n Matt. xviii. 13. Gal. vi. 14. Gen. xliv. 7, 17. o here 


only +. ot & avOpwrot tots SurAots xpOvrat Tay avaevupov F kK. 0 Adyos evVavVGeTOs, olov Td xpovotpe- 

Betv, Aristot. Rhet. iii. 3. p Luke ii. 16. xix. 5,6. ch. xxii. 18. 2 Pet. iii. 12 only, 2 Chron. x. 18. 
q ch. ii. 1 reff. r = Matt. xxvi.6. Luke x. 32. xxii. 40 al. s Luke iy. 23. ch, xxi. 17. xxv. 15. 
t ch. vii. 14 reff. u James y. 14 only. (see ch. xiv. 23.) y ch. xi. 30 reff. 


15. Kat exeibev E. rec aytikpu (corrn), with B2HP rel: txt AB!'CDELR® 13. 
36. 40 Thi-fin. for erepa, eomepa B 15-9. 73. mapeAaBouey D}-or(txt 
D4). om Kat peivayTes ev TpwyvAtw, and aft 77 ins be ABCEN 13 vulg: txt (the 
occasion of the omn has probably been, that Trogylium is not in Samos, which at first 
sight the text appeared to imply) DHLP rel 36 syrr sah Chr Ee Thl.—ree tpwyvAhio, 
with HP rel 36: txt (D)L h mo (cf gk) Syr sah Chr Cc Thl-fin, tpwyvAra D-gr, 
Trogylio D-lat. epxouevn D' a m 951-6. 142. 

16. rec expwve (an ecclesiastical portion begins at ver 16, which has occasioned the 
alteration of the pluperf into the independent historic aor), with C3HLP rel Chr Ge 


Thl-sif: txt ABC! DEX a 13. 36 vulg. 


for orws wn yevnTtat avTw xpovoTpiBnoa, 


pnrote yevnOn avtw Katacxeois Tis ut non contingeret ei morandi quis D. 
rec (for em) nv, with LP rel 40 Chr @c Thi: txt (ut looks like a gramml corrn) 


ABCER a 13. 36.—om e: duvatoy erm DH eth-rem. 
tepoucaAnu AEX ac 13. 40: txt BCDHLP rel 36 Chr. 


om Tous FE. 


for evs, ev D}(txt D*). 
17. wetereupato D. 


(Peutinger Table) from Troas, built on a 
high cliff above the sea, with a descent so 
precipitous as to have prompted a pun of 
Stratonicus, the musician (see Athen. viii., 
p- 352), on a line of Homer, Il. ¢. 143, 
“Aacaov 10, &s kev Saaoov dA€Opov Telpal” 
dknat. Strab. xiii. 1, p. 126, Tauchn. 
Paul’s reason is not given for 
wishing to be alone: probably he had 
some apostolic visit to make. 14. 
MutvAnvyv | The capital of Lesbos, on the 
E. coast of the island, famed (Hor. Od. i. 7. 
1: Epist. i. 11. 17) for its beautiful situa- 
tion. It had two harbours: the northern, 
into which their ship would sail, was wéyas 
xk. Badds, xduatt oremaCduevos, Strabo, 
xiii. 2, p. 137. 15. wapeBad.| we 
put in: so Charon, in the Frogs, to his 
boatman, @dé7, mapaBadov, 180; and 271, 
mapaBadovd TG kwriw: see many examples 
in Wetst. Then they made a short run in 
the evening to Trogylium, a cape and town 
on the Ionian coast, only forty stadia dis- 
tant, where they spent the night. He had 
passed in front of the bay of Ephesus, and 
was now but a short distance from it. 
Midntov] The ancient capital of Ionia 
(Herod. i.142). See 2 Tim. iv. 20, and note. 


ers THY Quepay D: tn nuepa H. 


16. kexpixer] We see here that the 
ship was at Paul’s disposal, and probably 
hired at Philippi, or rather at Neapolis, for 
the voyage to Patara (ch. xxi. 1), where he 
and his company embark in a merchant 
vessel, going to Tyre. The separation of 
Pauland Lukefrom the rest atthe beginning 
of the voyage may have been in some way 
connected with the hiring or outfit of this 
vessel. The expression kexpixet (or Expive, 
which will amount to the same thing, only 
it must not be taken ‘for the pluperfect,’ 
here or any where else) is too subjectively 
strong to allow of our supposing that the 
Apostle merely followed the previously de- 
termined course of a ship in which he took 
a passage. mapamA. tT. “Ed.] He 
may have been afraid of detention there, 
owing to the machinations of those who 
had caused the uproar in ch. xix. F. M., 
in his notes, gives another reason: “ He 
seems to have feared that, had he run up 
the long gulf to Ephesus, he might be de- 
tained in it by the westerly winds, which 
blow long, especially in the spring.” But 
these would affect him nearly as much 
at Miletus. 17.] The distance from 
Miletus to Ephesus is about thirty miles. 


1 nAo- 
HEV. 
ABC 
HLPS 
bedf 
hk 
0 13 


15—20. IIPAZ EIS ATIOSTOAON. 227 


1S @s de “ mapeyévovto W mpos adrov, elrrév adrois “Tyelg v Matt ii. 
éemictacbe, Yard mpwrns nucpas Yad As *éwéBnv eis 3 fal 
Thy Aciav,* ras we tuav Tov TavTa x povov * éyevounv, x thx. 50 rel 
19> Sovhevav TO Kupio © peta “raons © Tarrewodpoctyys , a 


\ 8 \ f a a , > only? see 
Kab AKPU@V Kab TTELPAG [LOY TwV & ou PavT@v ot €Y ch. xxiv. 11. 

rm es = - = , 20 <2 ARS ie Zz ate eg cl 
tais "émiBovrais tav “lovdaiwv, 29 as ovdéy ivmeoter- x, , 
xxv. 1. (xxvii. 
= (see note) Paul 
e ch. xvii. 11 reff. 


2 reff.) Josh. xiv. 9. a = Mark v. 16. ch. ix. 27. 
(Rom. vii. (6) 25 al5.) only, exc. Matt. vi. 24. Luke xvi. 13. Ps. ii. 11. 


d (‘all possible’) ch. iv. 29. xxiii.1. Rom.i.29. Eph.i.3. 2 Pet.i.5. Jude 3 al. e Eph. 
iy.2, Phil. ii. 3. Col. ii. 18, 23. iii. 12. Paul only, exc.1 Pet.v.5+. (-pwy, 1 Pet. iii. 8. -bpovecv, 
Ps. cxxx. 2.) f = Luke xxii. 28. Gal.iv.l4al. Deut. iv. 34. g ch. iil. 10 reff. 
h ch. ix. 24 reff. iver. 27. Gal. ii. 12. Heb. x. 38 only$. Diod. Sic. xiii. 70, et¢ 70 Aourov 6 


Kvpos éxéAevoev aitety, undév drogreAAOwevov. So Jos. B. J.i. 20.1. 


18. for mapeyevovro, exxAnpuvoyto E-gr. aft avrov ins omov ovtwy avtwy A: 
ouore ovT. avt. D*(ouwo eovrwy D') 40-marg: ouodvuadoy E73: et simul essent vulg 
(interpolations for particularity): om BCHLPX® rel 36 Chr ec Thl. for avTots, 
mpos avtous D}(mp. avtors D#). aft emiataode ins adeApa: D: pref 5. 8. 73 sah. 

for ap, ep D1(txt D+): om h 38. 93. for ers, em E. for ws to 
eyevounv, D has ws rpietiay 1 kat TAELOY ToTaTws MeO VYUwWY NY TavTOsS xpovov: D-corr 
has mws for rotanws, D*(?) tov mayta xpovoy, and D® adds eyevouny: fui per omni 
tempore D-lat. 

19. aft cupiw add weO vuwy C ¢ 15-8. 36 Chr-txt. rec ins toAAwy bef Saxp. 
(prob interpolation: see 2 Cor ii. 4), with CHLP rel 36 wth-rom arm Chr Cc Thi: 
aft syr: om ABDE® 13. 40 vulg Syr copt sah eth-pl Lucif. ouuBawovtwy C. 


He probably, therefore, stayed three or 
four days altogether at Miletus. TOUS 
apeoB.} called, ver. 28, émicxdmovs. This 
circumstance began very early to con- 
tradict the growing views of the apostolic 
institution and necessity of prelatical epis- 
copacy. Thus Irenzus, iii. 14. 2, p. 201: 
‘In Mileto convocatis episcopis et presby- 
teris, qui erant ab Epheso et a@ reliquis 
proximis civitatibus. Here wesee (1) the 
two, bishops and presbyters, distinguished, 
as if both were sent for, in order that the 
titles might not seem to belong to the same 
persons,—and (2) other neighbouring 
churches also brought in, in order that 
there might not seem to be émicxorot in 
one church only. That neither of these was 
the case, is clearly shewn by the plain words 
of this verse: he sent to Ephesus, and sum- 
moned the elders of the church (see below 
on 8:7A Gor, ver. 25). So early did interested 
and disingenuous interpretations begin to 
cloud the light which Scripture might have 
thrown on ecclesiastical questions. The 
E. V. has hardly dealt fairly in this case 
with the sacred text, in rendering ém- 
oxdémous, ver. 28, ‘overseers ;? whereas it 
ought there as in all other places to have 
been bishops, that the fact of elders and 
bishops having been originally and aposto- 
lically synonymous might be apparent to 
the ordinary English reader, which now it 
is not. 18.]| The evidence furnished 
by this speech as to the literal report in the 
Acts of the words spoken by Paul, is most 
important. Itis a treasure-house of words, 


Q 2 


idioms, and sentiments, peculiarly belong- 
ing to the Apostle himself. Many of these 
appear in the reff., but many more lie 
beneath the surface, and can only be dis- 
covered by a continuous and verbal study 
of his Epistles. I shall point out such in- 
stances of parallelism as I have observed, 
in the notes. | The contents of the speech 
may be thus given: He reminds the elders 
of his conduct among them (vv. 18—21) : 
announces to them his final separation 
Srom them (vv. 22—25): and commends 
earnestly to them the flock committed to 
their charge, for which he himself had by 
word and work disinterestedly laboured 
(vv.26—35). amd mp. Hp. ] These words 
hold a middle place, partly with éricracde, 
partly with éyevdunv. The knowledge on 
their part was coextensive with his whole 
stay among them: so that we may take the 
words with éricracde, at the same time 
carrying on their sense to what follows. 

ped” dp. éyev.] So 1 Thess. i. 5, 
otdare ofot eyevhOnuev év suiv,—ii. 10, 
iu. udptupes.. . ws dolws . . . buiv Tors 
miotevovow eyevnOnuev. See 1 Cor. ix. 
20, 22. 19. SovAedwv Te kup.] With 
the sole exception of the assertion of our 
Lord, ‘Ye cannot serve God and mammon,’ 
reff. Matt., Luke, the verb SovAedw for 
‘serving God’ is used by Paul only, and 
by him seven times, viz. besides reff., 
Rom. xii. 11; xiv. 18; xvi.18; Col. iii. 24; 
1 Thess. i. 9. pet. 7. tam.| Also a 
Pauline expression, 2 Cor. viii. 7; xii. 12. 
metpacpav] See especially Gal. 


228 


k part., 1 Cor. 
xii. 7. Heb. 
(vii. 35. x. 

33 v. r.) xii- 
10 only. 
Deut. xxiii. 6. 

l constr., ch. 
xiv. 18 reff. 

m John iv, 
25. xvi. 13, 
&c. ver. 27. 

1 Pet. i. 12. 
Deut. xxiv. 8. 

n ch, xvi. 37 
reff, 

o = Matt. xxiv. 
7 \\. (ch. xiv. 
23. 11. 46 
reff.) 

p ch. viii. 25 b s 
reff. [EVOUOLD. 

q ch. xi. 18 reff. 

r = ch. xxiv. 24 reff. s ch. xiii. 11. 

1, 12. u = ch. xvii. 16 reff. 


only. Amos ix. 8. x ch. xv. 21 (36). 

iv. 17,18. Rey. iv. 8. xix. 14 al. Winer, edn. 6, ¢ 59. 4. 
reff. b see ver. 5. 

xy. 26 reff. 


20. tw cuudepovtwy bef vmecre:Aapny C. 
Kat o.kous Kat Onuoowa D. 
21. d:auaptupauevos H m Bas-ms Thl-sif: -povevos D!. 


Thl-sif Lucif Jer. 


TIPAZEIS ATOZTOAON. 


c = and constr., here only. 


XX. 


, lal k , 1 lal \ m JZ tal cA \ 
Adpnv Tov * cuppepovt@y | Tod wn ™ avaryryeidhar piv Kat 
d16a buas ™Snuocia Kal °Kat ol. 216 
dakar bas “onwooia Kal °KaT oiKous, vapaptv- 

cd \ > ‘ , 

popevos “lovdaious te kal “EAAnow thy eis Oeov 4 peTa- 
\ , lal > fal 

vouay Kat * wictw * eis Tov KuUptoyv nuov Inaodr. 

22 Sxal pov 8 idov ' Sedeuévos eyw TO “ TEV evomat 
Kal vov * toov ' dedeuévos yw TE VEevLAaTL TrOpEvoua 

4 x > > iol , / \ 

eis ‘lepovoadyp, Ta €v avTh YovvayTicovTa pou pn 

ci rn \ ce 

cidws, 23% arAny bre TO TVEdMa TO &yov *KaTa * TrOdW 

P Svapaptupetai pot Y Aéywv OTe * Seopa Kal *Orbpew pe 

24 GAN oddevds © AOdyou © ToLodpmat THY 4“ ypuynV 

there only. Seden. iaxuporepa avayxy, Xen. Cyr. viii. 


v = here only. 
Tit. 1216; 


Eccl. ii. 14. ix. 11. (ch. x. 25 reff.) 
y masc., Mark ix. 26, 

z ch, xvi. 26 reff. 
see Job xiv. 3. 


w = here 
1 Cor. xii. 2.. Eph. 
ach. xi. 19 


xxii. 4. d ch. 


om un D Lucif. om vuas D 


rec ins tov bef @eov 


corrn for uniformity), with ADHLP 13. 36 rel Bas-ms (ec Thl-fin: om BCEX dh k 


Bas Chr Thl-sif. 


also D, which reads 61a tov Kuptov nu. ino. XP. 
ina. ins xpiatov (common addn), with ACDER® 13. 36 rel 


aft mor ins Tnv EHLP rel Bas Chr Gc Thi: om ABCR a 13. 36 ; 


om nuwy KE. rec aft 
Syr copt eth-pl Chr Thl-fin : 


om BHLP b eg hsyr sah eth-rom Bas (He Thl-sif Lucif. 
22. rec eyw bef dedeuevos, with DHLP rel am Chr Epiph: txt (characteristic order) 


ABCERX a k 13 vulg Ath-mss Thl-fin. 
originally a mistake) A D-gr E-gr 


cdws, yiwwworwy D. 


23. ro ay. mv. D-gr: To my. wor To ay. ¢ 47. 137 Epiph Chr. 
ins macay bef roAw D vulg Syr eth Lucif. 
rec om pot (as unnecessary ?), with HLP rel xth-rom Ce Thl-sif: 


EK. 
Ath-mss,. 


tepocoAuua D. ovvavTnoayta (prob 


H m 13: cvpBnoopeva (gloss) C a 15. 36. 68-9. 180 
lect-12 Ath-mss, Thl-fin: txt BLPN rel vss Ath Chr Cc, 


evo. BR}. for 


om Kata mwoAlv 
diewaptupato AENS 13. 40 


ins ABCDEX a b deh m 13. 36. 40 vulg syrr copt «th-pl arm Ath Cyr-jer, Bas Thl- 
fin Lucif Jer. rec Aeyov, with A B(sic: see table) CX rel: txt DEHLP 13 f (k?) 
1! m 36 Epiph. rec pe bef cat OAuvers (alteration perhaps to avoid peuevovew), 
with LP rel Thdrt (ie Thl-fin: we aft wevovow vss, so D(but for we, wor): txt ABCEHR 
ac k 13. 40 vulg arm Cyr-jer Bas Did Chr Thl-sif. at end add ev tepocoAvuas D 
vulg(not demid) syr-w-ast sah Lucif. 

24. rec Aoyov, with AD!EHLPN? 13 rel 40: txt BCD'‘N! sah eth arm. rec 
aft movovat ins ovde exw, with EHLP rel 36: ins exw ovde bef mocoumar ANS 13, 40, exw 
pot ovde D}: on BCD4N! vulg Syr sah eth arm. rec aft thy Wuxny ins pou, with 


iv. 14. 20. treoterAdpynv | So again 
ver. 27. The sense in Gal. ii. 12 is similar, 
though not exactly identical—‘ reserved 
himself,’ withdrew himself from any open 
declaration of sentiments. In Heb. x. 38 
it is different. Tov cupdep. | See reff. 

21. els 0....€is 7. Kp. I. | This use 
of eis is mostly Pauline: and in ch. xxiv. 24 
it seems to be taken from his own expres- 
sion. 22. SeSepévos TH mwvevpate | 
bound in my spirit. ‘This interpretation 
is most probable, both from the construc. 
tion, and from the usage of the expression 
7» mvedua repeatedly by and of Paul in 
the sense of his own spirit. See ch. reff., 
where the principal instances are given. 
The dative, as here, is found Rom. 
xii, 11, 7G mv. (éovtes,—1 Cor. v. 3, 


mapwy Te mvevu. (1 Cor. xiv. 15, 16?),— 
2 Cor. ii. 138, otk €oxnka tveow TE mv. 
pov, and al., see also ch. xix. 21. How 
he was bound in the spirit is manifest, by 
comparing other passages, where the Holy 
Spirit of God is related to have shaped his 
apostolic course. He was bound, by the 
Spirit of God leading captive, constraining, 
his own spirit. As he went up to Jeru- 
salem dedeuévos TO mvedpatt, so he left 
Judea again dedeuevos tH capkl,—a pri- 
soner according to the flesh. He had 
no detailed knowledge of futurity—nothing 
but what the Holy Spirit, in general fore- 
warnings, repeated at every point of his 
journey (xara méAw; seech. xxi. 4, 11, for 
two such instances), announced, viz., im- 
prisonment and tribulations, That here no 


ABCDE 
HLPxs 
bedfy 
hklim 
0 13 


21—25. 


TIPAZEIZ ATOZTOAON. 


229 


’ ? A c lal \ 7 
“TyLiay EeuavT@ ws fTeNELMoaL TOV ® Spdmov fou Kai THY °F JIM ¥.7. 


Svaxoviay Hv 'éXaBov imapa tod Kuplov “Inaod, * &a- 
HaptupacOar TO evdayyédov Ths * yapitos Tod Oeov. +. 
25 1 al viv {dod éye oida bre ovKére * deaOe TO * Tposwmrov 
fou vmels TavTes, ev ols “ SufAOov Y enpvcowv Thy '" Bact- 
Rom. xi. 13+. (ch. vi. 1 al. L.P., exc. Heb. i. 14. 


, viii. 6. h = ch. i. 17, 25. vi. 4. 
ich. ii. 33 reff. k = ch. xiii. 43 reff. 


only. Qewpety, ver. 38. Opav, Col. ii. 1. tSetv, 1 Thess. ii. 17. iii, 10. 
v here only. kK, TO evayy. 77s B., Matt. ix. 35. K. 7, B. 7. Geov, ch. xxviii. 31 only. 


xxi. 4. 
w absol., Matt. viii. 12. xiii. 19, 38 al. 


D'EH vulg: om ABC D4(and lat) LPN ¢ 13. 36. 40. 


Proy. iil. 15, 
viii. 11. 

f = John iv. 34 

Sir. 1) 19. 
see Phil. iii. 
12. Wisd. 
iv. 13. 

g Paul (ch. xiii. 
25. 2 Tim. iv. 
7) only. Jer. 

Rev. ii. 19.) 

1 ver. 22. t = here (Rev. xxii. 4) 

u = ch. viii. 4 reff. 1 Chron. 


enavtov D!(txt D2), 


for ws, ews X83: wstre ED cdo 13. 40.187: ws to C 104: tov D. 


TerAc wow BN. 
Phil i. 4, Coli. 11, Heb x. 34 


rec aft Tov Spouoy mov ins peta xapas (interpolation appy : see 
ce: the finishing his course appearing not emphatic 


enough), with CEHLP rel 36 syr Chr Gc Thl: om ABDN 13. 40 vulg Syr coptt «th 


Lucif Ambr. 
(txt D4). 
eAAnow D sah Lucif. 
25. om idov E113. 40. 73 Syr Lucif. 
Tren-int. for ovxerti, oux &. 


inner voice of the Spirit is meant, is evident 
from the words kara réAw. (Two of the 
three other places where this phrase occurs 
are from the mouth or pen of Paul.) 

23. 76 mv. Stapaptvp.] Compare Rom. 
viii. 16, 7d mvedua cuumaptupe? TH Tv. 
nuav. 24.) The reading in the text, 
amidst all the varieties, seems to be that 
out of which the others have all arisen, 
and whose difficulties they more or less 
explain. The first clause is a combination 
of two constructions, oddevds Adyou moiov- 
par THY WuxXhY euavTov, and ov moloduat 
(7yotpet, Phil. iii. 7, 8) thy Wuxhy Timtay 
éuavTg. The best rendering in English 
would be, I hold my life of no account, 
nor precious tome. Then again the con- 
fused construction of the former clause 
shews itself in the és of the latter, which 
is not ‘so that, but ‘as,’ q. d. before, ‘so 
precious. ‘JZ do not value my life, in 
comparison with the finishing my course. 
Render then the whole verse: But I hold 
my life of no account, nor is it so pre- 
cious to me, as the finishing of my 
course. Teder@oat | See the same 
image, with the same word, remarkably 
expanded, Phil. iii. 12—14. There in ver. 
12 he has used rereAciwuar,—and,—as is 
constantly the case when we are in the 
habit of connecting certain words together, 
—the dpduos immediately occurs to him, 
which he works into a sublime comparison 
in ver. 14. Spdpov] A similitude 
peculiar to Paul: occurring, remarkably 
enough, in his speech at ch. xiii. 25. He 
uses it without the word dp., at 1 Cor. 
ix. 24—27, and Phil. iii. 14. Kal 
7. 8.] and (i. e. even) the ministry, &c. 
«kat in this sense gives that which, in 


aft diakovay ins tov Aoyouv D vulg Lucif Ambr.—for nv, ov D!-gr 
tmapedkaBov Db ck o 137. 
om Tov bef @eov D}(ins D®). 


aft Siapaptvpac@ar ins tovdato1s Kau 


oda bef eyw C m Syr: om eyw 180 
rec aft tnv BaciAcay ins Tov Beou (supple- 


matter of fact, runs parallel with the meta- 
phorical expression just used,—stands be- 
side it as its antitype. édaBov | Com- 
pare Rom. i. 5, 5° of éhkdBopev xdpiy x. 
amrooToANy. 25.] It has been argued 
from éyv ois 8:7AGov, that the elders of 
other churches besides that of Ephesus 
must have been present. But it might 
just as well have been argued, that every 
one to whom Paul had there preached must 
have been present, on account of the word 
mavres. If he could regard the elders as the 
representatives of the various churches, of 
which there can be no doubt, why may not 
he similarly have regarded the Ephesian 
elders as representatives of the churches 
of proconsular Asia, and have addressed 
all in addressing them ? Or may not these 
words have even a wider application, viz., 
to all who had been the subjects of his 
former personal ministry, in Asia and 
Europe, now addressed through the Ephe- 
sian elders ? See the question, whether 
Paul ever did see the Asiatic churches 
again, discussed in the Prolegg. to the 
Pastoral Epistles, § ii. 18 ff. I may re- 
mark here, that the word oida, in the 
mouth of Paul, does not necessarily imply 
that he spoke from divine and unerring 
knowledge, but expresses his own convic- 
tion of the certainty of what he is saying : 
see ch. xxvi. 27, which is much to our 
point, as expressing his firm persuasion 
that king Agrippa was a believer in the 
prophets: but certainly no infallible know- 
ledge of his heart:—Rom. xv. 29, where 
also a firm persuasion is expressed :— Phil. 
i. 19, 20, where ofa, ver. 19, is explained 
to rest on dmorapadonia «al é€Amis in 


ver. 20. So that he may here ground his 


230 


x ch. xxvi. 22. Xelav. 
Gal. v. 3. 
Eph. iv. 17. 


TIPAZEIS, ATIOZTOAON. 


XX. 


26 SvoTe * papTUpopar wiv ev THY orpepov ¥ nuépa, 


| ° Z 6 , , a2 \ ~ b / / 5 7 > \ 
1 Thess. ii. 12 OTL “ K@ apos EL[LL ajvro TOU QALLaTOS TaVT@y* ~! OU yap 


. 8. 
d ch. ii. 23 reff. Wisd. vi. 4. 


r fo lal \ lal 
CimrecTELNaNV “TOU LN CavayyetAat Tacay TiV 4 BovAnY TOD 
Geod tiv. 28 © rposéyere ody © EavTots Kal TaVTi TO 


f croup- 


\ ee g a] h > , 
TO aylov © EVETO ~ ETTLOKOTIOVS, 
a = Matt. xxvii. 24. 2 Kings iii. 28. 


e Luke xii. 1. xvii. 3. xxi. 34. ch. 


1 Pet. v.2,3 only. Jer. xiii. 17. = 1)Cor: 


& 
h (here first.) Phil. i, 1. 1 Tim, ii.2. Tit.i.7. 1 Pet. ii. 25 only. 2 Chron. 


only +. P. 
w. WS, 
Jos. B. J. iii. 
8. 3 end. 
y Matt. xxviii. 
15. Rom. xi. , > O: 6-40. x a 
8. 2 Cor. Vl@m EV @ upLas TO TTVEVULa 
iii. 14 only. s ~ 
Josh. v. 9. Jer. i. 18. zch. xviil.6. Gen. xxiv 
b ch, xviii. 6. c ver, 20 (reff.). 
y.35 only. Deut. iv. 9. fhere bis. Luke xii. 32. 
xii. 18,28. Gen. xvii. 5. 
xxxiv. 12. Isa. lx.17. (-2,1 Tim. iii.1. -metv, 1 Pet. v. 2.) 


mentary addn, as shewn by the variations), with EHLP rel vulg Syr eth Thdrt Be 
Thl: tov incov D sah; +. kup. inc. Lucif: om ABCX ¢ 13. 36 syr copt arm Chr. 

26. rec (for d:0T1) 510, with CHL 13. 36 rel Thi: txt A B(sic: see table) EPX g: 
dio kat f 32.57. 104.—for d10Ts to ot, axpt ovvy THs onmepoy nuepas D!(propter quod 


hodierno die Y)-lat: txt D®). 


rec (for emt) eyo (see ch xviii. 6, where there is no 


varn), with AHLP rel copt Bas, Chr, Ee Thl-sif: eyw emu a 69. 105 arm Gild: ee 


ey sah Jer: txt BCDEN ec 13. 36. 40 vulg syrr Amm Bas, Chr, Damase. 


mavtTwy add vuwy E ad el syrr copt eth. 


27. om un D!-gr(ins D5? }) 662. 73. 81. 177) Lucif. 


aft 


rec uuw bef macay 7. Bovad. 


7. 0., with AEHLPR3 rel syrr coptt Bas, Chr @ec Th] Iren-int Jer Gild: txt BC(D)®?! 


m 13 vulg.—nuw D!(txt D4). 


28. om ovy (mposexere is the beginning of an ecclesiastical portion) ABDN 0 13. 36 
lectt vulg copt Did Thdrt Lucif: ins CEHLP rel spec syrr Chr (ic Thi Iren-int. 


expectation of never seeing them again, on 
the plan of making a journey into the west 
after seeing Rome, which he mentions 
Rom. xv. 24, 28, and from which, with 
bonds and imprisonment and other dangers 
awaiting him, he might well expect never 
to return. So that what he here says need 
not fetter our judgment on the above ques- 
tion. 26.| The use of waptvpoua is 
peculiar to Paul, see reff. 28. mposex. 
éavtots | If we might venture to trace the 
hand of Zuke in the speech, it would be 
perhaps in this phrase: which occurs only 
as in reff. 7. Totpvie| This simili- 
tude does not elsewhere occur in Paul’s 
writings. We find it (reff.) where we 
should naturally expect it, used by him to 
whom it was said, ‘Feed my sheep.’ But 
it is common in the O. T. and sanctioned 
by the example of our Lord Himself. 

70 mv. T. Gy.| See ch. xiii. 2. eBerTo | 
So Paul, reff. 1 Cor. értokdtrovs | 
See on ver. 17, and Theodoret on Phil. i. 1, 
émiokdmous Tovs mpeaBuTéepous Karel’ aupd- 
Tepa yap elxov Kat’ exeivoy Toy Kaipby Ta 
évéuara (Olsh.). The question be- 
tween @cov and xupfov rests principally on 
internal evidence—which of the two is 
likely to have been the original reading. 
The manuscript authority, now that it is 
certain that B has #00 a prima manu, as 
also &, is weighty on both sides. The early 
patristic authority for the expression afua 
@eod is considerable. Ignat. Ephes. i., 
p. 644, has avaCwaruphoavres ev aluari Geov. 
Tertull. ad Uxor. ii. 3, vol. i, p. 1293, 
“pretio empti, et quali pretio? sanguine 


Dei.” Clem. Alex., ‘ Quis dives salvus,’ ce. 
34, vol. ii., p. 344, has duvdwe: Ocod matpés, 
Kk. aluats Beod matdds, kK. Spdow mvetuaros 
ayiov. On the other hand Athanasius 
(contra Apol. ii. 14, vol. ii., p. 758) says, 
ovdamod Sé aiva Oeod Sixa capkds mapa- 
deddxaow ai ypapal, 7) Oedby Sixa capkds 
maldvta 7) avactavta. In attempting to 
decide between the two readings, the follow- 
ing alternatives and considerations may be 
put: (1.) 1F kuptov WAS THE ORIGINAT, it 
is very possible (1) that some busy scribe 
may have written at the side, as so often 
occurs, 000. This having been once done, 
the interests of orthodoxy would perpetuate 
the gloss, and by degrees it would be 
adopted into the text and supersede the 
original word, or become combined with it, 
as is actually the case in HL and a vast 
body of mss. Or, continuing supposition 
I., it may have been (2) that the expression 
éxkAnolay Tov kuplov, not found any where 
else, may have been corrected into the very 
usual one, éxxr. (Tov) Oeov, which occurs 
eleven times in the Epistles of Paul. Or 
(3), which I consider exceedingly improba- 
ble (see below), the alteration may have 
been made solely in the interest of ortho- 
doxy. Such are possible, and the two 
former not improbable, contingencies. 

On the other hand (IT.) TF @eo0 WAS THE 
ORIGINAL, but one reason can be given 
why it should have been altered to xuplov, 
and that one was sure to have operated. It 
would stand as a bulwark against Arianism, 
an assertion which no skill could evade, 
which must therefore be modified. If @eod 


ABCDE 
HLPR a 
bedfg 
hklim 
013 


26—29, IIPABEIS ATOSTOAON. 231 


i = John xxi. 
16. 1 Pet. v.2. 
2 Kings v. 2. 


29 éya olda OTL | EiseNEVTOVTAL * Luke xvii. 33. 
\ \ ” ! y? pS 5 Shes . 1 Tim. iii. 13 
peta thy “adiEiv pov ™vKoL ° Bapets els Buds pr 


i / \ ’ , nA % nA k id 
Toiaivey THY EKKAnolav Tod * Beod, Hv * TEpLeTroLnoaTo 
dua ToD aiwatos Tov idiov. 


only. Gen. 


xxxi. 18. Isa. 

XXxi, 5. 
1 Joun x. 1. ch. xix. 30. m here only+. 3 Macc. vii. 18. Herodot. ix. 77. n= Marr. 
vii. 15 (x. 16. Luke x.3. John x. 12 bis) only. (Ezek. xxii. 27.) o = here only. (ch. xxv. 7 reff.) 


70 ay. wv. D-gy. * «upiov AC!DE a 13. 36. 40 syr-mg coptt arm Iren-int 
Amm Eus Ath-ms (Constt) Did Chr(on Eph iv. 12) Thdor-stud Thl-fl-ms Lucif Aug 
Jer Sedul: ypiorov Syr(ed and 1-ms) zth-pl Orig(but has also tyy exkAnotay alone) 
Ath-4-mss Thdrt, (ef ouvtpéxete eis Thy exkAnolay Tod Kuplov hy mepiemorhcato TH 
aiwart Tov xpioTod Constt) : Kupiov kat Oeov C3HUP rel: kupiov Ocov 3. 952: Oeov BN e 
vulg Syr-3-mss syr syr-lect Ign Ps-Ath Epiph, Bas Antch ec Thl fin Ambr Ors Cassiod 
Primas. aft mepiemoimoato ins eavtw D sah, sibi constituit Iren. rec 
Tov id1ov aiuaros (alteration, says Meyer, owing to @eov, because tov idi0v might be 
referred to Christ [as a gen]: but surely this is carrying subtlety somewhat too far. 
It has been evidently a corrn for simplicity, not observing the emphasis), with HLP 
rel Ath Chr ie Thi: txt ABCDEN a c m 13. 36. 40 arm Did Iren-int Lucif. 

29. rec aft eyw ins yap (to connect and strengthen the sentence), with C3EHLP rel 
syrr sah Chr (ec Thl: or: eyw B: eyw Se N* copt: Kar eyw eth: txt ACDN! 13. 36 
vulg Iren-int Lucif Jer. rec aft oda ins tovto (like preceding), with C3HHLP 
rel syr Chr Gc Thl: om ABC!DX a 13. 36 Thdrt Iren-int Lucif Jer. abetw D. 


stood in the text originally, zt was sure to 
be altered to xvplov. The converse was 
not sure, nor indeed likely, from similar 
reasons, the passage offering no stumbling- 
block to orthodoxy. (III.) Pav Line 
USAGE must be allowed its fair weight in 
the enquiry. It must be remembered that 
we are in the midst of a speech, which is (as 
observed in the Prolegg. to Acts, § ii. 17 a) 
a complete storehouse of Pauline words 
and expressions. Is it per se probable, 
that he should use an expression which 
no where else occurs in his writings, nor 
indeed in those of his contemporaries ? 
Is it more probable, that the early scribes 
should have altered an unusual expression 
for an usual one, or that a writer so con- 
stant to his own phrases should here have 
remained so? Besides,—in most of the 
places where Paul uses exxAncia Tod deod, 
it isin a manner precisely similar to this,— 
as the consummation of a climax, or ina 
position of peculiar solemnity, cf. 1 Cor. 
Koos) xv Os Galei, 13s) Dimi. 5; 15: 
and, cteris paribus, 1 submit that the 
present passage loses by the substitution 
of xuptov the peculiar emphasis which its 
structure and context seem to require in 
the genitive, introduced as it is by zpos- 
EXETE Ss ss toimatverv, and followed by 
the intensifying clause hy mepierorhoaro 
dia Tov aiwaros Tov idtov. (IV.) On the 
whole then, weighing the evidence on both 
sides,—seeing that it is more likely that 
the alteration should have been to kupiou 
than to @cov,—more likely that the speaker 
should have used @¢od than xvplov, and 
more consonant to the evidently emphatic 
position of the word, I have decided 
for the rec. reading, which in Edd. 1, 2 I 


had rejected. And this decision is con- 
firmed by observing the habits of the 
great MSS. respecting the sacred names. 
It appears that B has no bias for Oeds 
where the others have kvpios: we find it 
thus reading in Luke ii. 38 (so DLX!=N) ; 
ch. xvi. 10 (so ACEN); xvii. 27 (so 
AHL); xxi. 20(so ACELN); Col. iii. 16 
(so AC!D!FR) ; while on the other hand it 
has «xv wv in Rom. xv. 32, where the others 
have @u or xv tv; xv in Eph. v. 21, where 
rec. has Qu; ku in ch. vill. 22, with 


ACDER, where rec. and the mss. have @u: 
similarly in ch. x. 33, and xv. 40: in 
Rom. x. 17 xv, with CD1X!, for 6u: xiv. 
A, xs, with AC!&, for @s. This evidence 
seems to remove further off the chance 
of deliberate alteration here to @eod, and 
leaves the above considerations their full 
weight. (V.) Ofcourse any reading which 
combines the two, kuptov and @<09, is by the 
very first principles of textual criticism in- 
admissible. (VI.) The principal names on 
either side are—for the rec. @e0d, Mill, 
Wolf, Bengel, Matthai, Scholz : for kupiou, 
Grotius, Le Clere, Wetst., Griesb., Kuin., 
De Wette, Meyer, Lachmann, Tischendorf, 
Tregelles. amepterr.| Luke and Paul 
(in pastoral Epp. only), see rett. 29. ] 
GduEts is here used in an unusual sense. 
An instance is found, Jos. Antt. iv. 8. 47, 
where Moses says, éwel mpds Tovs tpueré- 
pous &mremut mpoydvous, kal Ocds THYdE pot 
Thy jwepay Ths mpos exelvous aitews 
Gpive..... which is somewhat analogous, 
but more easily explained. That in Herod. 
ix. 77 (init.) also seems analogous. In De- 
mosth.de Pace, p.58 (fin.) we have tiv TéT€ 
ddbikw eis Tovs ToAculous emoinoaro, Which 


232 


TIPABEIS ATIOZTOAON. 


XX. 


pRom.xi.21  P heySouwevor Tov f ouuviov, 29 Kai €& Yudv adTov 4 avacTn- 


reff. Deut 


xXxxill. 3. ” 5 rn r , s A es rn 

Dkings xii. CTOVTAL Avopes NaXodVTES * SieaTpappéeva, * TOD ‘aTOoTaY 

4, 6. 

chavs 30% \ \ Wet c a — n w s 
a= ch.v%, Teds wabnTas “omicw éavT@v. *! d10 * ypnyopette, * wyn 

from Exod. , we x / y / \ y af , > 

i. 8. : JLOVEVOVTES OTL TpleTlav VUKTQ@ Kab nMEpav OvVK 
r Matt. xvii. 5 , \ » BS , oe 

iL. Luke 2 €qravodunv *peta Saxptov vovleTav ° Eva ExacTov. 

Xxili. 2. ch. : 

iii. 8, 10. ¢ \ \ r / tee n a ‘ nA fo 
paints 2% Kal * ta vov © Tapatieuar buas TO Oe@ Kat TO  KoyH 
only. Deut. 4 

aye: o. gh , > A . f Ties) a \ a 

(mus. THs 8" yapiros adtob, TO dvvapeve ‘ oixodophnaar Kal dodvat 
x. 13 reff. Seek x / cies me Ar 2e , co 38 2 

t = here (Matt. TV XK 1POVOLLLaV €V TOLLS nYlLad [LEVvols TTACLV. apyu- 
er eh fy o i My D ovoevos ™ érrebv : 34 avo 
ahs 1) ‘ plou 1) KX Pvg lou » LULATLO (LOV OUVOEVOS ETTEGULNTA avuTot 
only. Jer, xii. 14. uch. v. 37 reff. v = Matt. xxiv. 42. 1Cor. xvi. i3 al. (Jer. v. 6.) 

w Paul only. Eph. ii. 11. 2 Thess. ii.5. (as, 2 Macc. x. 6.) x here only+. (-775, 2 Chron. xxxi. 16. -7iGw, 

Gen. xy. 9. see ch. xxviii. 30.) y ch. xxvi.7. 2 Thess. iii. 8. Paul only, exc. Mark iv. 27. Esth. 

iv. 16. elsew. gen., as ch. ix. 24 reff. z constr., ch, xiii. 10 reff. a Heb. v.7. xii. 17. 2 Macc. 

is b Rom. xv. 14. 1Cor.iy. 14. Col. i. 28. iii, 16. 1 Thess. v. 12, 14. 2 Thess. iii. 15 only. P. Job 

iv. 3. (-Oeota, 1 Cor. x. 11.) ce ch. ii. 6 reff. d ch. iv. 29 reff. e Luke 
xxiii. 46. ch. xiv. 23. Ps. xxx. 5. f ch. xiv. 3. g constr., ch. xiii. 26 reff. h ch. 
xiii. 43 reff. i = ch. ix. 31 reff. k = and constr., Eph. i. 18. (see ch. xxvi. 18.) 1 Luke 
vii. 25. ix. 29. John xix. 24. 1 Tim. ii. 9 only. Ps. xliv. 9. m constr., 1 Tim, iii. lonly. (Rom. 


vii. 7 al.) Prov. xxiii. 3, 6. 


80. om Ist avrwy B e sah eth. 


for amoomay, aroctpepey D-gr Syr. 


rec (for eavtwy) avtwy, with CDEHLP rel Bas Chr (ec Thi: txt ABN. 


81. vuxrav A. 


ch xxi. 2. | 
82. vutr(sic) &. 


for kat, 5¢ D}(txt D4). 
vulg (syrr) coptt «th Thl-fin Lucif Jer Oros. 


at end ins uswy DEabedko 
| D-lat is deficient from ver 31 to 


rec aft uwas ins adeAdo: (for solemnity ; were it genuine, as 


Meyer observes, there would be no possible reason for omitting it), with CEHLP rel 36 
eth-rom Chr: aft tw ew, ¢ 137 lect-58: om ABDN 13 vulg syrr coptt «th-pl Jer Oros. 


for #ew, kupiw B 33.68 coptt. 


(ovk eurey otxodounoat aAA emotKodounoat, Sekvus oTt NON wkodounOnoav. 


ree etroikodounoa, with HLP rel Chrexpr 
But may not 


this have been the history of its alteration, to render the word more strictly appro- 


priate?): txt ABCDER 13. 36. 

b o 141. 662-9. 76. 81. 105! Syr Chry. 
rel vss: om ABDER vulg copt. 
table) CER. add avtouv A. 


Tagw, Twy maytwy D-gr. 


33. for 1st 7, ca: D vulg(not am &c) spec (ec. 


rel 36. add vuwy DE spec arm. 


add vuas DE 29. 76 lect-58 sah «th: pref, a 


rec aft dovy. ins vu, with CHLP 13. 36 


rec om Tnv, with DHLP rel: ins A B(sie: see 
aft ev ins aul .. |s (? avros) D}. 


for 


ov8evos AEN: txt BCDHLP 


84. rec aft avro ins de, with 13: yap 106: om ABCDEHLPNX rel vulg syrr eth arm 


is most like the usage here. Perhaps, ab- 
solutely put, it must signify ‘my death ;’ 
see the above passage of Josephus. 
AvKor Bapeis | not persecutors, but false 
teachers, from the words eiseXd. eis vpas, 
by which it appears that they were to come 
in among the flock, i.e. to be baptized 
Christians. In fact ver. 30 is explanatory 
of the metaphoric meaning of ver. 29. 
eiSopar is only used by Paul, except 
2 Pet. ii. 4, 5. 30. | tpav avr. does 
not necessarily signify the preshyters: he 
speaks to them as being the whole flock. 
31.] pvnp. Ste is only (reff.) used by 
Paul. vixTa kK. Hpépav| This ex- 
pression is remarkable: we have it (see 
reff.) in Mark, but Luke always uses the 
genitive, except in the speeches of Paul: 
and so Paul himself, except as in reff. 
vouGeroy (reff.) is used only by Paul. 
On the three years spoken of in this verse, 
see note, ch. xix. 10. Wemay just remark 


here (1) that this passage being precise and 
definite, must be the master key to those 
others (as in ch. xix.) which give wide and 
indefinite notes of time: and (2) that it 
seems at first sight to preclude the idea of 
a journey (as some think) to Crete and 
Corinth having taken place during this 
period. But this apparent inference may 
require modifying by other circumstances : 
ef. Prolegg. to 1 Cor. § v. 4. 32. 7. 
doy. THs Xap. avr. ] I should be inclined to 
attribute the occurrence of this expression 
in ch, xiv. 8, to the narrative having come 
from Paul himself, or from one imbued 
with his words and habits of thought. See 
ver. 24. 7 Svuv.| Clearly spoken of 
God, not of the word of His grace, which 
cannot be said dodva: KAnpov., however it 
might oixodoujoa. The expression 
KAnpov. ev 7. Hy. waco. is strikingly similar 
to tijs KAnpovoulas a’tod ev rots aylots, 
Eph. i. 18, addressed to this same church. 


ABCDE 
HLPR« 
bedfy 
hklim 
013 


30—38. 


YyWOOKETE OTL TALS 


° e / e na e 835 p / q c £5 € 
vTNpeTHTAaY at Yelpes adTavr * Pravta LiméderEa vpiv 
SavTirapBaves0ar Tav 'acbe- 
/ fal / an nr 
VOUVT@V, “ wYNMovevelY TE TMV Y NOYwV TOU‘ KUpiov “Incod, 


54 A r lal 8 lal 
OTL OVUTWS ~ KOTTLWVTAS eb 


TIPABEITS AITOZTOAON. 


233 


n 9! 29) 
Nypelais LOU KAL TOLS ODTW MET EMOU ™ 5 °h xvii 


13. Phil. ii. 
25. iv. 16, 19. 
Tit. iii. 14. 
Sir, xxxix. 
33. 

o ch, xiii. 36 
(reff), xxiv. 
23 only +. 


OTe avTos eitrev “ Maxdpiov éotw “ warrov Siddvat 4) peonstr.,1 Cor. 


AauBaveww. 
avv Taow avTois mposnv—aTo. 


> , / \ ab > Uj p pees, \ \ be 

eyéveTo TavTwov, Kab * érriumrecovTeEs ETl TOV 

IlavAov *xatedirovy avtov, 88 © dduv@mevot wadicTa 
a x. , g e 3: ek x4 ae A h AX Nel I 

TO NOY ®@ ElpyKet, OTL ovKéTL » wéAXOVAW TO ' TpdswTroV 


> nr i 6 lal 
QUTOU E@PELV. 


t= here only. (2 Cor. xii. 10. Job iv. 4.) see 1 Thess. v. 14. 
xvi. 15. v1 Tim. vi. 3. 
x ch. vii. 60 reff. y ch. xi. 24 reff. 
i aver. 10. 


xvi. 29. 
d Matt. xxvi. 49 || Mk. 
ii. 48 (xvi. 24, 25) only. 
h = ch. xix. 27 al. 


Bas Chr Thl-sif Aug. 
xXp- mov ins macw D!}. 


Isa. xl. 29, 
i see ver. 25 reff. 


ovate A. 


35. ins ka: bef mavta C!D? b o 36. 40 Syr. 


tTwy acdevouvyvtwy bef avTiAauBaverba A. 


36 \ fal > \ x fa) \ \ x / > tal 
KQaL TAVUTA ELTT@Y ~ VELS TA ~YOVATH AUTOV 


b Luke xv. 20 only. 
Luke vii. 38, 45. xv. 20 only. 


ix. 25. x. 33. 


Eph. iv. 15.P. 
q = Luke (iii. 
c \ \ 7\| Mt.) vi. 
37 Y (xavos 66 *KNaVOpOs 47. xii.5. 
2 By ch, ix. 16 
Tpaynrov TOU only. Esth. 
foe 1 Cor. xy. 10 
€7TL reff. 
s Luke i. 54. 
1 Tim. vi. 2 
only. L.P. 
k / 5 \ IN > X x a Isa. xli. 9. 
TT POET ELT OV € QUTOV €lS TO TAOLOV, (ovvarTta., 
Rom. viii. 26.) 


u w gen., Luke xvii. 32 al. 1 Chron. 
w constr., Mark ix. 42. 1 Cor. ix. 15. see Ma itthia, $ 458. 

z Matt. ii. 18. viii. 12 al5. Luke xiii, 28 only. Gen. 
Gen. xlvi. 29. ech. xy. 10 reff. 


Exod. iv. 27. Ruthi. 9, 14. e = Luke 


f= James v.lal. Zech. xii. 10. g attr., ch. i. 1 reff. 
k ch. xy. 3 reff. 
Tas xpeas(sic) D!(txt D2). aft 


aft avra ins wov D sah: pov avta Syr copt zxth. 


for mavta, mace D1(txt D?). 
om te (A!?) D! coptt: ins 


D2, tov Aoyov LP ad? efk 4. 14, 22. 42. 57. 65-9. 73. 96-9. 126-56-63-91-2 
lect-58 sah eth arm Chr Thl-sif: tov Aoyou h 26. 38. 40. 93 lect-18 vulg (Zoth corrns, 


because but one saying is cited), 
ovros and wakapios D1(txt D2). 


om ingov A 2. 30. 68. 96. 142 Epiph Chr Bas. 


rec 6:d50var bef wadAov, with a m: txt 


ABCDEHLPR 13 rel vulg spec syr arm Chr Damase Thl Aug. 


36. eras D}(txt D-corr!). 
om autos C! 36 arm. 
87. for Se, re X. 


om avtov D!(ins D6). 
mposevéato B'D. 
rec eyeveto bef KAavOuos (corrn of order to bring kAavOuos 


ouptacw Li. 


and mavtwy together), with HLP rel @e Thi-sif: txt ABCDEN a h k m 13. 40 vulg 


Thl-fin. 


om tov D-corr c 180 Thl-sif. 


katepidwy Ni. 


38. wadiora emt TW AoYyw bef odvymmevor, omg w erpyrer (ins D-corr!) and adding (aft 


oduy.) ott evmev, D'(om evrev D-corr). 
(txt D4). om avtov D}(ins D®). 


See also ch. xxvi. 18. 33.] See 1 Sam. 
xii. 3; and for similar avowals by Paul 
himself, 1 Cor. ix. 11, 12; 2 Cor. xi. 8, 9; 
xii. 13. 34.] See 1 Cor. iv. 12, which 
he wrote when at Ephesus. Xpelo, with 
a gen. of the person in want, is an expres- 
sion of Paul only ; see among reff. 
banpereiv is used only twice more ; once by 
Paul, ch. xiii. 36, once of Paul, ch. xxiv. 23. 
The construction is varied in this sen- 
tence. Tats XP HOU, Kal (not TOV ovTwr, 
but) tots otow per euod. This is not 
without meaning—his friends were among 
his xpeta:—he supplied by his labour, not 
his and their wants, but his wants and 
them. at x. avtat} also in Paul’s 
manner: compare Tay Secuay ToUTwY, ch. 
xxvi. 29,—and ch. xxvili. 20. 35. 
awavta.| In all things: so Paul (only), see 
reff. komi@vtas| A word used by 
Paul fourteen times, by Luke once only 
(Luke v. 5 [xii. 27 v. r.]). TOV 
ac@evovvtwv | Not here the weak in faith 


for ovkeTt weAAovow, meAAe [co |r Dt 
for es, emt D. om To [ bef Aoor | P. 


(Rom. xiv.1. 1 Cor. viii.9), as Calvin, Beza, 
Grot., Bengel, Neander, Meyer, Tholuck, 
—which the context both before and after 
will not allow :—but the poor (rods révn- 
Tas ac0evouvtas, Aristoph. Pac. 636. 6 Te 
yap acbeveatepos 6 TAOvaLOs TE THY Bixny 
tonv €xet, Kurip. ap. Stob. exv. [ Wetst. ]), 
as Chrys., Theoph., Heinrichs, Kuin., 
Olsh., De Wette. Mak. éotwv k.T.A. | 
This saying of our Lord is one of very 
few not recorded in the Gospels, which 
have come down to us. Many such must 
have been current in the apostolic times, 
and are possibly preserved, unknown to 
us, in such epistles as those of James, 
Peter, and John. Bengel remarks, ‘alia 
mundi sententia est:’ and cites from an 
old poet in Athenezeus, vill. 5, avdntos 6 
didovs, evtTvxts S 6 AauBavwv. But we 
have some sayings the other way : not to 
quote authors who wrote after this date, 
and might have imbibed some of the spirit 
of Christianity, we find in Aristotle, Eth. 


>. 


234 


1 constr., ch. 
iv. 5 reff. 

m ch. xiii. 13 
reff. 

n = Luke xxii. 
41. (ch. xx. 
30 reff.) 

2 Macc. xii. 
10. 

och. xvi. 11 
only +. 

p ch. xxv. 17. 
xxvii. 18. 


™ avnyOnuev. 
Luke vii. 11 


(w. Nmepa, 
ix. 37) only. 


q Matt. ix. 1. xiv. 34||Mk. Mark v.21. Luke xvi. 26 only. Deut. xxx. 13. 
Cant. vi. 4 (only ?). constr. pass., Rom. vi. 17. 


s Luke xix. 11 only. 
here only. 
(see note), ch. ii. 5 reff. 


u = ch. xxvii. 5. (ch. viii. 5 reff.) 


Winer, edn. 6, $ 45. 5. 


TIIPASEIS AITODTOAON. 


XXI. 


XXI. 1 ds bé !eyévero ™ dvayOhvat jpas  arootacbévtas 
> > > lal re) He 5 / yrVO > \ Ko p lol 
av avtav, °evOvdpouncavtes HAOopev eis THY KO, PTH 
d€ PéERs eis THY ‘Podov, KaxeiBev eis Ilarapa. 
ey a q 5 aA > rab) ’ r 2 s 
evpovtTes TAotov tavepa@v eis Dowiknv, * émBavtes 
8 s +) / \ ‘ / \ t 
avahavévtes 5é thy Kumpov Kal * xata- 
AumrovtTes avTiv * evovupov éTAéomev eis Lupiav, Kal 
“KaTnOopev eis Ttpov ‘ éxeice yap TO mAoioy ™ iy 


2 Kab 


r absol., here only. = ch. xxvii. 2. 
Heb. xi. 2 al. tconstr., 
Job xxxix. 29. w constr. 


Gal. ii. 7. 
y ch, xxii. 5 only. 


Crap. XXI. 1. om avaxé. Al(appy): ins aft nuas A?: avaxOevras N1: axOnvar P d 


3. 100. avoomacbevtes BE?. 
de [nuw |v Di(txt D4). 


Thl-fin Cassiod, Cho am. (13 def.) 
CD 40 Chr,. mateoa AC. 


for nABomev, neouev D. 
kov, with HLP 1m: Cowm vulg: Chio tol: txt ABCDEN rel 36 syrr coptt arm Ge 
for efns, emtovon D. 

at end ins cat wupa D vulg-ms, wuppa sah. 


[Kat emt{Blavr[e|s avnxOnuey arocracbevTay, 


om thy D. rec 


om tv [bef podor | 


2. diarepovy E 73. 105: diarepoy LF ak Thl-fin: d:amopevouevoy 137. 
8. Steph avapavavtes (corrn, not perceiving the farce of the passive), with B\(see 


table) N a? b c o Chr(some mss): txt A B?(see table) CEHL 13. 36 rel. 

om «a A k m demid(not am fuld). 
katarermovtes AHL h! 13 (but -réyres HL). 
navigavimus vulg E-lat: collavimus D-lat. 


ins eis Thy P. om tnv E. 


aft Se 


om emAconey A: emAcvoamev B?: 
rec (for katnAOouev) katnxOnuer, 


with CHLP rel Chr (ie Thi: depositi sumus K-lat: venimus vulg: enavigavimus D-lat: 


txt AB E-gr & 13 coptt eth. 


exec H d 133 vulg syr Chr ec Thi. 


ree nv 


bef To mAooy, with HLP rel 36: txt ABCEN ec 13. 187. 


Nicom. iv. 1, waaAAdv eorw Tod édevbeplov 
Td S1ddvar ois Set 7) Aap Bavew GOev Ser, 
kal wh AauBavew OOey ov Set. Tis ape- 
Tis yap madAov 7d ed morety 7) Td ed 
TAX EL. XXI.1.] The E. V., ‘ After 
we had gotten from them, does not come 
up to the original: Selxvuor thy Blay 7G 
eimeiy aroomacbevtas am avta@y, Chrys. 

e¥Ovdpop.|] See ref., having run 
before the wind. Cos, opposite Cnidus 
and Halicarnassus, celebrated for its wines 
(ctkapmos aoa, olvw 5€ ral aptorn, Kadd- 
mep Xtos x. Aé€oBos, Strab. xiv. 2), rich 
stuffs (‘nec Coz referunt jam tibi pur- 
pure,’ Hor. iv. 13. 13), and ointments 
(ylverat BE ipa KddAALoTA KaTa TdroUS 
+.» Guapdiivoy 5 Ke@ov kal phawor, 
Athen. xv. p. 688). The chief town was 
of the same name (Hom. Il. B. 677), and 
had a famous temple of Ausculapius (Strabo, 
ibid.). It was the birth-place of Hippo- 
erates. The modern name, Stanchio, is a 
corruption of és trav K@. See Winer, Realw. 

Rhodes was at this time free, ef. 
Strabo, xiv. 2; Tac. Ann. xii. 58: ‘ Reddi- 
tur Rhodiis libertas, adempta sepe aut fir- 
mata, prout bellis externis meruerant, aut 
domi seditione deliquerant.’ See also Suet. 
Claud. 25, ‘ Rhodiis (libertatem) ob pceni- 
tentiam veterum delictorum reddidit.’ It 
was reduced to a Roman province under 
Vespasian, Suet. Vesp. 8. The situation 
of its chief town is praised by Strabo, 1. ¢. 


- 


The celebrated Colossus was at this time 
broken and lying in ruins, ib. Patara, 
in Lycia (‘ caput gentis,’ Liv. xxxvii. 15), a 
large maritime town, a short distance E. 
of the mouth of the Xanthus. It had a 
temple and oracle of Apollo, Herod. i. 182. 
‘Delius et Patareus Apollo,’ Hor. iii. 4. 
There are considerable ruins remaining, 
Fellows, Asia Minor, p. 219 ff. Liycia, p. 
115 ff. Winer, Realw. Here they leave 
their ship hired at Troas, or perhaps at 
Neapolis (see note on xx. 16), and avail 
themselves of a merchant ship bound for 
Tyre. 3. dvahavevtes | for the con- 
struction, see reff. and Winer, edn. 6, § 39. 
1: having been shewn Cyprus, literally. 
Wetst. cites from Theophanes, p. 392, 
meptepepovto ey TH TeAaYEL, avadhavervTwy 
5 ab’ray thy yy, eldov abtods of otpar- 
nyol. ‘The graphic language of an eye- 
witness, and of one familiar with the 
phraseology of seamen, who, in their own 
language, appear to raise the land in ap- 
proaching it. Smith, Voyage and Ship- 
wreck of St. Paul. But would not this re- 
mark rather apply to the active participle ? 
Compare ‘aerias Phxeacum abscondimus 
arces, Ain. iii. 291. evadvupoy | 
sc. avriv, i.e. to the E. This would be 
the straight course from Patara to Tyre. 

érd. cis ».,—we held our course, 
steered, for Syria. KaTyA9.] we 
came down to, the result of having borne 


1—5. TIPABEIS ATOSTOAON. 235 


x darohoptitopevoy Tov Yyopuov. * *aveupovTes SE Tods * hers mys. 


kuPepyyntns 
\ Ae ’ bee Fe) ¢ La GA, fa ELLOVWV 
pabyrras : ETT EMELVA [LEV QUTOU NMEPAS ET TA,, — OLTLVES ve te oe 
as a if en f pL€vwv amro- 
IlavAw éAeryov dua TOV TWVEVLATOS 1) éTruBaivery ELS oprigerat, 
oF AY 5 2 8 Ni pists 2 g > / e a h x Philo de 
€pogo ULa. OTE S EVEVETO eEapticat NMaAS TAS prem. 5, vol. 
ii. p. 413. 
y Rey. xviii. 11, 12 only. Exod. xxiii. 5 only. z Luke ii. 16 only +. a = ch. x. 48 reff. 
b ch. xviii. 19 reff. ech. x. 41 reff. d ch. xi. 28 reff. e = and constr., ch. 


xx. 18, (xxvii. 2 sett) Davee generis ver. l al. 
4. ree Kat aveuportes (corrn of copula, as frequently), with C7 HLP rel D-lat syrr eth 
Chr Thl: txt ABC!E a m 13.36. 40 vulg copt Thl-fin. om tous (corrn, the art 
- not seeming in place) HLP b cdef ghk1o 187 Chr Thi-fin. autos (alteration 
to suit ovrives which follows) AEL k Thi-fin: pos avrovs Chry, apud eos D-lat E-lat : 
txt BCHPN 13 rel. edcyay B: repeated by B! after vevuatos (see table). 
rec avaBawew (substitution of more usual word), with EHLP rel vulg Chr Did Ge 
Thi-sif: txt ABCN 13(appy) 36. 40 Thl-fin. rec tepovoaAnu, with HLP rel 
Epiph Chr Did: txt ABCEN a k 13. 36. 40 vulg D-lat Thl-fin. 

5. rec nuas bef efaptica (alteration of order to avoid nuas tas nucpas), with B(see 
below) CHL(P)X rel 36 Chr: txt A B(but marking the words for transposition) E: ore 
Be eyeveto ekeAOew nuas nuepas ctaprnoa em. (so P[but ott] 9. 100) 13: sequenti 
autem die exeuntes ambulamus viam nostram D-lat: post hos autem dies amb. v. n. Sy. 


g = here (2 Tim. iii. 17) only +. Jos. Antt. 


iii. 2. 2. 


down upon. Tvpov] This city, so 
well known for its commercial importance 
and pride, and so often mentioned in the 
O. T. prophets, was now a free town (Jos. 
Antt. xv. 41. Strabo, xvi. 2, obx bmd Tay 
Baotréwy & explOnoav ait dvomor mdvov, HAAG 
kal brd Tay “‘Pwwatwy) of the province of 
Syria. éxetoe| If this is an adv. of 
motion as generally, the reference may be 
to the carrying and depositing the cargo 
in the town (De Wette), or to the thither- 
ward direction of the voyage (Meyer) : 
but in the only other place where €xetoe 
occurs (ref.) it simply = éxe?, so that per- 
haps no motzon is included. aarrodopr. | 
The pres. part. indicates the intention, 
as diarepay before. 4. 3é] Imply- 
ing, ‘the crew indeed were busied with 
unlading the ship: but we, having sought 
out (by enquiry) the disciples” ..... 
‘ Finding disciples’ (H. V.) is quite wrong. 
It is not improbable that Paul may have 
preached at Tyre before, when he visited 
Syria and Cilicia (Gal. i. 21) after his con- 
version,—and again when he confirmed the 
churches (ch. xv. 41): Tods wa. seems to 
imply this. Hp. €wr. | The time taken 
in unlading:—they apparently proceeded 
in the same ship, see ver. 6. The notice 
here is very important, that these Tyrian 
disciples said to Paul by the Spirit, that 
he should not go to Jerusalem,—and yet 
he went thither, and, as he himself de- 
clares, Sedcuevos TH Tvevmati, bound in 
spirit by the leading of God. We thus 
have an instance of that which Paul asserts 
1 Cor. xiv. 32, that the spirits of prophets 
are subject to prophets, i.e., that the reve- 
lation made by the Holy Spirit to each 
man’s spirit was under the influence of 
that man’s will and temperament, moulded 


by and taking the form of his own capa- 
cities and resolves. Sohere: these Tyrian 
prophets knew by the Spirit, which testi- 
fied this in every city (ch. xx. 23), that 
bonds and imprisonment awaited Paul. 
This appears to have been announced by 
them, shaped and intensified by their own 
intense love and anxiety for him who was 
probably their father in the faith (see on 
ver. 5). But he paid no regard to the 
prohibition, being himself under a leading 
of the same Spirit too plain for him to 
mistake it. See below on vv. 10 ff. 

5. éEaptioat] This is ordinarily a naval 
word, signifying to fit out or refit a ship 
(with or without mAozoy, Passow). But 
this can hardly be the meaning here. 
Meyer would render ‘ when we had spent 
these days in refitting, so that r. ju. 
would be the accusative of duration,— 
‘when we had refitted during the days. 
But not to mention that tas 7u., without 
tavtas, would be harsh in such a con- 
nexion,—is not the aorist etaprioa fatal 
tothe rendering? Would it not in this case 
be present, if implying the continued action 
during the days,— perfect, if implying that 
that action was over (in which latter case 
mu. would be dative)? The aorist, as 
almost invariably in dependent clauses, 
must refer to some one act occurring at one 
time. So that if the meaning given by 
Theoph., ic. mAnpéoa: (Hesych. TeAeie- 
cat) be found no where else, it is almost 
necessary so to understand the word here. 
And it is doing no violence to its import : 
the same verb which indicates the comple- 
tion of a ship’s readiness for a voyage, 
might well be applied to the completion of 
a period of time. Our own word ‘fulfil’ 
has undergone a similar change of meaning 


236 


i=ch. xv. 40 
reff, 

k ch. xv. 3 reff. 

1 w. prepos., 
ch. xxvi. 11. 
Luke xiv. 
50. Levit. 
xxiii. 14. 

m Luke xiii. 
33. ch. xiv. 19. 
Neh. xiii. 20. 

n ch. vii. 60 reff. 

o Matt. xii. 2, 


48. John xi. 
4. ch. xxvii. 
39, 40 only. 
Judg. v.17 A 
Sir. xxiv.l14 .¢. / / > > a 
A(not F) BR MMEPAV flav Y Tap AvVTOLS. 
only. 
p absol., ch. x. 
9 reff. Ezra 
x. 1. 


q here only +. 
xvi. 32. xix. 27. Esth. v. 10. 


reff. 
iv. 5 only. 


om efeAGovres A 105. 


b Luke xxii. 58 al. 


TIPAZEIZ ATIOZTOAON. 


Dirirrov tod * evayyedoTod, dvTos 


r = Matt. xiv. 32 || Mk. xv. 39. John xxi.11. Jonah i.3 Ed-vat(not B). 
u ch. xxvii. 9, 10 onlyt. 
xii. 17 only. woAAnv odor Suyvvaar, Xen. Cyr. iv. 2. 15. 

y John i. 40. iv. 40. ch. ix. 43. xviii. 3. 

c see ch. ii. 14 al. 


yuvatiw CEP: txt ABN rel. 


XXI. 


e / i > Ld BJ / , e a 

npépas, ‘éEeMOovtes érropevomeba, “mpotreutovtav nuas 
TavTwv avy yuvarki Kai Téxvois |éws ™&Ew THS TrOAEWS, 
Kat ™ Oévtes Ta “yovata él Tov ° aiyadov ? mposevEdpevot 
6 TamnotmacapeBa addnXovs, Kal avéSnuev Els TO TAOLOD, 
exetvot O€ Svméotperav eis tra idua. 


7 Huets O€ Tov 


u BY fal Vv p>) , > \ tk / Ww / > 
TAodV vavvcavtes ato Tupov * KatnvtTicapev eis 
IItoneuaida, Kai *acracauevot Tovs adeddods ¥ eweivawev 


8277 dé érravpiov * éEeNOovTes 


7mrGopuev eis Kaiodpevav, kal eiseOovtes eis Tov olKov 


b > c lal 4 / 
eK TOV E77 TA, 
t John 
v here only +. 2 Macc. 
x ch. xviii. 22 


a Eph. iv. 11. 2 Tim, 


s ch. viii. 25 reff. 
Wisd. xiv. 1 only. 

w ch. xvi. 1 reff. 
z ch. x. 9 reff. 


om ews N D-lat. 


in N mposevéauevor is written before em 7. avy., but marked for erasure by NX! oF 3, 


and repeated in its proper place. 


5, 6. rec for mposevéauevo: amnomacaucba adkAnAous Kal, mposnviaucba Kat ao7a- 
oamevot aAAnAOus, With HLP rel vulg Chr Cc Thl: txt A B(sie: see table) CEN ad 
13. 36. 40 Syr.mposevé. LP 4. 100-6 Chr Be.—amecracaucba C: arnoracapevor 40: 


anrnonacueba A. 


6. rec eweBnuev (corrn to more usual term), with HLP 13 rel Ee Thi-sif : eveByuev 
(more usual) BEX? k 73 Chr: txt ACN?! a ¢ d 36. 40. 137 Thl-fin. 


7. kateBnuer (corrn to more usual word) AEX. 


emreucivaney A k 40. 


mToAcuatdav NR}. 


8. rec aft efeA@ovres ins o1 wept Tov mavadoy (efeAO. begins an ecclesiastical portion), 
with HLP rel eth-rom (Ee Thl-sif; 0: arocrodo: 47 lectt-13-4: om ABCE(&) cehk 
13. 36. 40 vulg D-lat syrr copt arm Chr Thl-fin.—X has o written, but marked for 
erasure ‘prima manu.’ Steph AGov (40 suit ot wept T. ravadov), with HLP rel Ee 
Thi-sif: txt A(B)CEX k 13. 36 vulg syrr coptt eth Eus Chr.—7Aé@auey B. rec 
ins tov bef ovtos (for precision), with a 13: om ABCEHLPX rel Eus Chr ec Thl. 


[D-lat is deficient in vy 8—11; but readings are preserved in Scriv’s notes. ] 


since its first composition : and mAnpaécat 
is used both of manning a ship and of ful- 
filling a period of time. e€eX0.] from 
the house where they were lodged. 

€ws fw tT. w.] “ We passed through the 
city to the western shore of the ancient 
island, now the peninsula, hoping to find 
there a fitting spot for the tent, in the open 
space between the houses and the sea.” 
Robinson, iii. 392. ert Tov alyradoy | 
** Yet had we looked a few rods further, we 
should have found a very tolerable spot by 
a threshing-floor, where we might have 
pitched close upon the bank, and enjoyed, 
in all its luxury, the cool sea-breeze, and 
the dashing of the surge upon the rocky 
shore.” id. ibid. 7. Tov mAodv S1a- 
vvo.| Having ended our voyage, viz. 
the whole voyage, from Neapolis to Syria. 
The E. V., ‘when we had finished our 
course from Tyre, is allowable, but this 
would more probably have been rdy amd 
Tvpov. ‘ With their landing at Ptolemais 
their voyage ended: the rest of the journey 
was made by land.” (De Wette.) amd 
Tupov will thus be taken with katnyrqca- 


fev. TItoAepatSa] Anciently Accho 
(Ancx@é, LXX, Judg. i. 31,—in Gr. and 
Rom. writers “Axn, Ace), called Ptolemais 
from (probably) Ptolemy Lathurus (Jos. 
Antt. xiii. 12. 2 ff., see 1 Mace. x. 56 ff. ; 
xi. 22, 24; xii. 45, 48; 2 Mace. xiii. 24). 
It was a large town with a harbour (Jos. 
Antt. xviii. 6. 3). It was never (Judg. i. 
31) fully possessed by the Jews, but be- 
longed to the Pheenicians, who in after 
times were mixed with Greeks. But after 
the captivity a colony of Jews is found 
there (Jos. B. J. ii. 18. 5). The emperor 
Claudius gave it the ‘ civitas,’ whence it is 
called by Pliny, v. 17; xxxvi. 65, ‘ Colonia 
Claudii Ceesaris.’ It is now called St. Jean 
d’Acre, and is the best harbour on the 
Syrian coast, though small. It lies at the 
end of the great road from Damascus to the 
sea: Population now about 10,000. The 
distance from Ptolemais to Ceesareais forty- 
four miles. For Caesarea, see on ch. x. 1. 

8. Pid. 7. evayy-] It is possible that 
he may have had this appellation from his 
having been the first to travel about 
preaching the gospel: see ch. viii. 5 ff 


ABCEI 
LPR a 
cedfg 
klm: 
13 


™po- 

TNS «++ 
BCDE 
LPRa 
cdfg 
kim 
013 


6—11. IIPABEIS AITODTOAON. 237 


Y éueltvayev Y rap ato. 9 rovTw dé joav Ovyatépes Téa- ach, xix. 6 
en. 
capes trapOévor * rpodntevovcar. 10 © éipevovtwy Se §°%.2 87 
eis f , g a , ee. = > , reff. hs 
neepas *melovs, % xaTHdOev tis amo Ths “lovdaias <— ch. viii. 5 
, ‘ nn ren. <tr 
“ apodprrns dvouate "AyaBos, 11 cal éXOw@v mpods ds *%*27 
kai 'apas tHhv * favnv tod Lavrov, dyjcas éavtod Ttods Wal Sis 
a , . Fi « here bis, 

Todas Kal Tas xeElpas elev Tade éyer TO TvEedpa TO Matti 
a . = Py “Shere ey ee sé ef 8 4 \| Mk. Rey. 
a@ylov, Tov avopa ov é€aotw 7 * fovn av’tn ovtws Sycovew }.13° x6 
ae \ Se) a ed | , > a ly. Ae 
ey Tepovoadnp ot “lovdatoe xat Tapac@couva tw els NYELpas | oe ut Be 
22 al. fr. Job xvi. 12. 

9. rec mapGevar bef reaoapes, with EHLP rel He Thi: rapSevor bef @vyatepes C Syr 
Eus: txt ABN a k m 13 D-lat. 

10. rec aft emmevovtwy Se ins nuwy (addn for precision), with ELPN3 rel syr-mg 
Chr: avtwy N!: txt ABCH k 13. 36 syr Bas. tpopdnTns bef amo THs tovdaas L. 

11. om rat D-lat: aveA@wy Se D}-gr: txt D?. rec for eavtov, Te abou (in some 
late mss avtov probably from misunderstanding, supposing that it was Paul’s hands 
and feet that he bound), with HLP rel Chr He Thi: txt ABCDEN a b c (m) 0 13. 36 
Cyr-jer Bas, also Orig (nc. eavrov xeipwy k. todwyv) Aug Cassiod. rec Tas XeElpas 
Kat Tous Todas (corrn from Luke xxiv. 39, 40? see var read John xi. 14: so De W. 
Meyer thinks 70d. x. x. arose from its being the natural order of binding: but surely 
this would be more likely to be the origl order of narrating, than to strike a copyist as 
necessary to be observed), with A a1 ¢ dm coptt eth Chr(omg tas and tous) (ec and 


Orig(aboye): txt BCDEHLPR 13 rel 40 vulg syrr arm Cyr-jer Bas Thl. 
es D 26. 63. 97-8. 106 Chr Epiph and (prefixg areA@ovta) Orig. 
aft ers ins ras &1(N3 disapproving). 


D?) Chr ce Thi-sif. 


The office of Evangelist, see reff., seems 
to have answered very much to our 
missionary : Theodoret, on Eph. iv. 11, 
says, éxetvot mepiidvtes éxjpuTtov: and 
Euseb. H. E. ili. 37, Epyov émeréAouy 
evayyeAloT@y, Tots ETL TauTay avnKdas 
Tov Ths wlatews Adyou KnpvTTEW Ty 
xpioroy piroTimovpevot, kal Thy TaY Belwy 
evayyeAlwy mapadiddva ypapnv. The latter 
could hardly have been part of their em- 
ployment so early as this ; nor had evay- 
yéAcov in these times the peculiar meaning 
of a narrative of the life of Christ, but 
rather embraced the whole good tidings of 
salvation by Him, as preached to the Jews 
and Heathens. See Neander, Pfi. u. L., 
pp. 258, 264. Euseb., iii. 31, appa- 
rently mistakes this Philip for the Apostle: 
as did also (see Valesius’s note, Euseb. 1. c.) 
Clement of Alexandria and Papias. 

dvtos ék T. Eta] See ch. vi. 5, and note. 
Meyer and Winer (edn. 6, § 20. 1. ¢.) well 
remark (see De Wette also), that the par- 
ticiple without the article implies that the 
reason why they abode with him was that 
he was one of the seven: ‘ut qui esset,’ 
&c. and in English being (one) of the 
seven. The fact of Philip being settled at 
Ceesarea, and known as 6 evayyeAtoTijs, 
seems decisive against regarding the occur- 
rence of ch. vi. 8 ff. as the establishment of 
any permanent order in the church. 

9.| This notice is inserted apparently with- 
out any immediate reference to the history, 


for ev, 
om oa D!(ins 


but to bring so remarkable a circumstance 
to the knowledge of the readers. The four 
daughters had the gift of mpopnreia: see 
on ch. xi. 27. Eusebius (see, however, 
his mistake above) gives from Polycrates 
traditional accounts of them,—that two 
were buried at Hierapolis, and one at Ephe- 
sus. From that passage, and one cited 
from Clement of Alex. (dvo 6uyarépes 
avTov yeynpakviat tapbévor, Polycr., Euseb. 
rts 32ls sc Bic $idimmos Tas Buyarépas ay- 
dpdow ef€dwxe, Clem., Eus. iii. 30), it 
would appear that two were afterwards 
married, according to tradition. To 
find an argument for the so-called ‘ honour 
of virginity’ in this verse, only shews to 
what resources those will stoop who have 
failed to apprehend the whole spirit and 
rule of the gospelin the matter. They are 
met however on their own ground by an 
argument built on another misapprehen- 
sion (that of Philip being a deacon in the 
ecclesiastical sense): &éste obv kal TG ko- 
vovncavtTt yauwy Siakoveiv e€eort. 

10.] This Agabus in all probability is iden- 
tical with the Agabus of ch. xi. 28. That 
there is no reference to that former men- 
tion of him, might be occasioned by different 
sources of information having furnished 
the two narratives. 11.] Similar sym- 
bolical actions accompanying prophecy are 
found 1 Kings xxii. 11; Isa. xx. 2; Jer. 
mnt ft. > Mizek./ive iff, 9 ff..;'v.1; &e: 
De Wette remarks that rade Aéye: 7d 


238 


m = Matt. xiv. ¢ ra) 

36 al. fr. €Ovav. 
2 Macc. ix. 
26. constr., 
here only. 

n here onlyt. 
see Gen. 
xxvi. 7. 

o ch. iii. 12 reff. 

p ch. xi. 2 reff. 

q 1 Cor. xv. 29 
reff. 

r here only t. 

s = ch. xix. 22 


cannp. 


reff. 

t 2 Cor. xii. 14. 
1 Pet. iv. 5 
only. Dan, 
iii. 15 only. 
(all w. Exe.) 
see 2 Cor. x. 


To Y Oédnpma Y ywécOo. 


u=asabove(t). 
ch. vii. 1 reff. 
Mark y. 23 al. 
Cyr. v. 1. 8. 

yi. 10, xxvi. 42 only. 


vy ch. ix. 16 reff. 


12. maparadovpey D'(txt D+). 
mavAov D eth. emuBawew D. 
tote (see next ver) C m 13. 40. 


IIPAZEIS ATOSTOAON. 


x = Luke xiv. 4. ch. xi. 18 (Luke xxiii. 56. 
z here (ch. i. 5) only. see ch. xv. 36. xxiv. 24. 
only$. 2 Chron. xxxiv.10. é7. 00a edvvavTo UToSUy.a, Xen. Hell. vii. 2. 18. 


om te D Thi-sif. 


XXI. 


\ e n2 , Oo nr \ p > , oun > oF a 
TE Kal Ol ™evTOTTLOL ° TOD fu) P avaBaivety ator ets ‘lepou- 
, id r cal 
13 rote atrexpiOn o IladXos Ti 4 zroveite KNalovTeEs 
/ , 
Kal *avvOpimrovrés prov Ty Kapdiav; éy@ yap ov povov 
Py OF > \ \ > 8 lal s > € ‘ t e / 
eOnvat adda Kat atoGavety ‘eis Lepovcadnp * eToipws 
"éyw YuTep Tod Y dvouatos Tod Kupiov “Incod. 
w fa} ae be > a x e / ? f lal / 
meWouévov dé avtTov *jovydcapev eitrovtes Tod Kupiou 
= 4 
15% Mera 6€ tas * népas * TavTas 
4 érritxevacapevot ? aveBalvopev, eis “lepocoAvpa: 16 » cup- 
a \ \ lal la) > \ / \ ec o 
nrOov 5€ Kat Tov palhntav amo Kaicapelas cvv 7piv, 


14 un 


w absol., ch. xvii.4. Luke xvi.3l. Esth.iv.4 B. Xen. 

1 Thess. iv. 11) only. Neh. v. 8. y Marr. 

Heb. viii. 10. a here 
b = ch. i. 21 reff. 


aft ot evro7mot ins Tov 
om avtov E 93-5 Bas. at end add 


13. rec amexpi0n de, with C! 13 syr Chr: awexpi0n re HLP df gh k 1m eth He Thi: 
evmev Se mpos nuas D (from the various assignment of tote to ver 12 or ver 13, it was 
omitted altogether, and then some copula became necessary): txt ABC?EX 13 rel 36. 


40 vulg Syr coptt arm Cassiod. 


yep, 5 E-gr 95! vulg-ms Tert,. 


oodnu A eth. 
14. ins o: bef exroytes D!. 


om o B}(ins B1-corr: see table). 
ins kat eemevy AEN abd ko13 vulg Syr copt eth arm Cassiod. 

for cvvOpumtovtes, BopyBouytes D}(txt D*) Tert Jer: cvv@pirtortes Pe. 
aft 6<O@nva: ins BovAopa D. 
evs is written over the line ‘prima ut videtur manu’). 
aft imoovu ins xpiotov CD Syrarm Cyr Thdrt Tert Jer, Ambrst Aug. 
aft em. ins mpos aAAnAous D. 


aft mavAos 
om KAaovTes Kat Rt. 
for 
for es, ev R(but 
eTouuws exw bef ers tepov- 


rec To beAnua 


bef tov kuptov (alteration of characteristic order), with DHILP rel vss Chr: txt ABCEN 


m 13 yvulg arm.—for rup., Qeov, D-gr 32. 73 wth. 


rec yevecOw (corrn to more 


usual), with HLP 13 rel Chr: txt ABCDER f g m 0 36. (yew. AB1DER.) 


15. twas nuepas D-gr. 


rec atrooxevacauevol, with c13: mapackevac. C a 7. 


69. 73. 105: amoratawevor D-gr: emoxepanevor H 68. 106: preparati vulg syrr copt 
eth: preparantes E-lat: referimus nos D-lat: txt AB E-gr LP() rel 36. 40 Pamph 


Chr e Thl-sif Thl-fin-comm.—emiokevacapevov (but corrd) NX. 
rec tepovoaAnu, with HLP 13 rel vulg @e Thi: txt ABCDEN 


CDLIN3(om 8). 
a 36 Euthal Chr. 


16. om cuvnAOov be kat Twy wabnTwy D1(and lat). 
for ayoyrtes, ovtot de nyayov D, simulque adducerunt 


ins ex bef rwy wad. E vulg. 


mvedua To &yov is the N. T. prophetic 
formula, instead of td5e A€yer 6 Kdpios of 
the O. T. 12. rod py} A similar 
gen. after exhortation, is found ch. xv. 20. 

13.] The tére, which has been 
changed in the rec. for the ordinary copula, 
gives solemnity to the answer about to be 
related: q.d. It was then that Paul said. 

ovvOpvmtovtes | The present part. 
does not imply the endeavour merely, here 
or any where else, but as Meyer quotes 
from Schaefer, Eurip. Phen. 79, ‘ Vere 
incipit actus, sed ob impedimenta caret 
eventu.’ yap] Hither, ‘your pro- 
ceeding is in vain, for ... .’—or ‘ cease 
to do so, for....” eis ‘Iep.] on my 
arrival at: the motion to, which was the 
subject in question, is combined with that 
which might result on it: see reff. and ch. 
ii. 39. 14. 7. «. Td OX. yiv.] One of 


avaBaivouev 


for amo, ex D!(txt D?). 


the passages from which we may not un- 
fairly infer, that the Lord’s prayer was used 
by the Christians of the apostolic age. See 
note on 2 Tim. iv. 18. 15. émiokeva- 
odpevor| The remarkable variety of read- 
ing in this word shews that much difficulty 
has been found in it. The rec. arockeva- 
oduevor (which may perhaps have arisen 
from the mixture of a@motaiduevor (D) 
with émioxevacduevor), would mean, not, 
‘having deposited our (useless) baggage,’ 
—but, ‘having discharged our baggage, 
‘unpacked the matters necessary for our 
journey to Jerusalem, from our coffers.’ 
But émiok. is the better supported reading, 
and suits the passage better: having 
packed up, made ourselves ready for the 
journey. ‘ Carriages’ in the E. V. is used, 
as at Judg. xviii. 21 (where it answers to 
7) Bdpos, LXX-B), for baggage, things 


2 @ 5 dé nKovcapev TadTa, ™ TapeKaXovpEV Mweis ABCD 


HLPR 
bedf 


eeeEK 
xeoa D 
ABCEI 
LPN a 
edfg. 
klmc 
13 


12—20. 


© dryovtes 4 


fapxyalo palnri. 


codupa ‘acpévas * 


4 2 ah: fal fal >! 
d€ lériovaon ™eisnet 0 IladdXos aby auiv © pos “laxwPor, 


TIPABEIS AITOSTOAQN. 239 
map @ °fencOauev Mvdowvi ti Kutpig =o. xvii. 
17 80 yevouévav Sé€ tuov & eis “Tepo- 
amredéFavto auas of aderdpot. 18 TH e ch. x. 6 reff 


d attr., here 
only? see 
note. 


ch. xv. 7 reff. 
g ch. xx. 16 
reff. 
h constr., ch. 


19 Kal P aowa- 


fi / 
ee TavTes TE ™TapeyévovTo oi ° TpecBuTEpor. const ca 
‘ . SN o 2 Cor. xii, 21 
ay 2 admevos avtous IeEnyetto Kal ev * Exactov § wy ETroinaen 2. see 2 Cor. 
ae RG = A Wi 
as 0 Geos év Tois COveow Sia THS ‘dvaxovias avTod. 2 of b€ Troe” 
; i here (ch. ii. 


/ > / lal ‘a lal 
axovoavtes “éd0Eafov tov Oeov, cizrov Te avT@ Y Ocwpets, 


k ch. ii. 41 reff. 
o ch. xi. 30 reff. 
x. 8 xv. 12,14. Luke xxiy. 35. Luke only, exc. John i. 18. Judg. vii. 13. 

i ff. 


12. x. 33 A (-vos, B) only. 
n absol., ch. xvii. 10 reff. 
s attr., Rom. xy. 18 reff. t ch. xx. 24 reff. 
vce. 


D-lat. add yuas DE sah arm. 


vy = John iy. 19. xii. 19. ch. xxvii. 10. 


41 rec.) onlyt. 
2 Mace. iy. 
m ch. iii. 3 reff. 
q ch. 
r ch. xvii. 27 reff. 
Luke y. 25, 26. ch. xi. 18 al. Exod. 
2 Mace. ix. 23. 


1 ch. xvi. 11 reff. 
= ch. xviii. 22 reff. 


u Matt. xv. 31. 
Heb. vii. 4. 


for wap w, mpos ovs D!-gr(Wetst: txt Ussher). 


aft Eevicd. add kat mapayevouevor ets Tiva(THY Syr-Ing) KwunY eyevoucba mapa 


D syr-mg. 
18. om ti Al. 


vacwvt Di(and lat) fuld tol: sacwve & demid copt: pracw Bg 1. 
palntn bef apxaiw D(Wetst) sah. 


D-lat has 


the passage thus: ef cum venerunt in quendam civitatem fuimus ad nasonem quendam 
cyprium discipulum antiquum et inde exeuntes venimus hierosolyma (thus far, nearly, 


syr-mg also) susceperunt autem nos cum letitia fratres. 


Scriv’s notes, see above on ver 8. | 


[readings of D-gr are in 


17. rec edetavto (substitution of simpler word), with HLP rel Ge Thi: vzedeé. 
D(Mill &): txt ABCEX a k 18. 36. 40 Chr-comm. 
18. for de, re A E gr & 40 syrr eth: txt BCHLP 13. 36 rel vulg D-lat E-lat coptt 


Chr Ge Thi. 
ins cuynyuevur D 34, 


19. ovs aomapevos(sic) Sinyerto eva exacrov ws ewornoev D'-gr(txt D2). 


D'(ins D-corr!). om dia N 1. 


20. axovoyvres HL k. 


for mapey., noay de rap avtw D1(txt D°). 


edofagay DX Thl-fin. 


aft o: mpeoBurepor 
> 


om ev 


rec (for Geov) kupiov, with 


DHP rel syr sah Ge: txt ABCELN ad fg k 0 13. 36. 40 vulg Syr copt arm Chr Thl. 


for evroy Te, exrovtes CD c g h m syr Chr. (e:mavy EX: ervey 13.) 


carried. 16.] Two renderings are 
given to the latter clause of this verse : (1) 
making Mvdowm, &c. depend on ayortes, 
and agreeing by attr. with @, as E. V., 
‘and brought with them one Mnason, . . 
with whom we should lodge’ (so Beza, 
Calvin, Wolf, Schétt., &e.): and (2) re- 
solving the attraction into &yovres mapa 
Mvacwva, map @ &. ‘ bringing us to Mna- 
son, Ye. (So Grot., Valcknaer, Bengel, De 
Wette, Meyer, al.) Both are legitimate: 
and it is difficult to choose between them. 
The probability of Mnason being a resident 
at Jerusalem, and of the Cesarean brethren 
going to introduce the company to him, 
seems to favour the /atter: as also does the 
fact that Luke much more frequently uses 
uyw with a person followed by a preposi- 
tion than absolutely. Of Mnason nothing 
further is known. a&pxaiw probably 
implies that he had been a disciple é€ 
&px7js, and had accompanied our Lord 
during His ministry. See ch. xi. 15, where 
the term ée apxjs is applied to the time 
of the Pentecostal effusion of the Spirit. 
17—XXIII. 35.] Pav at Jerusa- 
LEM: MADE PRISONER, AND SENT TO 
CSAREA. 17. ot aSeAgot] The 
Christians generally : not the Apostles and 


om 


elders, as Kuin., who imagines from vy. 
20, 21, that ‘ccoetus non favebat Paulo.’ 
But (1) this is by no means implied: and 
(2) James and the elders are not mentioned 
till ver. 18, 18. *IdxwBov] James, 
‘the brother of the Lord: the president 
of the church at Jerusalem : see ch. xii. 17; 
xv. 13; Gal. ii. 12, and notes,—and Pro- 
lege. to the Epistle of James, vol. iv. pt. 1, 
§ i. 24—37. Onthe particular kind of at- 
traction (reff.), in a gen. plur. after a parti- 
tive adjective, see Winer, edn. 6, § 24. 2. b. 

20.] While they praised God for, 
and fully recognized, the work wrought by 
him among the Gentiles, they found it 
requisite to advise him respecting the sus- 
picion under which he laboured among the 
believing Jews. They,—led, naturally per- 
haps, but incorrectly (see 1 Cor. vii. 18), 
by some passages of Paul’s life (and of his 
already written Epistles ?), in which he 
had depreciated legal observances in com- 
parison with faith in Christ, and spoken 
strongly against their adoption by Gentile 
converts,— apprehended that he advised on 
the part of the Hellenistic believers, an 
entire apostasy from Moses and the ordi- 
nances of the law. Qewpets| This 
can hardly be a reference (as Olsh.) to the 


240 TIPAZEIZ, ATIOSTOAON. XXI. 


w = Luke xii. 
1. (ch. xix. 19 
reff.) 

x= Che xv,D 
reff. 

y = ch. xxii. 3. 
1 Cor. xiv. 12. 


, 0 DAL gs 40 Se \ na b2 t 
apKXovalv cad KaATNHX?) noOaV O€ TEPL GOV OTL aTOCOTaAGLAV 


\ vf 
© §iddcKers ato Mavaéws © Tovs ‘Kata ta *éOvyn TavTas 
> / / \ e / > \ \ / be 
lovdaious, Néywv pn © TeEpiTéuverv avToOvs Ta TEKVAa MOE 
2he oty éeotw; ‘TavTws 


Gal. i. 14. 
Tit. ii. 4. 
1 Pet. iii. 13 
(Luke vi. 15. 
ch. i. 13) only. 
2 Macc. iv. 2. 
(Exod. xx. 5 
al.) 
z ch. ii. 30 reff. 
a ch. xviii. 25 


tows '&eow § wepiTratetv. 
a lal rn / \ c s 

Seo * cuverOeiv '7rHO0s, akovcovtar yap OTL €dnAVOas. 
‘ nm 5 ° > a 

23 todTO obv Toincov 6 aoL Eyomev eEloly Huiv avdpes 


ret. 
b 2 Thess. ii. 


3 only. , oy M3 ” 249 e a ‘ 
2 Chron. m m n - Mo 
eet TETOAPES EUV 1V EXOVTES ep EAUTW) TOUTOUS 


> constr., Mark \ va) \ “ ’ 
conto ie P rapadaBov TayvicOnte adv avtois, Kai * damavncov éT 


xiv. 26. Heb. 3 = o 5 , \ / \ U / 
Be er: auTols lWa Evpnoovtar THV Kepandiy, Kab YVYU@OOoVTal 7 aV- 


d here only. 
e 1 Cor. vil. 18 reff. 
h 1 Cor. xiv. 15, 26. 
only+. L.P. Tobit xiv. 8. 
m ch. xviii. 18 (reff.) only. n= 
q = here bis. ch. xxiv. 18. John xi. 55 (James iv. &. 
here only. w. umeép, 2 Cor. xii. 15. w. ev, James iy. 3. 
s1 Cor. xi. 5,6 only. Numb. vi. 18, 19. 
avtw D. rec (for ev To1s tovdato1s) covdaiwy, with HLP rel syr Chr Thdrt, Ee Thi: 
ev Tn tovdaia D Syr sah Jer Aug: om ev 7. wovd. X: txt ABCE a 13. 36. 40 vulg copt 
eth Ambrst. aft maytes ins ovtou(tovta D!) D 38 tol Syr Ambrst Aug Jer. 


21. katnxOnoay 25. 40: katnxnoay D\(diffamaverunt D-lat: txt D?). om de 


2 Cor. xii. 18. (see ch. ix. 31.) 
1 Cor. (y. 10.) ix. 10, 22. xvi. 12 
l absol., see ch. ii. 6 reff. 


f ch. vi. 14 reff. g constr., Gal. v. 16. 
i = Luke iv. 23. ch. xxviii. 4. (Rom. iii. 9.) 
2 Mace. iii. 13 only. k = ch. 1. 6 reff. 
here only. o ch, ix. 20 reff. p = ch. xvi. 33 reff. 
1 Pet. i. 22. 1 John iii. 3) only. Exod. xix. 10. rw. emt, 
absol., Mark y. 26. Luke xv. lfonly+. 1 Macc. xiv. 32. 


Xi. om ta D}, for maytas, evo D1(and lat): om AE 13 vulg copt Jer 
Aug: txt BCD4HLN rel 36 vss Chr Ec Thl. tovdaors D*(txt D*). om 
Aeywy D Jer: Aeyw RI. bn opirew mepiteuvery E vulg Jer Aug. MNTE ev 


ros ebveow D!, neque gentes ejus ambulant D-lat.—ins avtov(avtous D*) bef wepir. D!. 

22. om ber cuveAbe mAnOos and yap (expunged as not understood) BC} 15. 73. 
137-80 syrr coptt «th arm: ins AC?7DEHLPX rel vulg Chr ic Thl.—ins ro bef mAn@os 
D4.—ree 7AnOos bef ovveAOew, with DHLP rel Chr: txt AC?EX a dh 138. 40 vulg.— 
om ‘yap C2: om yap ott NX}. eAnavées B. 


lal ’ lal 
aderpé, Toca. “ pupiddes eiciv év Tois ‘lovdalows Tov ABC 
- = Ri 
XareTLOTEVKOT@V, Kal TavtTes ¥Y&AwTAal Tod vo“ou * UT- beat 
r 


23. for 3, omep E. for eg’, ap(sic) B(Tischdf) &. 
24. ex avtrovs Aa l3: ets avtovs D. 


Chr; Eupwyra D!: txt BY(sic) D2EPN c¢ k 1o 13. 


rec gupnowvrat, with AB?CHL rel 36 
rec yywot (grammatical corrn 


aft wa), with HLP rel Chr Gc Thl-sif, eognoscant D-lat: txt ABC D-gr EX adm 13 
(36) 40 vulg coptt (Thl-fin) Jer Aug.—(-cwvTa: 36 Thl-fin.) 


elders present, as representatives of the 
pupiddes of believing Jews ; for only those 
of Jerusalem were there :—but refers to 


Paul’s own experience, and knowledge of (form, after which : see reff. 


the vast numbers of the Jews who believed 
at Jerusalem, and elsewhere in Judza. 

mocat pupiades is perhaps not to be 
strictly taken: see reff. Baur suspects, 
on account of this expression, that the 
words tay memior. are spurious ; but quite 
without reason. Eusebius quotes from 
Hegesippus (H. E. ii. 23), moAA@v kal 
tav apxdvtav morevdvtwy Hy OdpuBos 
Tav “lovdalwy Kal ypaupatéwy Kal Papi- 
calwy AcybvTwy bt Kwduveter Tas 5 Aads 
"Inoobv thy xpioTdov mposdoxay. On the 
other hand, Origen (tom. i. in Joann. § 2, 
vol. iv. p. 3) says, that probably the whole 
number of believing Jews at no time had 
amounted to 144,000. Oneioiv .. . imdp- 
xovat, see note, ch. xvi. 20, 21. 21. kar- 
nxyonoav| they were sedulously in- 
formed (at some time in the mind of the 
speaker. The sense of the aor, must be 


preserved. Below, ver. 24, it is the per- 
fect): viz., by the anti-Pauline judaizers. 

Tots €Veov | the dat. of the rule, or 
22. mwav- 
tas 8. cvvedO. wA.}] Not, as E. V., Calv., 
Grot., Calov., ‘the multitude must needs 
come together,’ i.e. there must be a meeting 
of the whole church (7d 7A7@0s, ch. ii. 6) : 
but a multitude (of these Judaizers) will 
certainly come together: ‘ they will meet 
and discuss your proceeding in a hostile 
manner. 23. evxyv] A vow of Na- 
zarites. This vow must not be confounded, 
historically or analogically, with that of ch. 
xvili. 18: see note there, and Num. vi. 
2—21. 24. wapodaBdv] having 
taken to thyself, as comrades. ayy. 
ovv avt.| become a Nazarite with them. 
The same expression occurs in the LXX, 
Num. vi. 3, in describing the Nazarite’s 
duties. Sandy. ém’ ait.| ‘“ More 
apud Judos receptum erat, et pro insigni 
pietatis officio habebatur, ut in pauperum 
Nasirzorum gratiam ditiores sumptus ero- 


BCDI 


013 


21—27. TIPABEIS ATIOSTOAQN. 241 
Tes OTe ‘av *®KaTHYNVTAL TEpl Tov “ovdéy éaTLV, adAG HEAT 


a \ \ / 
YoTowyets “Kat “ avtos *pudNdoowyv TOV vomor. 
\ n / fal a 
dé Tay YreruatevKdtav eOvav Hpeis * eTecTeiNaper, * KpL- 
vavTes pndev ToLodTov ” rTnpeiv avTovs, et pi) © bUNaooes Oat 


OK y u=ch. xxv. 
“9 TEPL 11. 

v ellips., here 
only. OT., 
Rom. iv. 12. 
Gal. v. 25. 
vi. 16. Phil. 
ili. 16 only. 


> \ / / \ . ow 
autovs To Te teidwdOOuTOY Kai [TO] aipa Kal © TVLKTOY Fecles. xi.6 


Nae. , 
Kat © Tropvelav. 


only, but 
not =. 


, an \ 
26 tore 0 IladAos ‘rapadaBov Tods yh 3.27, 


32. Matt. 


” 8 a @ 2 , Coes, \ > yn TS 6 \ hee ee? _ Mat 
QV Pas 77) EXOMEVI) NMEPA OvVY AUTOS — aAYVLOVELS ELSNEL — xxvii. 57. 
x 


- eae a 
els TO lepov, | dtayyéddXwv TiV JéxTAjpwow TOV Hwepov , *"; 


= ch. xvi. 4 


ch. xv. 5 
ff. 


ake n of ® Im ey) CEN RK CEN co e7, reff. 
TOV ~ AYVLOLLOV, EWS OU TT POSHNVEN 2) UTEP ~ EVOS EKAGTOU «ch. xv. 20 


avTov 1) ™ mposhopa. 


tal (- a ’ ’ a a 
IgvyteretoOat, ot ato THs “Acias “lovdaior Ocacdpevor ” rest 


2 Tim. iv. 15. 
g =ch. xx. 15 reff. 


2 Kings xx. 10. 
h ch. iii. 3 reff. 


jhere only +. 2 Macc. vi. 14 only. (-povv, ch. xiii. 33.) 

Levit. i. 2, 3 al. 
Ps. xxxix. 6, 

q Mark xiii. 4. 


vii. 42 reff. Heb. v. 1, 3. ix. 7. 
o=ch.xxiv.17. Heb. x. 5, 10, 14, 18. 
Jer. xxxvi, (xxix.) 10. 
ins zrept bef wy C a e 36. 40. 
D-lat: txt D? or 4), 


d 1 Cor, viii. 1 reff. 


reff. 


27 ws O€ P&wedroy ai EwTA Huépar 2 = ch-xv. 19 


ch. xy. 5 


c w. acc., = 
e ch. xv. 20 (reff.). f ver. 24. 
Rom. ix. 17 (from Exod. ix. 16) only. 
Num. vi. 5. 1 ch. 
n ch. xvii. 27 reff. 
John iv, 47. ch. xxvil. 33. 
Heb. viii. 8 only. Job i. 5. 


i Luke ix. 60. 
k here only. 

m Heb. x. 8. 
p = Luke vii. 2. 

Luke iy. 2,13. Rom. ix. 28. 


ins kat bef orotxers A: ott mopevov D!-gr(ambulans 
om kat D}(and lat: txt D2? or 4), 


ree Tov vowoy bef 


gvaacowy, with HLP rel Syr Ge Thi-sif: txt ABCDEN a ec m 13 vulg Chr Thi-fin. 


25. for cOvey, avOpwrav EK. 
nets) yap D sah. 


100. 


aft €Oywy ins ovdey exovot Aevyety Tpos oe, and (aft 
ameotetAauey (more usual word) BD 1| 40 syr copt: txt 
ACEHLPR® 13. 36 rel vulg D-lat Syr sah Chr Ge Thi. 
om undey To.ovtoy THpewv avtTovs ec un ABN 13. 40 vulg Syr copt «th 


Kpwovtes D1(txt D? or 4) 


(prob because no such clause is found in the apostolic decree ch xv.28. It canhardly 


have been interpolated): ins CDKHLP rel 36 syr arm Chr Aug.—To1ovto CE. 
om To [bef ama} ABCDN ac13: amo 8wAobuTwY Kat amaros Kat 
mvikTov kat Topyias EH: txt HLP rel Chr ec Thi. 
ins To bef mvixtoy 1 m 40. 99 Chr Thl-fin. 


te De 187. 


om kat 15. 36. 
invert the order, mopy. kK. TVLKT. K. aLpa. 
26. om o DE. eriovon D. 
om 7 D. 


evsn\Oev D. 


om 


om Kat mvixtoy D sah Jer Aug: 
Syr eth-pl 


for ews ov, ows donec D. 


27. cuvteAouperns de THS EBdounSs nuepas D: cum advenisset dies septimus Syr. 


qucAdov ELP c k m. 
the rest supplied by D?. 


garent ad sacrificia (see Num. vi. 14 ff.) 
quze dum illi tonderentur, offerre necesse 
erat.” Kypke. Jos. Antt. xix. 6.1, relating 
Agrippa’s thank-offerings at Jerusalem, 
says, 5:0 kal NaCipalwy Evpas0a diérake 
dda cuxvovs. Ontheshaving the head, 
see Num. vi. 18. De Wette remarks : 
‘ James and the elders made this proposal, 
assuming that Paul could comply with it 
salva conscientia,—perhaps also as a proof, 
to assure themselves and others of his sen- 
timents: and Paul accepted it salva con- 
scientid. But this he could only have 
done on one condition, that he was sure by 
it not to contribute in these four Nazarites 
to the error of justification by the works 
of the law. He might keep, and encou- 
rage the keeping of the law,—but not with 
the purpose of thereby deserving the appro- 


bation of God.’ 25.] See ch. xv. 28, 
29. 26.] Paul himself entered into 


the vow with them (ov avrots ayv.), and 
the time settled (perhaps the least that 
Vou. II. 


aft ot ins de D-gr. 
aft covdator ins eAnAvOoTes D. 


a only of azo is written by D}, 
Ocacamevor avToy 


could be assigned: the Mischna requires 
thirty days) for the completion of the vow, 
i.e. the offering and shaving of their heads, 
was seven days. No definite time is pre- 
scribed in Num. vi., but there seven days 
is the time of purification in case of un- 
cleanness during the period of the vow. 
StayyéAAwv | making known to 

the ministers of the temple. THY 
éxtrAypwov | the fulfilment, i.e. that he 
and the men had come to fulfil: an- 
nouncing their intention of fulfilling. 
€ws of mposnvexOy | ‘ donec offer- 
retur, Vulg. The aor. indic. is unusual in 
an indirect construction, where the aor. 
subj. is almost always found (ch. xxiii. 12, 
21; xxv. 21). But we have Plato, Gorg. 
p- 506, ji€ws. . . bv. . . Stereyduny, ws 
avTg Thy Tov Audlovos aredoxa piow,— 
and Cratyl. 396, ot« by éerauduny diekioy 
. +. . €ws AmemeipaOny THs copias TavTyol Th 
motnoet. (De W.)  ™posdopa| Sce 
Num. vi. 13—17. 27. rate Ap. | 


242 


r ch. ii. 6 reff. 

s Matt. xxvi. 
50. Luke 
xx. 19. xxi. 
12. John vii. 
30. ch. v. 18. 
Gen. xxii. 12. 
see ch. iy. 3. 

t ch. xvi. 9 reff. 

u Matt. xxiv. 
15. ch. vi. 13. 
Ps. Ixvii. 5. 

2 Macc. ii. 18. 

v here only. 
Isa. xxiv. 11. 
Wisd. ii. 9. 

2 Mace. viii. 
7 only. 
(-xov, ch. 
AL 30.) 

w Luke xiv. 
26 only. 
ch. ii. 26. 

x — (ch.ix.9. 
Luke xxii. 
54. Jer. xiii. 
(xxxy.) 4. 

y Matt. xv. 11, 
&c. |i. Heb. 
ix. 13 (ch, x. 
15. xi. 9) 
only+. 

z constr., ch. xxii. 29 reff. 

reff.). see 1 Macc. xiii. 44. 
d ch. xvii. 19 reff. e James ii. 6 only. 

reff. h = ch. xiii. 8 reff. 

xviii. 12. vy. 33, 37, &c. 1 Kings xviii. 13. 


"Iopannirat, ' BonOetre. 


6 IladXos. 


see 


ai @vpat. 


TIPABEITS ATIOZTOAON. 


a = here (ch. ii. 25 from Ps. xv. 8) only $. 
c here only t. 

Eccl. i. 5. see ch. xvi. 19. 
isee ch. x. 4. 
m ch. x. 1 reff. 


XXI. 


§ <4 3 a ¢ na , , \ ” \ 
avTov €v TO lep® “ovvéyeov TavtTa TOV dyYAOV, Kal 
SéréBadov Sen’ adtov Tas *yxetpas 28 Kpafovtes "Avdpes 


a , , c ” e A 
ovTOS €oTWW 0 avOpwrros 0 KaTa 


Tov AaoD Kal TOD VOmsoU Kal TOD “TOTOV ToUTOU TaYTaS 
Yqravtayy SidacKwv, “ete Te Kai “EXXnvas * eisnyaryev 
(? \ al 
els TO lepov Kal ¥ KexotvmKev TOV “ dyLov “TOTTOV TOUTOD. 
at , / a 
29 2Aoav yap “ mpoewpakotes Tpodipov tov Edéctov év TH 
/ \ > a aA Din, e > A e \ bee 
TOAEL TLV AUTO, Ov Evoutfov STL eis TO tepov * Elsnryaryev 
/ ! « / 
80> éxwvnOn Te 1) Tod GOAN, Kal eyEeVvETO 
©guvdpoun Tod aod, Kal 4 ériraBowevor Tod Ilavdov 
©eidxov avtov 'é&m Tod lepov, Kai evOéws * éxreiaPnoav 
31) &rovvtTwy Te avTov atroxTteivat, ‘avéBn 
k / a | NY / n m / ee OX n / 
pacis TO yiALApy@ THs ™ omelpys OTL OAn ™ GvYXUYVETAL 


b = ch. xxiv. 5 (xvii. 28 
Judith x.18. 3 Mace. iii. 8 only. (-tpéxewy, ch. iii. 11.) 

ver. 5. ch. v. 23 
Susan. 55 Theod. = John 
n ver. 27. 


k here only+. 


ev Tw tepw bef o1 a, T. a. covdaror C 180: beac. avrov bef o a. 7. a. covd. ¢ 137. 
auvexeay C 180: suverxov 20. 41: cuverewwnoay te E: concitaverunt vulg E-lat: 


confuderunt D-lat. 
emeBadadov b! o Thl-sif. 


om mayta Ti 2. 41. 
rec tas xeipas bef ex avtov (corrn of arrangement), 


emeBardav AN}: extBaddAovow D: 


with HLP rel coptt ec Thl-sif: txt ABCDEN a ¢ h k m 18. 40 vulg syrr arm Chr 


Thl-fin. 


28. aft tomov ins Tov ayiov AC? 73 lectt-13-4. 
rec Tavtaxov (alteration to more usual word), with HUP rel Chr 


erased) &?. 
(ec Thi: txt ABCDEX b c 0 18. 36. 
951. om te D}(ins D2). 


toutous (but s marked and then 


om te D m. esnyev D}(txt D3) 


Kekowwvyre B2E 0 36. 137: exowwynoey D!: 


exowwoev D-corr: Kekowwvxev (but vy marked and erased) X?. 
29. for mpoewp., copaxotes HL, ewpaxotes Pdf ghk1m vulg(not tol) sah eth Chr 


Thi-sif. om tov &. 
80. tov mavaoy E d. 
(cav being written above the line) &?. 


evourcapey (but putaverunt) D. 
om avtoy D fuld. 


om oD. 
for kat to Oupat, exAtcOnoay evbews 


31. rec (for Te) Se, with D?HL rel 36 vulg syr coptt Chr: txt ABEPN a Syr eth. (13 


def.)—[ xa] (nr. D?. 


rec svykexuta, With EHLPN3 rel Chr He Thl, confusa 


est D-lat E-lat: txt AB D-gr&! 13, confunditur vulg. (ovyxuverat B? 13.) 


Of the votive period: not (as Chrys. and 
Bede) since Paul’s arrival in Jerusalem. 
Five days of the seven had passed: see 
on ch. xxiv. 11. Cf. on the whole, Bp. 
Wordsworth’s note. amo T. Ag. | 
From Ephesus and the neighbourhood, 
where Paul had solong tanght. ‘ Paulus, 
dum fidelibus placandis intentus est (viz. 
the believing Jews), in hostium furorem 
incurrit (viz. of the unbelieving Asiatic 
Jews). Calv., in Meyer, who adds, ‘In 
how many ways had those who were at 
Jerusalem this Pentecost, already perse- 
cuted Paul in Asia ?’ Notice the simi- 
larity of the charge against him to that 
against Stephen, ch. vi. 13. 28. 
“EdAnvas| The generic plural: only one 
is intended, see next verse. ‘They meant, 
into the inner court, which was forbidden 
to Gentiles. 29. Tpd.]| See ch. xx. 


4, note. We here learn that he was an 
Ephesian. 30.| The Levites shut 
the doors to prevent profanation by a riot, 
and possibly bloodshed, in the temple: 
hardly, as Bengel, ‘ne templi tutela ute- 
retur Paulus :?—the right of asylum was 
only (Exod. xxi. 13, 14) for murder un- 
awares (Meyer). But by ver. 14 there, and 
by Joab’s fleeing to the altar, 1 Kings ii. 
28 ff., we see that it was resorted to on 
other occasions. 31. LyTovvTey K.7.A. | 
By beating him: see ver. 32. avéBy | 
went (was carried) up; up, either because 
of his high station, as commanding officer, 
or because he was locally stationed in the 
tower Antonia, overlooking (from the 
N.W.) the temple, where the riot was. 

TO xtAtapxw T. or. | Claudius Lysias (ch. 
xxiii, 26), the tribune of the cohort (whose 
proper complement was 1000 men). 


weet 
Oupar C 
ABDI 
HLPR 
bedf 
hkl1 
013 


28—37. 


TIPAREIS AITOLTOAQN. 


243 


c . ial 
Tepovoaryu 82 bs °e& aiths PrapadkaBav otpatimtas °°b-*.9 20M. 


kal ‘ éxatovtdpyas * katéSpamev em” avtous. 
Tov }yiiapyov Kal Tos oTpaTtas * émavcavTO TU- 
33 rote *éyyicas 0 xUAlapyos 
" éqreXaBero avTod Kal * éxédXevoev SeOAvat “ adicece dvi, 


mrTovres tov IlavxXovr. 


p ch. xvi. 33 
c \ is , reff. 
of Sé LOOVTES gq ch. x. Lreff. 
, \here only. 
3 Kings xix. 
20 B. Job 
xvi. 11. Xen. 
Anab. vii. 1. 
20. (-dpomy, 
2 Macc. v. 3.) 
s constr., ch. 
xiii. 10 reff. 


\ > Me ft x ” \ / > , 
Kal émuvOaveto tis [av] ein Kal TL éoTW TrETTOLNKaS. , Mire 


34% GrNor O€ *AAXO TL Yerepwvovy ev TO CYAw [U1 
duvapévou 6€ avTod yvavat TO *aofhades Sia Tov * Gopv- 
Vv ee J: ” @ Jee ? \ b / 

Bov, YéxéXevoev cyecOat adTov els THY * rapeuPorny. 
35 Gre 5 éyéveTo eri Tovs °avaBabpous, 

/ fa} > XN id \ cal a \ \ f - la) 
otabec Oa av’tov td TOY oTpatiwTay dia THY ' Biay Tod 
dyAouv: 35 nKodovber yap TO TAHVOs Tod ANaod KpalovTes 
37 wéAN@V Te elsayeoOat els THY 
Bory 6 Ilatdos A€yee TO yotrdpywo “Ei ié€eotiy pow 


8 Aipe avrov. 


xviii. 40, 
xxiv. 15. 


ch, xxiii. 15, 
Gen. xxvii. 
27. 

u ch. xvii. 19 
reff. 


str., ch. 
d , e vy constr., 
OUVE a- xil. 19. 
Bn B w ch. xii. 6 reff. 
x ch. xix. 32 


(ref.) only. 
y ch. xii. 22 
reff. 


Z— Ch XXily 
30. xxv. 26 
(Phil. iii. 1. 
Heb. vi. 19) 
only}. Xen. 
Mem. iv. 6. 


» Trapem- 


? a ry 
eimely TL pos ae; 0 dé &dn * ‘EAAquistl ywookels ; Po cis. 


24, Mark v.38. ch. xx. 1. xxiv.18 only. Jer. xxx. (xlix.) 2. (-Bety, ch. xvii. 5.) 
Heb. (xi, 34.) xiii. 11, 13. i 


bis. ch. xxii. 24. xxiii. 10, &c. 
only. 3 Kings x. 19, 20. 

iii. 2 reff. 
i. 6 reff, 
(only). 
Fin. ii. 5. 


82. for mapad., AaBwy B, sumptis D-lat. 


36 Chr Ge Thl: txt ABD!EX 18. 


f ch. v. 26 reff. g=L 
iw. aor., ch. ii. 29. Matt. xix. 3. 2 Cor. xii.4. Esth, iv. 2. 
k John xix. 20 only. €vvier“EAAnviort, Xen. An. vii. 6. 8. ‘Grecé scire,’ Cic. de 


\| Mk. xxvii. 
b = here 
Rey. xx. 9 only. Isa. xxi. 8. c ver. 40 
d impers. and constr., here only. (ch. iii. 10 reff.) 2 Macc. iii. 2, ech. 


h ch. 
1 Mace, xiv. 44 


Isa. lvii. 1. see ch. xxii. 22. 
Ezra iv. 14. 


uke xxiii. 18. 


rec exatovtapxous, with D?HLP rel 


33. eyyioas 5e HLP rel Syr Ge Thl: txt ABDEN a c m 13. 36 vulg syr eth Chr 


Thl-fin. 


eot memoikws(sic) D!. 
34. for adAo Ti, aAAa D syr Chr. 


advceow dvow DEHP: advoeor Sve m: txt ABLN 13 rel. 
rec ins av bef en, with EHLP rel Chr ic Thl: om ABDR a 36. (13 def.) 


TIS 


rec (for erepwvovv) eBowv, with HLP rel 


Chr Ge Thl-sif: ereBowy c (m) 25. 40 Chr-ms: txt ABDEN 13. 36 Thl-fin. 
rec un dvvauevos Se and om avrou (emendation of style), with HLP rel 36 Chr: txt 
AB(D)EN m 13 sah Thl-fin.—kat wn Suv. avr. D 


35. for em, ers D. 
Aaov D. 
86. om Tov Aaov D. 


87. om v mavdos D: om. bef ets arm. 
for exreny, AaAnoa D. 


33. advo. Svc} See ch. xii.6. He would 
thus be in the custody of two soldiers. 

tis [av] etn, who he might be 
(subjective possibility) : and tt éotiv tretr., 
what he had done (assuming that he must 
have done something). 34. wapepB. | 
The camp or barracks attached to the tower 
Antonia ;—or perhaps ‘into the tower’ 
itself: but the other is the more usual 
meaning of rapeuB. “For a full history 
and description of the fortress of Antonia, 
see Robinson, i. pp. 431, 4385; Williams, 
Holy City, i. 99; ii. 403—411; Howson, 
ii. 311.” Wordsworth. 35. avaBabp.. | 
The steps leading up into the tower. The 
description of the tower or fort Antonia in 
Jos. B. J. v. 5. 8, sets the scene vividly 


for Bact. avtov, tov mavdov Baor. D. 


for oxAov, 


rec kpaCov (grammatical emendation), with DHLP rel 
Chr Cc: txt AB E-gr Na b dk 0 13. 36. 40 Syr copt Thl. 


avaiperoOau tollite D. 
Tw XElALapx. amoxpiOes errev D. 


om t1 DHLP dfgh1tol Syr eth arm Thl-sif: ins 
ABER 13. 36 rel vulg syr copt Chr Thl-fin. 


before us:—mupyoedis 5¢ otoa Td wav 
oXima, Kata ywvlay Téccapow EréEpors 
diefAnmTo mupyos* @y of wey BAAoL Tev- 
theovta Td Hos, 6 5 emi TH pmeonuBpw7y 
Ka Kat” GyatoAny ywvia Kelwevos éB5o- 
Lhkovta mnxX@v iv, as Kabopav brov aw 
avtod Td iepdy. Kaba 5& ouviwTo Tails 
Tov tepov aToats, eis GupoTtépas elxe KaTA- 
Paces’ 5° adv Karidvtes of ppoupol, Kad- 
jloto yap ae em avtThs tayua “‘Pwpalov, 
kal Siiordmevor wep) Tas oTOdS pmeTa THY 
brAwy, ev Tais Eoptais Toy Bhuoy, os pi- 
TL vewtepisbeln, mapepidarrov: ppovpioy 
yap éméxerto TH TéAEL wey Td iepdv, TE 
icp@ Se 7 ’Avrwvia. 37. “EAAqvoti 
yty.] as ‘ Greece nescire,’ Cic. pro Flace. 4, 
—tovs Supictl emoraucvovs, Xen. Cyr. 


R 2 


24.4 


lch. xvii. 6 
reff. 

m here only t. 
Jos. B. J. ii. 1 
13. 3. 

n ch, xvi. 37 
reff. 

o here only $. 
Gen. xxx. 

42. Job xlii. 
11 only. 

p Luke xy. 15. 
xix. 14. Heb. 
viii. 11 only. 
Proy. xi. 9. 

q Matt. xix. 8. 
Luke ix. 61. 
ch. xxvil. 3 
al. Job 
xxxii. ld. 

r ver. 35. s ch. xii. 17 reff. 

ayn, Xen. Cyr. vii. 1. 25. 
xv. 15 only. dat., ch. xxii. 2. 


88. for ovk apa, ov D. 

39. om em XR}. 
D-gr. 
ins Aoyoy bef Aad. N1(&N3 disapproving). 


TIPAB EIS, ATOZTOAON. 


t Rey. viii. 1 only. 
u absol., Luke xiii. 12. 


eLavactatwoas EH. 
for tapoeus to ToAiTHS, Ev TapTw Se THS KIALKLAS "yeYEVYNMEVOS 
for emitp., cuvxwpnoat D(cujus rogo obsegro autem mihi D-lat). 


XXI. 388—40. 


88 OUK a \ aed Ao / € x / a id n 
pa ov et 0 Aiyimtios 0 TpO TOVT@Y TOV NLEpOV 
avactatooas Kal éEayayov eis tiv Epnwov Tovs TETpAa- 
4 € “ r 
Kisxidlous avdpas TOV ™atxapiov ; %° eizrev dé 0 Iladdos 
lal fol / 
"Eye “dvOpwros pév eit “lovdaios Tapoevs, tis Kouxias 
, 
ovK °aanmou TorEwS P TrOAITHS, Séopar OE cov 4 erriTpEYvov 
for NAN}TAaL Tpos TOV dadv. 
€ 10 a ec \ 32 oN [al r2 fal n s fs na \ 
6 Ilatnos Eats eri THY * avaBabuav * KaTévELcEV TH KELPL 
n lal lol lel , Led 
TO AAW, TOAAS SE touyis yevouéevns “tposepwvncev TH 


40 9 éqrurpéypavtos O€ avTod 


Wisd. xviii. 14 only. jv TOAAn TavTaxobev 
xxiii. 20 only. 2 Chron. xxix. 28 Ald. 2 Macc, 


ciptkapioy 1, 


40. ins kat bef emitpeWaytos Se D!-gr: kat emit., omg Se, D-lat Syr: om de L 96. 


for avrov, Tov xiA/apxov D sah. 


for Tw Aaw, Tov Aaov H c k Chr(some mss) : 
yevouervns bef cvyns B. 


Te novxewas D. 


vii. 5.31: and reff. Thereis no ellipsis of 
Aadeiv. 38. ovk apa ov ei| Thou 
art not then, asI believed..... The 
E. V., after the Vulg., ‘art not thou’... 
(‘nonne tues ...’) would require dp’ ov 
or ovKovy, Winer, edn. 6, § 57. 3. See 
also Luke xvii. 17; John xviii. 37. 
Atytmrvos | The inference of the tribune 
was not, as in Bengel, ‘ Grace loquitur: 
ergo est Agyptius ;? but the very contrary 
to this. His being able to speak Greek 
is a proof to Lysias that he is xot that 
Egyptian. This Egyptian is mentioned 
by Josephus, Antt. xx. 8. 6, apicvetrar 5€ 
tis e& Atyimtou KkaT& ToDTOY Toy Kalpdy Eis 
Ta ‘IepordAuma, Tpopytns eivat Aeywy, kal 
cupBovrAcvoy Ta SnmoTtik@ WAVE ody 
avT@ pds dpos Td Tposayopevduevoy EAaa@y 
EpxecOat, d Kal THs méAEws UvTiKpus Kel- 
bevoy Gméxe: orddia mwevre’ OAc yap, 
Epackev, avrots ereidey emideitat, ws KeAEv- 
cayTos avTov mimtot TA TAY “lepoToAdLwY 
telxn, OC av Thy elsodov avrois mapetew 
emnyyeArcto. PAE SE ws erbbeTO TATA, 
KeAeveL TOUS OTpaTiMTas avadaBeiy To 
bmAa, Kal .... mposBdAAEL Tots wep) Toy 
Aiyirtiov' kal tetpakoclovs pey aitay 
aveide, diaxoglous 5€ (avras €AaBev. 6 dé 
Aiytrtios avtds Siabpaoas ex tis paxns 
apavys eyévero. But in B. J. ii. 13. 5, he 
says of the same person, wep) tpispuptous 
GOpoiter TAY HraTHuevwv, Tepiayayav dé 
autos ex THs épnulas eis TO ’EAai@y Kar. 
Up. K.T.A. «2 + +» OSTE TUUBOATS yevouerns 
sees + Otapbapjva Kx. Cwypnbijvar mdel- 
otous Tay civ avT@. It is obvious that 
the numerical accounts in Jos. are incon- 
sistent with our text,and with one another. 
This latter being the case, we may well 


€OTWS OT. ET. T. AV. KAL GOELOAS D. 
mpos avtous D Syr. for de ovyns, 
yevauevns A. 


leave them out of the question. At dif- 
ferent times of his rebellion, his number 
of followers would be variously estimated ; 
and the tribune would naturally take it as 
he himself or his informant had known it, 
at some one period. ‘That this is so, we 
may see by noticing that our narrative 
speaks of his leading out,—whereas Jose- 
phus’s numbers are those whom he drought 
back from the wilderness against Jerusa- 
lem, by which time his band would have 
augmented considerably. Tous TET. | 
the four thousand,—the matter being one 
of notoriety. o.xaptwy | From sica, 
a dagger; they are described by Jos. 
B. J. ii. 18. 3, Erepoy el6os Anoray ev 
‘IepoooAvmots bmepiero, of Kadovmevor 
o.kaptot, ued” Nucpay Kal ev meon TH 7d- 
Ae povevovtes avOpmmrous* wadtota be ev 
Tats éoprais muoyouevoe TH TAHOE, Kar 
tais éc@noeow smwoKpUmTovTes pmiKpa Ei- 
pidia, tovTos evuTtoy tovs Siadpdpous. 
++ 2 + TMp@Tos pev ody bw ad’Tayv *lwva- 
Ons 6 Gpxiepeds amoopdalera’ peta SE 
aitoy Kal? juepav avynpodvto woAAOl .. . 
The art. is generic. 39. pév] Our 
indeed,—implying ‘not the Egyptian, but,’ 
—exactly renders it: I indeed am: so 
Aristoph. Plut. 355, ua AP eye nev of. See 
Hartung, Partikellehre, ii. 413. ovK 
Goypov dX. ] See note, ch. ix. 11. 

The expression is an elegant one, and very 
common. Wetst. gives many examples, 
and among them one from Eurip. Ion 8, 
early yap ovK tonuos “EAAhYwy WéAts. 
There was distinction in his being a zo- 
Alrns of an urbs libera. “Many of the 
coins of ‘Tarsus bear the epigraphs untpé- 
mods and aitdévouos.” Wordsw, from 


XXII. 1—5. 


IIPAHETS ATOSTOAON. 


245 


"EB Bpaids Y Searéxto Aéyov [XXII] VAvdpes adedgol * Tee” 


Kal mar épes, aKkovaoaTé des THS mpos Umas vuvd * aroNo= weh- i ig reft 


ylas. 2 adxovaavtes S€ Ort 


*mposepwver avtots, waddov * rapéoyov * novylav. 
dyow 3 "Kye eis avip “lovdaios, yeyevynuévos ev Tapoo 


Acts only. 


Th Y‘EBpaids ¥ duadéxt@ « w. x65, 


here only. 
Xen. Mem. 
iv. 8.5. w. 
dat., 1 Cor. 
Is 3. 1 Pet. 
ili. 15. (ch. 


/ 
Kat 


THs Kudtxias, *avatebpaupévos dé ev TH moder TavTy , Xi 10%) 


e BS ‘ 
Tapa TOUS 


8 axpiBecay tov * 


mooas L'aparunr, 

TATPWOU vVOsLOV, 
a 6 a @ \ / € a > Vi ee a / 

TOU Geod Kalas mavres vpels core oHpeporr * ds Tabryy i 


ch. xxi. 40. 
z= w. dat., 
Luke vii. 32 
|| Mt. Esdr. 
ii. 21 ae 
vi. 22 only. 


i } L \ 
TTETTALOEULEVOS KATA 


'Cnrwris vmrdpyov 
see Luke vi. 


abs., ch. 
xxi. 40. 


tHv *odov 1 édimEa ™aypt ™ Gavarov, " decuevov Kal ° Tapas *— eh. xvi.16 
y XP 3 Fe reff. 


b Job xxxiv. 29. 


duovs eis hvdrakas dvdpas te Kal yuvaixas, © as Kai 6 21? RAXK{¥-28- 


apxlepevs misapaeteet fot Kat may TO “mpeaBuTépiov 


9. (-vos, 1 Tim. ii. 
only. 
‘g here only. Dan. vii. 16 (see note and ch. xviii 
10. 2 Mace. vi, 1 Ed-vat.(not B). 
1= ch. vii. 52 reff. 
(Matt. xxiii. 4) only. 
iy. 15. Col. iv. 13. 


for ¢Bpatd:, 15ia A. 


1 Pet. iii. 4.) 


Gen. xlix. 11. 


CnHap. XXII. 1. ree vuy, with a f 13 Chr ic: 


e o Luke viii. 35. ch. iv. 35, 37. v. 2 al. 
5 reff.). 





m Rey. ii. 10, xii. 11 only. 


q = Luke xxii. 66 (1 Tim. iv. 14) only +. 


12 (2 Thess. 
iil. 12) only. 
roy. Vii. 
d ch. vii. 20, 21 only+. Wisd. vii. 4, BN F(not A) 
4 Kings iv. 37 Ald. f = ch. vii. 22 reff. 


h ch, xxiv. 14. xxviii. 17 only. Prov. xxvii. 
i ch. xxi. 20 reff. (-Aovy, Num. xxv. 13.) k ch. ix. 2 reff. 
méxpe Oav., 2 Mace. xiii. 4. n = here 


(9) constr., ch. viii. 3 reff. p Rom. x.2. Gal. 


(Susan. 50 Theod. A.) 


txt ABDEHLPX rel 36 Thi. 


2. mpospwvet DEH am fuld tol We Thl-sif: mposeparvncev La bck o 36. 40, adlo- 


cutus est K-lat: txt ABPN rel Chr Thl-fin, loguebatur demid. 
om autos D: avtwy A‘(perhaps). 


this point to ver 10. | 
novxiav, novxacav D. 


[ D-lat is deficient from 
for mapeaxov 


3. rec aft ey ins wey, with HUP rel syr copt eth Chr Gc Thl: om ABDERX a 13.36 


vulg sah. avnp bef eu X}. 
yeyevynuevos D: yeyevnuevos A o. 
iD: 


aft memadevouevos ins d¢ H k m Chr. 


eoTe vers Tavtes D. 
4. for os, cat D Syr eth. 
am copt. 
5. omo D!(ins D-corr!) 56. 180. 


feaptupnoe: D: ceuaptrupa B: 


Akermann, p. 56. 40. rq “EBp. 
Siad.] The Syro-Chaldaic, the mother- 
tongue of the Jews in Judea at this time: 

his aorive is implied (ch, xxii. 2) to be, 
that they might be the more disposed to 
listen to him. Cuap. XXII.1.] This 
speech of Paul repeats the narrative of his 
conversion to Christianity, but this time 
most skilfully arranged and adapted (within 
legitimate limits) to avoid offence and con- 
ciliate his hearers. Proofs of this will ap- 
pear as we goon. See an enquiry into its 
diction and rendering into Greek, in the 
Prolege. § ii. 17, B. 3.] De Wette 
and others would place the comma after 
TavTn, so to make the two clauses, begin- 
ning with yéy. and avat., exactly corre- 
spond. But (not to insist, with Meyer, on 
the reason that a new circumstance is 
introduced with each participle) it is surely 
better, as the rule of the sentence seems to 
be to place the participles before the words 
which qualify them, to take év tH méAc 


tovdatos bef avnp D. 
yauadtnrouv B 36 Chr. 


bexpt De: 


erimapTuper 137. 


ev Tapow T. KIA. bef 
matSevomevos 
om uvrapxeyv D vulg. 


ews Ix. pvaacny D 96. 142-80 


aft apxtepeus ins avavias 137 syr-w-ast. 
for mav, oAov D. 


TavTn mapa T. 7. T., all as the qualifica- 
tion of avare@pauméevos, and punctuate, as 


commonly done, after TapadmaA. On 
Gamaliel, see note, ch. v. 34. The 
expression mapa T. 7106. (see ch. iv. 35, 


note) indicates that the rabbi sat on an ele- 
vated seat and the scholars on the ground 
or on benches, literally at his feet. 
kata akp.] (The art. omitted aft. a prep.) 
According to the strict acceptation of the 
law of my fathers; = kata thy axpiBe- 
orarnv alpeow THS MeTéepas Opnokelas, 
ch. xxvi. 5;—i.e. as a Pharisee. So Jos. 
B. J. ii. 8. 18, Bapioator ... of Soxodvtes 
Meta axpiBelas eknyetoOu TH vdumma. 
Some of the older Commentators make tod 
matpgov vduov governed by wemai5., and 
take kata axpiB. adverbially : which would 
give a very vapid sense, the accuracy and 
carefulness of his education having been 
already implied in mapa tr. 7. Tawadina. 
KaQos ...| Not meaning ‘ia the 
same way as YB are all this day’ (but now 


cb. i. 3 » \ al 
en e€ls Aapackov érropevouny, aEwv Kai Tods *éxeive OvTas beat 


only. J 
xxxix. 2 


wie by § L Seek s ov t A Bae hk 
TOV Exelve EOEMEVOUS ELS lepovoadnp, iva Tiwopnbacw. EYEVETO 0138 


IIPABEIS ATIIOSTOAON. XXII. 


* 3, 32 \ , 
2 gap @v Kab *émurtodas SeEduevos mpos Tos adeApods ABDE 


HLPR: 


9. ln 


ante, tie 3. bé z Rae aie ey. rae , 
€ pol Tropevowervm Kat ‘ eyyiCovTe TH AayacKkm ~ Trep 


t ch. xxvi. 11 


oy Ci, * weonuBpiay ¥ eEaihvns ex Tod olpavod ¥ Tepractpayat Pas 


v.17. (- 
Heb. x. 


29.) 


Zz e \ A b] Ua 7 »” / > Vow | ES i Uae A 
u constr. w. LXQVOV TrEpl ELLE, E€TEOA TE ELS TO “E aos Kal 1)KOUCEa 


inf., Ma 


tt. 


- hovas Aeyovons wor Laovr Laovnr, TL pe » duoxers ; 8 yw «word 


venix.s  6€ a@mrexpiOnv Tis et, Kupie; elmév te mpos pe “Eyo HLPS. 


we: is ary > > a ca 7 re a \ ob , 9 tf \ \ 

wo chx9 ett “Incods 6 Nafwpaios ov avd ” di@Kes. % of b€ avy 
2Macc.y.1. 2 As oF ‘\ \ tad 29 4 ‘ew ai oP 

xch. vias €M“Ol OVTES TO WEY Pas EGedcavTO [Kat ° EuhoBor eyévovTo], 
only. Gen. \ \ \ > ad” a rn , 10 z 
xvii. 1. Thv d€ pavnv ovK “HKoveav TOD AaXdoODVTOS OL. €LTTOV 

5 oie , , \ , 

2h 8€ Td roujow, xipie; 6 S€ KUptos eitrev mpos pe ©’ Ava- 
reff. ’ a 

ahere only. TAS Tropevov eis AapacKkov, Kakel oot * NaXnOHnoETAL TEpL 

Ps. cxvili. 25. 

Bee TavTwv wv !rétaxtai cor Troino ll @s 6€ ovK ® ép- 

ech. x. 4 reff. 1) al. @S € OUK eV 

eh. 8 éBrerov “aro tis ‘d0&ns tod dwros éxelvov, * yeipayo- 
ren.). - = 

f ch xii, youmevos UTO TAY |auvoyvT@y pot 7AOGov eis Aapackor. 

1 Mace. xii. 

26. ak. here only. Xen. de Rep. Lac. xi. 6, Tots d€ ErecOar TéTaKTaL. g = Mark viii. 25 only $. 
h = ch. xii. 14 reff. Exod. vi. 9. = Luke ix. 31,32. 1 Cor. xv. 40,41. 2 Cor. iii. 7,18. Exod. xvi. 10. 
k ch. ix. 8 only. Judg.xvi.26 A only. (-y¥ds, ch. xiii. 11.) 1 Luke ix. 18 only. Jer. iii, 20. Esdr. 

vi. 2. 2 Macc. ix. 4 only. 

om kat [ bef. erior.| D 3 fuld coptt. for mpos Tous ad., mapa Twy adeApwy D. 
ata. E wth: om atwy to dedeuevous H. exet D: ut adducerem inde 
vinctos vulg. for ets (bef tepove.), ev D. 

6. for evyev. to weonuBp. D1 has evy:ovts dle jor meonuBpias (ins tn D?) dauackw 
(txt D®). for ex, a[mo] D!(txt D2). mepieatpavev E 137: -ba ule} Dt 
(-wat D-corr): mepiaorpavay P. 

7. for er. Te, kat er. D. [ereca, so ABEHPR d f m 36. 40 Ath Thl. | 
oavde cavae (as lat, ver 13) D 1 25. for eut, et D)(txt D? or 3), at end 
ins okAnpoy cot mpos KevTpa AaktiCew EH demid syr-mg Ath. 

8. aft amexpiOny ins kat eva N. for re, de D. ene BN}. vaCopaios N}. 

9. &! has omitted cay in e@eacayvTo. om Kat eupoBau eyevovro ABHRN 13 vulg 
Syr copt arm Bede: ins DELP rel (36) syr sah eth Chr @e Thi. (On the one hand we 
may place the possibility of omn from similarity of endings [so Meyer]; on the other, 
interpolation from the eatnkeoay evven of chix. 7: the fact noticed by Tischdf [N.T. 
ed 7| that eug. yev. is a phrase almost peculiar to St. Luke does not tell distinctly 


either way: evveot could not be used in this connexion.) nkovoy E-gr §3, 

10. e:ma D. om kupios Dk, simly sah wth. evtetaxtat B!: evretad- 
Ta B?. for mept to oot, Tt oe Ser (see ch ix. 6) H 4!. 34. 95!-8-marg 100 Chr: 
de omnibus que te oporteat facere vulg (E-lat). om ga E. 


11. ovdeveBAeroy (i. e. either ovdey eBAeroy or ovd’ eveBAerov) B: eBAewov E 18, 
aveBA. 68. 100 Thl-fin: ut autem surrewi(surrexit D1) non videbam D-lat syr-mg. 
for vo, amo A. 


in another way): but as ye all are this togetherinadmissible. Ifever Paul spoke 
day: ‘I had thesame zealous character (not to the Jews as a Jew, it was on this 
excluding hisstill retaining it) which you all occasion. kal tovs éx.] even those 
shew to-day.’ A conciliatory comparison. who were there. éxeice | if resolved, 

5.6 apx.| ‘The High Priest of ‘hat would be eis Aapuacxdy,—a similar con- 
day, who is still living :’ i.e. Theophilus, struction to eis olkdy éotw, Mark ii. 1, 
see onch.ix.1. Similarly, the whole San- ‘those who had settled at Damascus and 


hedrim = ‘those who were then members, were then there. 6.] On Paul’s con- 
and now survive.’ = 6vxat| from version and the comparison of the accounts 
whom, moreover. pos Tovs adel. | in chapp. ix., xxii., and xxvi., see notes on 


to the Jewish (/heir) brethren (see ch. ch. ix. I have there treated of the dis- 
xxviii. 21). Bornemann’s rendering,  erepancies, real or apparent. 11.] See 
‘against the (Christian) brethren,’ is al- notes, ch. ix. 8, 18. 12.) That Ananias 


+TOV= 
twv D. 
ABEH 
Prab 
fghk 
mols 


6—19. TIPAZEIS ATOSTOAON. 24.7 
> ae / ir os 
Avavias 6€ tis app ™edrd\aBNS “KaTa TOV " VOpOY Bb iid ref. 
i , inet ty Blin A ; > 1 Phil. iii. 5. 
HMapTupoupevos °UTTO TavT@Y TOV PKaToLKOvYT@Y LovdalwV, tied. vis 
: ’ é - al. Deut. 
13 €-\Owv mpos pe Kal Iéeructas eirrév por LaovrA aderdé, oz 
> / > Vg a an © , , reff. * Peete 
‘avaPrefov. Kayo *avTh 7H wpa" avéBrewWa * els AdTOD. p dips., ch. 
149 S€ elev ‘O "Oeds Tov Y 4 Yayu@v {9 absol., La 
€0s TOV Y TaTépwv \ HudY “ TpoEVELpl- 4 abl. Luke 


/ a \ nr n 7 
oato ce *yva@vat TO * OéAnpwa adTov Kal ideiy Tov Y Sikatov 3 
\ Ss a Zz \ z2 rn r > a 15 2 ” r= ch. xls 
Kat axodoat *povny *éKx Tod aTomatos avdTod, 1 Bre oy | wit.” 
a.,f >A \ s ? , e cv f mele erie 
pears QaUT@® Tpos TavTas avOperrous > ov EMPAKAS KAL 4 Sint. xiv. 
> \ a / L > Wal. Gen. 
nxovaas. 16 Kai viv Ti © médrets; Tavactas Bdmticar x3." 
x é . . u ch, Vil. 32. 
Kal ©amodXovoat Tas adpaptias cov, ‘émrikaderdpevos TO Berti Mal. 
s ch. v. 30 reff, 
1 éyéveto S€ jot  UrooTpeYrayTe eis “Tepov- weit 2) 
xxvi. 16 only. 


dvopwa avrov. 


‘\ \ / e lal ~ = 
carn Kat »aposevxouévou pov év TO lep@ yevérOar pe Frvi.iv. 1s. 
ae) 5 , NOD tan , A soca 
ev ‘éexatacer 18 cai ideiv * adtoy NéyovTa poe | Srredoov Fins nin.” 


x (Luke xii. 


<a ? / ? ¢ , , > 
Kat é€eXe ™év Taye. €& ‘lepovoadrm, SidTe od ™ mapa- 1) Kom. 
L s \ / Nees a tN rE et a7 
dé£ovtai cov [Tiv] feaptupiav Parept ewov. 19 Kaye eirrov Cio” 
Ps. cii. 7. 
y absol., ch. vii. 52 reff. zch. xi. 9al. Isa. Ixvi. 6. a= ch.i. 8 reff. b attr., 
ch. i. 1 reff. see ver. 10. c =here only. Xen. Cyr. i. 3.15. d ver. 10, e 1 Cor. 
vi. ll only. Job ix. 30 only. f ch. ii. 21 reff. g ch. viii. 25 reff. h absol., 
ch. x. 9 reff. ich, x. 10 reff. k = Mark iv. 38 al. 1 ch. xx. 16 reff. constr., 
Gen. xviii. 6. xxiv. 18, 20. m Rom. xvi. 20 reff. n = Mark iv. 20. ch. xvi. 21 (reff.). 
Exod. xxiii. 1. o = Johni. 19, iii. 11, &. 1lJohny.9. Rey. i. 2,9. xi. 7 al. p here 


only. see John i. 7. 


12. rec (for evAaBys) evoeBns, with EH rel Gic: om A vulg (the omn has prob been 
because the sentence is complete without the epithet : evreBns, a gloss on evAaBys) : txt 
BHLPN abegko 13. 36. 40. Haptupomevos Al. aft kaTo.ikovytwy ins 
ev dauackw (supplementary gloss) HL 13 rel demid tol syr eth arm Chr, Thl: aft covd., 
73: om ABEPN f g vulg Syr copt He. 

13. eve ABN. eBAea A. 

14. mpoexeipnoaro AL k: mposexeipnoato X(but s marked and erased) P. 
Ast kar Al. om tov A k195!. 

15. papt. av. mp. 1. avOp. bef ean B. aft wy ins re E-gr b co 86. 

16. the second A of weAAets was appy added by P-corr. rec (for avrov) tov 
kupiov, with HL rel Thl-sif Gc: add iqoou k 43. 99 (explanatory corrections): txt 
ABEPR a e 13. 36 vulg D-lat syrr coptt th arm Chr Thl-fin. 

17. mposevxowevw, omg pou, K e 93-5. for we, wor LL a?-marg 99. 106-37: om 
25. 40. 96. 105 arm. in & oO of yeveoOat is written twice. 

18. for iden, Sov & 180 sah. rec ins tyv, with EHLP rel 86 Chr Thl Gc: 


testimonium meum D-lat: om (as unnecessary ?) ABN a 13. 


om 


was a Christian, is not here mentioned,— 
and avip .. . "Iovdalwy is added: both, 
as addressed to a Jewish audience. Before 
the Roman governor in ch. xxvi., he does 
not mention him at all, but compresses 
the whole substance of the command given 
to Ananias into the words spoken by the 
Lord to himself. A heathen moralist could 
teach,—‘ Quid de quoque viro, et cui dicas, 
seepe videto’ (Hor. Ep. i. 18. 68): and a 
Christian Apostle was not unmindful of the 
necessary caution. Such features in his 
speeches are highly instructive and valuable 
to those who would gather from Scripture 
itself its own real character: and be, not 
slaves to its letter, but disciples of its spirit. 

13. avéBd. eis adtév] De W. re- 
marks, that the two meanings of avaBAérw 


here unite in the word: I looked, with 
recovered sight, upon him. 14—16 is 
not related, but included, in ch. ix. 15—19. 
14. 6 0. r. war. Hp. | So Peter, ch. 
iii. 13; v.30. Inch. ix. 17, 6 kKUptos is 
the word: this title is given for the Jews. 
Tov Sixatov}] So Stephen, ch. vii. 
52. How forcibly must the whole scene 
have recalled kim, whom presently (ver. 
20) he mentions by name. 16. ard- 
Aovoat ...] This was the Jewish as well 
as the Christian doctrine of baptism. 
See ref. 1 Cor. and note. avTod | 
of Jesus, Tod Stkatov. Paul carefully 
avoids mentioning to the Jews this Name, 
except where it is wnavoidable, in ver. 8: 
so avrdy again, ver. 18. 17.] viz. as 
related ch. ix. 26—-30, where nothing of 


248 TIPASEIS AITODTTOAON. XXII. 


q constr., ch. 
xi. 5 reff. 
r here only t. 
Wisd. xviii. 
4 only. 
s ch. v. 40 reff. 
t Luke ix. 6. 
ch. viii. 3. 
xx. 20, xxvi. 
ll. 
u ch. ix. 42 
reff. 
v -xvuv., Matt. xxiii. 35. xxvi. 28. Luke xi. 50 al. 
xxvill.2. 2 Tim.iv.6 only. Zech. i. 10. 
xxii. 7. a= ch. v. 33 reff. 


\ t 
Kipie, adtol érictavtay Ore eyo Siyunv * dvdranlov Kai 
/ 
‘Sépwv txaTa Tas auvaywyas Tos “ TicTEvovTas “ emt 
20 kal bre ¥ eEeyvvveTo TO aiwa Ltepavou Tod * pap- 
/ ‘ a 
Tupos gov, Kal avTos Siunv *éepertas Kai Y cuvevdoKaV 
\ Z 4 » Samal x / lal a > / et / 21 \ 
Kal * duNaoowy Ta iwaTia TOV * avaipovyTwY avTOV. *! Kat 


t 
Oe. 


x ver. 13. perf., ch. 
z — Luke xi. 21, Exod. 


w see note. 
y 1 Cor. vii. 12, 13 reff. 


19. memorevxoras E-gr: qui credebant vulg D-lat E-lat. 

20. rec efexerto (corrn to more usual form), with HLP rel Chr: txt ABEN 13. 36 
Thi-fin. (eexuvero B?E 13. 36: txt ABN.) om oredavov AGS: tT. uapt. bef ored. 
38. 73 (the omn is hardly accountable, if it was originally in the text: at the same 
time, the manuscript authority is too light to allow of its being now omitted. Meyer 
suggests the similarity of ending, orepavov tov: but this would occasion the omn of 
tov, not of atepavov): txt BEHLPS Chr Thi Gc. mpwrouaptupos Lack m: 
Tpwtov mapt. 7 syr. eotws A 37. rec aft guvevdoxwy ins TH avaipemet avTov 
(interpolated from ch viii. 1), with HLP rel (13) 86 syr Chr Thl Ge: ry Bovan tov 
avaipouvtwy avrov (and Adafovtwy for avaip. below) Syr: om AB D(appy: D-lat ends 


with consentiens) EX 40 vulg coptt «th. 


om kat bef gvAaccay HLP beflo 


syr Chr Thl-sif Be: ins ABDEN rel 36 vulg coptt.—gva. te ¢ 137. 


this vision, or its having been the cause of 
his leaving Jerusalem, is hinted. 18. | 
aepi éuov is to be taken with papruplay, 
not with the verb, as Meyer and Winer 
maintain. Their objection, that then it 
must be ryv apt. THY mept evo is an- 
swered by remarking, (1) that Paul does 
not always observe accuracy in this usage 
of the article: e.g. Eph. vi. 5, draxovere 
Tois Kuplois Kata ocapKa, for T. Kup. Tots 
Kata odpka, OY Tois Kata odpKa kuplois, 
which he has written in the ||, Col. iii. 22, 
—l1 Thess. iv. 16, of vexpol é€v xpioT@ 
évacthoovta mpatov. See also Rom. vi. 
4; Col. ii. 14, and notes:—and (2) that 
there may have been a reason for the irre- 
gularity here, inasmuch as, if either the 
article had been expressed after mapt., or 
Thy m. éu. wapt. had been used, cov would 
have appeared to be governed by zapa- 
dééovrai—‘ they will not receive from thee 
thy testimony concerning me,’—which is 
not precisely the meaning intended to be 
conveyed. (See Mr. Green’s Gram. of 
Nets p: 163.) 19.} The probable ac- 
count of this answer is, that Paul thought 
his former great zeal against Christ, con- 
trasted with his present zeal for Him, 
would make a deep impression on the Jews 
in Jerusalem: or, perhaps, he wishes by 
his earnest preaching of Jesus as the Christ 
among them, to undo the mischief of 
which he before was the agent, and there- 
fore alleges his former zeal and his con- 
senting to Stephen’s death as reasons why 
he should remain in Jerusalem. avrot 
can only refer to the same persons as the 
subjects of wapadétovra: above: not (as 
Heinrichs) to the foreign Jews ;—* Ideirco 


iter apostolicum extra urbem detrectat, 
quod undique odio petitum se iri pravidet, 
Hierosolymis autem in apostolorum col- 
legio delitescere se posse opinatur:”’—a 
motive totally unworthy of Paul, and an 
interpretation which happily the sentence 
will not bear. 20. pdptupds gov | 
“«E.V. ‘thy martyr, following Beza: 
Vulg.,and Erasm., /estis tui, The Apostle 
may have here used the (Hebrew, 7y, as 
Wordsworth) word in its strict primary 
sense; for a view of Christ in His glory 
was vouchsafed to Stephen, and it was by 
bearing witness of that manifestation that 
he hastened his death (ch. vii. 55 ff). The 
present meaning of the word martyr did, 
however, become attached to it at a very 
early period, and is apparently of apostolic 
authority: e.g. Rev. xvii. 6, and Clem. 
Rom. 1 Cor. v., p. 217 (cited in note on ch. 
i. 25).... The transition from the first to 
the secondary sense may be easily accounted 
for. Many who had only seen with the 
eye of faith, suffered persecution and death 
as a proof of their sincerity. For such 
constancy the Greek had no adequate term. 
It was necessary for the Christians to pro- 
vide one. None was more appropriate than 
udptup, seeing what had been the fate of 
those whom Christ had appointed to be His 
witnesses (ch. i. 8). They almost all suf- 
fered : hence to witness became a synonym 
for to suffer ; while the suffering was in 
itself a kind of testimony.” (Mr. Hum- 
phry.) Bp. Wordsworth well designates 
this introduction of the name of Stephen 
“A noble endeavour to make public repa- 
ration for a public sin, by public confession 
in the same place where the sin was com- 


ABEH 
LPxal 
efgh) 
Imol 


D wat 
gvAag- 
TwV. . 


fen XG (0) l 
ke you, Ka 


13 


20—25. 


elTrev TpOs LE Wes Os, OTL eyo els eOvm » paKpay © gE_ babsol., 
cbE ATOOTEXD) CE. 


a 
2 \ a a \ f 
amo THS Ys TOV 

23 2 epavyavovTwy TE avT@Y Kal 


ef iierd , b] an 
ouTws ‘émepwvouy avTo. 


aA Ca 5 \ \ e A 
Tots ‘iwaowv, eimev TMpos Tov “éoTaTa ExaTovtapyov [6 


xii. 19. Ezra iii. 13. 





TIPAREIS, ATIOSTOAON. 


22 jKovoyv O€ avTod aypL TovTOV TOU 
lal \ lal 
erhpav THY *dwviy abtav Néyovtes ° Aipe 
Le > \ g OF ateN le} c oh “vii. 12 
ToLovTOV, ov yap § KaOhKEey avTov Civ. it 
iburrovvT@y Ta 
Kal * covioptov Baddovtwy eis TOV aépa, 
pW 3S, 6 ) ov ei \ l B Ny m a Gh 
XAlapyos eisayerOar avdrov eis THv | rapeuBorjv, ™elras | (i 2 &! 
n , 02 , f) pe a pP2 A 8 Dy Nereis a 
paoriEw °averaeo Oar avrov, iva ? ériyve Sv hv Vairlay 
5 ws 6€ 


i = (see note) here only. 


249 


Luke 
xy. 20. ch. 
ii. 39. ‘(xvii 
28 reff.) Eph. 
iil. 13, 17 
oa Zech. 


d ch. ii. 14 reff, 
t a ta e= ch. viii. 33 
fod iT Yr eff. 


24 exéNevoEV O t= mie 


ee i. 
Sali: 


g Rom. i. 28 
only. Deut. 
xmly Lisette 

s , > \ x. 23. constr. 
TPOETELVAVY AUTOV  impert., 
see ch. xxy. 
22 reff, 

h absol., Matt. 


Herodot. iv. 94, 188. k ch. xiii. 51 reff. 


lch. xxi. 34, 37 reff. m = Mark vy. 43. x. 49. Luke xix. 15. Exod. xxxy. 1. n = Heb. 
xi. 36 (Mark iii. 10. vy. 29, 34. Luke vii. 21) only. Prov. xxvi. 3. over. 29 only. Judg. 
vi. 29 A only. Susan. 14 Theod. p = ch. xxiii. 28 reff. Gen. xxxi. 32. q ch. x. 21 reff. 

rch. xii. 22 reff. dat., here only. s here only +. 2 Macc. xy. 15. t Mark i. 7 || te J. only. Job 
xxxix. 10. Isa. v.18, 27. Sir, xxx. (xxxiii.) 26 only. Demosth. Tepe Tapamp. p. 402, end. u absol., 
ch. xvi. 9. Matt. xx. 6. xxvi. 73. John xii. 29 al. 


eOvos E-gr 25. 


21. eue C. 
22. nkovoay D syrr. 


etamooteAXw De Ath: amooteAw E-gr. 


rec kaOyxoy (the meaning of the imperf not being appre- 
hended, as the varr shew), with a Thl-fin He: 


KaOynker 68-9. 982. 105: Kadynkay 18.43: 


txt ABCDEHLPN® rel 36 Hip Ath Chr, Thl-sif. 


23. kpadovrwy Ce g 
te), with DEHLPX rel 36 vulg copt Chr: 
pirrovray DEHL ab o 40 Thi Ge-ed. 


24. rec avrov bef o xiAtapxos, with HLP rel 36 Thi-sif Me: 


ABCDEN ah km 13. 40 vulg Chr Thl-fin. 


txt ABCDER a m 13. 36. 40 vulg Chr Thl-fin. 
rec emwv (more usual form), with HLP (13) 


out when the order was altered.) 
rel 36 Chr: ere 5¢ k: txt ABCDEN. 
D}(txt D?). yvw A 13. 36 Chr. 


avtov D: avtov 137. 


1o Chr Thi-sif Cic-ed. 
txt ABC Syr eth. 


rec de (alteration of characteristic 
om auvtwy D? 

for aepa, ovpavoy D Syr Cassiod: aepay NX). 
om ¢ 137-42: txt 
rec ayer a, with HLP h rel eth-rom: 
(The «s- seems to have been dropped 


eraCecOa. H m 40: 
Kkatepwvouv D c 137. 


efer. 4: averacew 
for avtw, mept 


25. rec mpoereivev (to suit the subject o XA. .. no more persons having been mentd : 
this the varr shew), with P k 1m 0 Cie: mposerewvey H Thl-sif: mpoetewov AE Thi-fin: 
txt BLX abeg h 138. 36 vss Chr(some mss have mposeteivov), mposereway CD 40. 


137. (f is doubtful.) 


mitted.” kat avtdés| I myself also. 

21.] The object of Paul in relating 
this vision appears to have been to shew 
that his own inclination and prayer had 
been, that he might preach the Gospel to 
his own people: but that it was by the 
imperative command of the Lord Himself 
that he went to the Gentiles. 22. Tov- 
Tov T. Ndyov | viz. the announcement that 
he was to be sent to the Gentiles. ‘ Populi 
terrarum non vivunt,’ was the maxim of the 
children of Abraham. Chetubb. fol. iii. 2 
(Meyer). kaOyKev | ‘decuerat :’ imply- 
ing, he ought to have been put to death long 
ago (when we endeavoured to do it, but 
he escaped). 23. pirtovvToy | Not 
‘flinging off their garments,’ as preparing 
to stone him, or even as representing tlie 
action of such preparation: the former 
would be futile, as he was in the custody of 
the tribune,—the latter absurd, and not 
borne out by any known habit of the 
Jews: but shaking, jactitantes, their gar- 


exatovtapxyny D 73. 


om o mavaAos D syr Chr: ins 
ments, as shaking off the dust, abominating 
such an expression and him who uttered it. 
The casting dust into the air was part of 
the same gesture. Chrys. explains it, pur- 
TACOVTES, EKTWAOCOYTES. 24.] The 
tribune, not understanding the language in 
which Paul spoke, wished to extract from 
him by the scourge the reason which so 
exasperated the Jews against him. In this 
he was acting illegally: ‘Non esse a tor- 
mentis incipiendum, Div. Augustus con- 
stituit.? Digest. Leg. 48, tit. 18, c. 1 (De 
W.). ewedav.| they were thus cry- 
ing out against him. 25.] And 
while they were binding him down with 
the thongs. Dr. Bloomfield quotes from 
Dio Cassius, xi. 49, "Avti-yovoy éuactlywoe 
oTavpe Tpodijoaytes, and explains rightly, 
I think, the zpo in both verbs to allude to 
the position of the prisoner, which was, 
bent forward, and tied with a sort of gear 
made of leather to an inclined post. De W. 
and others render rots inaow, ‘for the- 


250 


y =ch.i.6 
reff. 

w ch. xvi. 37 
reff. 

x ch. xvi. 37 
only t. 

y w. pres., ch. 
xvi. 21 reff. 

z here only. 
Num. xxii. 
25. Wisd. vy. 
11 only. 
(-your, 
Matt. x. 17 


al.) 

a = here (Heb. 
viii. 1) only. 
Levit. vi. 4. 

b = here (Eph. 
ii. 12) only t+. 
3 Mace. iil. 


ec =andconstr., 
Josh. xxiv. 
32. w.€k, ch.i.18. w. 8d, ch. viii. 20. 

e ver. 24. f Matt. x. 18. 


Matt. x. 9. 


ABCEHLPN 13. 36 rel vss Thl Gc, but copt arm put it after e:rev. 


IIPAREIS AIIOZTOAON. 


XXIT. 26—30. 


IladXos] ¥ Ed ¥ dvOpwtrov ‘Pwpaiov Kai * axataxpirov ¥ é&- 
eoTw wiv *paorivey; %5 dxovaas 5&é 6 éxaTovTapxos 
TposeiOov TO yidkudpyo amryyyeirev Néyov Ti pédreus 
Tote ; 0 yap avOpwros oftos ‘“Pwpmatos atu. 
eOav dé 0 yidlapyos eirev aitd Aéye pot, od “Pwopaios 
el; 6 O€ &byn Nai. 8 amexpiOn 6 yirlapxyos “Eye 7rod- 
od *xeharaiov tiv ’coduTelay TavTny °éexTnTayHY. O 
dé Ilatros éfn “Eyed 6€ Kai yeyévynuat. 
laréstncavy am avTod of péddovTes avTov ° aveTatey ... 


°7 arpos- 


29 evOéws ovv 


1 Thess. iv. 4 only.) d ch. v. 38 reff. 


g ch. xix. 34 reff. 


(If the words 


originally formed part of the textitis very unlikely that they should have been omitted, 
while insertions of this kind are very common: but the manuscript evidence being 
so very strong, it seems best to insert the words in brackets.) efeotiv vu bef 
avOpwrov... D. for efeot, ect RX}. 

26. for axovoas de, Tovto ak. D. exatovtapxns ACDN?: txt BEHLPN® 13. 
36 rel Chr. add ort pwuaoy cavtov Aeye: D 137. rec amnyyeirAev bef tw 
xiAvapxw (alteration of order to avoid the ambiguity, mposcr0. Tw X. Or TW X. aTNYY-), 
with HLP rel Thl-sif Gc: txt ABCDEX a (c) h k m 18. 40 vulg copt arm Chr Thl-fin. 
—[e]rny. D'(Wtst, Kip]: txt D?). om Aeywy D c 137 syr: D syr-w-ast ins avTw 
in place of Aeywv. rec ins opa bef tx (interpolated appy to give precision, and 
break the abruptness of the text), with DHLP rel eth Chr: om ABCEN 13. 36. 40 
vulg syrr copt arm. om yap D}(ins D?[?]) eth. 

27. rote mposedAd. o xX. emnpwtncev avtoy D. from cA@wy Se to evOews o ver 29 
has been re-written by B!. for avtw, Tw TavdAw L. om pot &). rec ins 
et bef ov (interpolated, to make the interrogation plainer), with LP rel demid Chr: om 


ABCDEHR ac fhm 138. 36 am fuld tol syrr copt arm Amm-c. 


evmrev exut D. 


for epn vat, 


28. rec aft amex. ins Te, with HP rel vulg Thl (ic: de BCEN a c k 13.36 syrr copt: 
om AL 40 arm Chr: kar amoxpiOets o x. [kar] evrev (autw) D(xar erased, avrw added by 


D*(?)). 


for moAAouv, oda rocov D and ‘‘alia editio” mentd by Bede. 


(Remark- 


able, and possibly original, woddov being a gloss: but if so, the genuine reading has 


been now overborne by the intruder.) 
om H. 
A D-corr e m! 13. 

29. for evdews ovv, Tote D. 


scourge’ (dat. commodi) ; but why should 
pdoriéw be varied? and can it be shewn 
(as Dr. B. asks) that the word in the plural 
will bear this meaning ? éxaTovrT- 
apxov| The ‘centurio supplicio prapo- 
situs’ of Tacitus and Seneca,—standing by 
to superintend the punishment. ra 
av0. «.7.A.| See ch. xvi. 37, note. 

28.] Dio Cassius, lx. 17, mentions that, 
in the reign of Claudius, Messalina used to 
sell the freedom of the city, and at very 
various prices at different times: 7 moAu- 
rela peyddwy To mp@tov xpnudtwy mpa- 
Deioa, exe? ovTws bd Tis evxeEpelas 
érevwvhOn, &ste wat AoyoroinOjvat bre 
civ tdAwa tis oxet’n ouvTeTpinmeva 5G 
til, moAlrns éora. éya Sé Kal 
yey-] But I (besides having the privilege 
like thee of being a Roman citizen) was 


om 2nd de CX?! 42. 96. 142 Thl-sif: om de xa: copt. 


om de XN}. 


mavdos de edn D: 
yeyevnuat 


om tny C. 


ins toAitns bef pwuaos E vulg. 


also born one. How was Paul a Roman 
citizen by birth? Certainly not because 
he was of Tarsus: for (1) that city had no 
such privilege, but was only an ‘urbs 
libera,’ not a Colonia nor a Municipium: 
and (2) if this had been so, the mention 
of his being a man of Tarsus (ch. xxi. 39) 
would have of itself prevented his being 
scourged. It remains, therefore, that his 
father or some ancestor must have obtained 
the civitas, either as a reward for service 
(‘urbes, merita erga P. R. allegantes,.... 
civitate donavit,’ Suet. Aug. 47) or by pur- 
chase. It has been suggested that the 
father of Saul may have been sold into 
slavery at Rome, when Cassius laid a heavy 
fine on the city for having espoused the 
cause of Octavius and Antony, Appian, 
B.C. iv. 64, and very many of the Tarsians 


ABCDI 
HLPR: 
bef g) 
klmo 


an 
avrov D 


‘kal 6 yiriapyos 15 efo8nOn &% éruyvods tt “Papatos jABCE 
(Luke xxi. 19. N 
John yi. 51. viii. 16, 17. ch. iii. 24. 


be fgl 
klmo 
13 


eT, 1. TIPAB EIS ATOSTOAQN. 251 


30 ith BY j eravp.ov h pres., ch. 


xvi. 38 reff. 


héotw Kati OTe avtov inp idSedexas. 
ver. 19. 


Is al ~ a i 
Bovropmevos yvavar TO ‘aodadés, !7d th ™ KaTnyopetras ' constr. ch. 
i. 17. viii. 16. 


x nr > - 5 oa 
uma Ttav “lovdaiwy, éduvcev avdTov Kal éxéXevoEVv ™ovY- ix. 33, xii. 6. 

lal \ lal rn X cxi. 33. 
eMOeiv tols apyvepeis Kal Tay TO °auvédpiov, Kab PKat- EAP). 


\ a jch. x. 9 reff. 
ayayov Tov Iaddov 4 éatnaev eis avrovs. XXIII. 1? ate- = ch, xxi, Bf 
/ an a vs 
vicas 6€ 6 IlabdAos TH °ouvedpip etmev "Avdpes aderdot, W's O 
iv. 21. Rom. 


n = ch. i. 6 reff. 
rw. dat., 


Viii. 26. 
o ch. iv. 15 reff. 
ch, iii. 12 reff. L.P. 


m pass., Matt. xxvii. 12. ch. xxv. 16 only +. 2 Mace. x. 13. 
p ch. xxiii. 15 reff. q constr., here only. (see ch, vi. 6.) 


rec nv bef avroy, with HLP rel Chr Thl-sif @e: txt ABCEX 13 Thl-fin. 
dedwxws A! 36-8. 73. 99. 101-6 Thl-sif: dedyxws A2C: Sedorews 962. 105. add 

Kat Tapaxpnua ekuoev avtoy 137 syr-w-ast. (Henceforth in Acts, D being deficient, its 
readings may be approximated to by noticing those of its nearest cognates, 137 and 
syr-w-ast. 

"30. Ad c 137. om to E. katnyopetto c 137. rec (for vo) mapa, 
with HLP g m Chr Thl-sif He: txt ABCEX 13. 36 rel 137 Chr Thl-fin. ins 
meuwas bef eAvcev 137 syr-w-ast. rec aft avroy ins amo twy Secuwy (supple- 
mentary gloss), with HLP rel wth-pl Thl Ze: om ABCEN a 13. 40 vulg syrr coptt 
zeth arm Chr. rec eAew (see note: or the preceding -cev perhaps, as Meyer, 
caused the omn of ovv-), with HLP rel Syr copt eth Thl-sif Ge: e:seA@e 99. 137: 
ovveseAGew c: txt ABCEN ab k m 0 36. 40 vulg syr sah wth Chr Thl-fin. (13 def.) 

rec for wav, oAov (see Mk xiv. 55), with HLP rel Thi-sif He: txt ABCEN 
achk m 13. 36. 137 Chr Thl-fin, away 40. (omne vulg, but so also in Mk xiv. 55 and 
Matt xxvi. 59.) rec aft ovvedpioy ins avtwy (gloss, referring to tovdaiwv above), with 
HLP rel (Syr) Thl Gc: om ABCEN ac h 13. 36. 40. 137 vulg syr coptt «th arm Chr. 


Cuap. XXIII. 1. tw cvvedpiw bef o tavaAos ACEN a 13 vulg Syr Lucif: txt(B)HLP 


were sold to pay it. He may have acquired 
his freedom and the citizenship afterwards. 
See Mr. Lewin, i. p. 4. But this is mere 
conjecture. 29. kal... 5] more- 
over, ‘more than that.’ époB. | There 
is no inconsistency (as De W.) in the 
tribune’s being afraid because he had 
bound him, and then letting him remain 
thus bound. Meyer rightly explains it, that 
the tribune, having committed this error, 
is afraid of the possible consequences of it 
(‘facinus est vinciri civem R., scelus verbe- 
rari,’ Cie. Verr. v. 66), and shews this by 
taking the first opportunity of either wn- 
doing it, or justifying his further deten- 
tion, by loosing him, and bringing him be- 
fore the Sanhedrim. His fear was on ac- 
count of his first false step ; but it was now 
too late to reverse it: and the same reason 
which leads him to continue it now, operates 
afterwards (6 dé€oqtos T., ch. xxiii. 18) when 
the hearing was delayed. That jy dedexas 
eannot, as Bloomfield and Wordsworth 
suppose, refer only to the binding before 
scourging, its immediate juxtaposition with 
@Avoev in the next verse sufficiently shews. 
Besides, the mere circumstance of a prepa- 
ration for scourging having been begun in 
ignorance, and left off as suon as the know- 
ledge was received, would rather have re- 
lieved, than occasioned, the fear of the 
tribune. A more cogent reason still is, 


that jv d5exés can properly only apply to 
an action still continuing when the fear 
was felt: that he had put him into cus- 
tody. ‘The centurion believed Paul’s 


word, because a false claim of this nature, 


being easily exposed, and punishable with 
death (Suet. Claud. 25), was almost an un- 
precedented thing.’ Hackett. 30. 7d 
tt] The art. is epexegetical: see reff. It 
seems remarkable that the tribune in com- 
mand should have had the power to sum- 
mon the Sanhedrim: and I have not seen 
this remarked on by any Commentator. 
Some of the ancient correctors of the text, 
however, seem to have detected the diffi- 
culty, and to have altered cuveA Get into the 
vapid €A@ety in consequence. KaTay. | 
From Antonia to the council-room. Accord- 
ing to tradition (see Biscoe, p. 147, notes), 
the Sanhedrim ceased to hold their sessions 
in the temple about twenty-six years before 
this period. Had they done so now, Lysias 
and his soldierscould not have been present, 
as no heathen was permitted to pass the sa- 
cred limits. Their present council-room was 
in the upper city, near the foot of the bridge 
leading across the ravine from the western 
cloister of the temple. Lewin, p. 672. 
XXIII. 1.] arevioas seems to describe 
that peculiar look, connected probably with 
infirmity of sight, with which Paul has 
already been described as regarding those 


252 


s = (all pos- 
sible) ch. xx. 
19 reff. 

t1 Timi. 5,19. TAUTNS THS mHEpAs. 
1 Pet. iii. 16, 
21. (Heb. 
xiii. 18.) 

u 2 Cor. i. 12 


IIPAHEIS, AIIOSTOAON. 


XXIII. 


3 TOoTE 


ec rn A g 
225 o IladXos mpos avtov eimev Tirrew ce *wédret O GOeds, 


v Phil. i. 27 
only tT. 
peTaA TAOS 
. apeTHS 
evOade 
TeTroAt- 
TevpLat, 
Jos. Life, $ 49 and 3 2. 
pres., here only. Xen. Anab. ii. 3. 6. 
xiv. 47, 69, 70. Luke xix. 24. John xviii. 22. 
only. Exod. xxx. 3 al. (see Eph. ii. 14.) 
c = Matt. xxii. 44 (from Ps. cix. 1). xxvii. 19. 
iv. 4.21. (-ta,2 Pet. ii.16. -0s, Prov. ii. 22. ) 
iv. 12. 1 Pet. ii. 23 only. (-ta, 1 Tim. v. 14. 


, \ ad 
VOLLOV, Kab 


rel 36 Chr Thl @e.—om 6 B ec 40. 137 Chry. 


2. for ewetatev, exeAcvoey C a 36. 
auTw &}, 

3. mpos avtov bef o mavAos NX: 
aut. 100. kexoviaomeve C! Orig. 

4. eimay BR. 


before him: and may perhaps account for 
his not knowing that the person who spoke 
to him was the high priest, ver.5. See ch. 
xili.9,note. The purport of Paul’s asser- 
tion seems to be this: being charged with 
neglecting, and teaching others to neglect 
the law of Moses, he at once endeavours to 
disarm those who thus accused him, by 
asserting that up to that day he had lived 
a true and loyal Jew,—obeying, according 
to his conscience, the law of that divine 
moA.reta of which he was a covenant mem- 
ber. Thus wemoAlrevpa: To Oe@ will have 
its full and proper meaning: and the words 
are no yain-glorious ones, but an important 
assertion of his innocence. 2. >Ava- 
vias| He was at this time the actual high 
priest (ver. 4). He was the son of Nebe- 
deus (Jos. Antt. xx. 5. 2),—succeeded 
Joseph son of Camydus, Antt. xx. 1. 3; 
5. 2,—and preceded Ismael, son of Phabi 
(Antt. xx. 8. 8, 11). He was nominated 
to the office by Herod, king of Chalcis, 
in A.D. 48 (Antt. xx. 5. 2); and sent to 
Rome by Quadratus, the prefect of Syria, 
to give an account to the emperor Claudius 
(Antt. xx. 6. 2): he appears, however, not 
to have lost his office, but to have resumed 
it on his return. This has been regarded 
as not certain,—and the uncertainty has 
produced much confusion in the Pauline 
chronology. But as Wieseler has shewn 
(Chronol. d. Apostelgeschichte, p. 76, 
note), there can be no reasonable doubt that 


it was so, especially as Ananias came off 


victorious in the cause for which) he went to 
Rome, viz. a quarrel with the Jewish pro- 
curator Cumanus,—who went with him, 
and was condemned to banishment (Antt. 
xx. 6. 3). He was deposed from his office 


TOUS VO\LOLS moAcreveo@at, 2 Mace. vi.1. (-Tevja, Phil. iii. 20.) 
w. inf. aor., Mark vi. 39. 
xix. 26. 
Rev. iv. 2, &c. 


1 Pet. iii. 9. 


a r b , 3 \ \ c 10 f XA ‘ 
totye »Kexoviapéver Kal ov °KdOn Kpivwv pe KaTa TOV 
r , / e 
Tapavouav Kerevers pe TUTTETOaL; * of OE 
, fal 3 r fal a 
Yqrapect@tes eitov Tov apytepéa tov Geod © Nowopels ; 


x w. inf, 

Luke viii. 3l al. Esth. i. 8. y = Mark 

z=ch. xiii. 34 reff. a here 

b Matt. xxiii. 27 only. Deut. xxvii. 2,4. Prov. xxi. 9 only. 
dhere only. Ps. cxviii.51. Men. Mem. 


e w. acc., John ix. 28 only. 
-0S, 1 Cor. y. 11. vi. 10.) 


Deut. xxxiii. 8. pass., 1 Cor, 


Tns nuepas bef ravtns c m 13. 137. 
7. TapeoT. avtw bef ereratey c 137: om 


evmev bef mpos avroy C vulg(not am fuld tol): om zp. 
for wapavouwy, mapa tov vowoy Ei vulg Lucif. 


not long before the departure of Felix 
(Antt. xx. 8. 8), but still had great power, 
which he used violently and lawlessly (ib. 
9. 2): he was assassinated by the sicarii at 
last (B. J. ii. 17. 9). 3.] It is per- 
fectly allowable (even if the fervid rebuke 
of Paul be considered exempt from blame) 
to contrast with his conduct and reply that 
of Him Who, when similarly smitten, an- 
swered with perfect and superhuman meek- 
ness, John xviii. 22, 23. Our blessed 
Saviour is to us, in all His words and 
acts, the perfect pattern for all under all 
circumstances : by aiming at whatever He 
did in each case, we shall do best: but 
even the greatest of his Apostles are so far 
our patterns only, as they followed Him, 
which certainly in this case Paul did not. 
That Paul thus answered, might go far to 
excuse a like fervent reply in a Christian 
or a minister of the gospel,—but must 
never be used to justify it: it may serve 
for an apology, but never for an example. 

TUmTew oe péAdeL «.7.A.] Some 
have seen a prophetic import in these 
words;—see above on the death of Ananias. 
But I would rather take them as an expres- 
sion founded on a conviction that God’s 


just retribution would come on unjust and 


brutal acts. Totxe Kekov. | Lightfoot’s 
interpretation, “quod (Ananias) colorem 
tantum gestaret pontificatus, cum res ipsa 
evanuerit,” is founded on the hypothesis 
(for it is none other) that the high priest- 
hood was vacant at this time, and Ananias 
had thrust himself into it. The meaning is 
as inref. Matt.; and in all probability Paul 
referred in thought to our Lord’s saying. 

Kd9y Kpivev pe} This must not be 
taken as favouring the common interpreta- 


HLPx 
émréTa €Vy befg 
klm 


13 


eye Stacy ™ ouverdroes * arya * memo Tevpuat TO Oe@ Ay pL ABCE 
26 d€ apyrepeds "Avavias * 
Tols YTapeaT@ow avT@ TUTTEW avTOD TO oTOma. 


2—6. 


IIPABEIS, AMOSTOAON. 


253 


5 bn te o Ilatros Ovx dew, aderdol, dtu early apy frres.,ch. 


xvi. 38 reff. 


lepevs' yéyparrrat yap [6Tt] 8” Apyovta Tod Aad cou ovdK * HE” 


hépets "xaxads. °% yvods S€é 6 LLadXos btu TO ev pépos féorly 
14. 


h here only. 
Exod. 1. c. 

m ant Lev. xix. 

Isa. viii. 21 only. so KaA@S elTeELY, w. acc., Luke vi. 26. 


5. rec om 2nd om, with CEHLP rel 36 Chr Thi-sif @e: ins ABN k 13 sah Thi-fin. 


tion of ver. 5 (see below): for the whole 
Sanhedrim were the judges, and sitting to 
judge him according to the law. a 
Hence we see that not only by the Jews, 
but by the tribune, who was present, Ana- 
nias was regarded as the veritable high 
priest. 5.| (1) The ordinary inter- 
pretation of these words since Lightfoot, 
adopted by Michaelis, Eichhorn, Kuinoel, 
and others, is, that Ananias had usurped 
the office during a vacancy, and therefore 
was not recognized by Paul. They regard 
his being sent to Rome as a virtual setting 
aside from being high priest, and suppose 
that Jonathan, who was murdered by order 
of Felix (Antt. xx. 8. 5), was appointed 
high priest in his absence. But (a) there 
is no ground whatever for believing that his 
office was vacated. He won the cause for 
which he went to Rome, and returned to 
Jerusalem : it was only when a high priest 
was detained as hostage in Rome, that we 
read of another being appointed in his room 
(Antt. xx. 8. 11): and (8) which is fatal 
to the hypothesis, Jonathan himself (6 
apxtepevs) was sent to Rome with Ananias 
. J. ii. 12. 6, Tods apxuepets “Ilavabny 
kat "Avaviay ... . avémeuwey én) Kat- 
cepa). Jonathan was called by the title 
merely as having been previously high 
priest. He succeeded Caiaphas, Antt. xviii. 
4.3: and he was not high priest again 
afterwards, having expressly declined to 
resume the office, Antt. xix.6.4. Nor can 
any other Jonathan have been elevated to 
it, —for Josephus gives, in every case, the 
elevation of a new high priest, and his 
whole number of twenty-eight from Herod 
the Great to the destruction of Jerusalem 
(Antt. xx. 10. 5) agrees with the notices 
thus given. (See Wieseler, Chron. Synops. 
der 4 Evv. p. 187, note: and Biscoe, pp. 
48 ff.) So that this interpretation is un- 
tenable. (2) Chrys. and most of the ancient 
Commentators supposed that Paul, having 
been long absent, was really unacquainted 
with the person of the high priest. But 
this can hardly have been: and even if it 
were, the position and official seat would 
have pointed out to one, who had been 
himself a member of the Sanhedrim, the 
president of the council. (3) Calvin, Ca- 
merar., al., take the words zronically : <I 
could not be supposed to know that one who 


conducted himself so cruelly and illegally, 
could be the high priest’ This surely 
needs no refutation, as being altogether 
out of place and character. (4) Bengel, 
Wetst., Kuinoel, Olsh., Neander, al., un- 
derstand the words as an acknowledgment 
of rash and insubordinate language, and 
render ov dew, ‘I did not give it a 
thought, ‘I forgot ? and so Wordsworth. 
But as Meyer remarks, ‘reputare’ is 
never the meaning of «id€va:; and were 
any pregnant or unusual sense intended, 
the context (as at 1 Thess. v. 12) would 
suggest it. (5) On the whole then, I be- 
lieve that the only rendering open to us, 
consistently with the simple meaning of 
the words, and the facts of history is, I did 
not know that it (or he) was the high 
priest: and that it is probable that the 
solution of his ignorance lies in the fact 
of his imperfect sight—he heard the inso- 
lent order given, but knew not from whom 
it proceeded. J own that I am not entirely 
satisfied with this, as being founded per- 
haps on too slight premises: but as far as 
I can see there is no positive objection to 
it, which there is to every other. The 
objection stated by Wordsworth, “If St. 
Paul could not discern that Ananias was 
high priest, how could he see that he sat 
there as his judge?” would of course be 
easily answered by supposing that Paul 
who had himself been a member of the 
Sanhedrim may have known Ananias by 
his voice: or indeed may not (as above) 
have known him at all personally. It is 
hardly worth while to notice the rendering 
given by some, ‘I knew not that there was 
a high priest” Had any such meaning 
been intended, it would have been further 
specified by the construction. Besides 
which, it renders Paul’s apology irrelevant, 
by eliminating from it the person who is 
necessarily its subject. yéypamtar 
yep] Implying in this, ‘and the law is the 
rule of my life. Even in this we see the 
consummate skill of Paul. 6.] Surely 
no defence of Paul for adopting this course 
is required, but all admiration is due to his 
skill and presence of mind. Nor need we 
hesitate to regard such skill as the fulfil- 
ment of the promise, that in such an hour, 
the Spirit of wisdom should suggest words 
to the accused, which the accuser should 


254 TIPAB EIS AIOSTOAON. XXII 
ich.xxii.99 | Saddoucalwy, TO b€ Erepov Papicaiar, éxpatev ev TO‘ ovv- BCE 
see Ps. xv. 9. : al : 
ITGor avis €Oplep "Avopes aderdol, eyo Papicaios eit, vios Papiraiwy be te) 
ren. r 
m—ch xxiv. grept ¥ €\aridos Kal ! avactacews |vexpav eyo ™Kpivopat. 13 
Ps. cviii. 7. 7 a 8 \ > fa / yopetZ n , a 
ne chxv.a |! TOUTO O€ aUTOU NaXdNCaVTOS éyéveToO “aTAacls TOV Papt- 
(reff.). - 
ocnxiv.4. Galov Kal Laddovealwy, kai ° éayicOn 70? rAHOos* § Zad- 
pavsol,eh. ii, OOUKALOL MEV Yap A€youcLW 1) Elvar LavacTacW pHTE ay- 
6 reff. a a n 
qatsol ch. yeAov pnTe *TvEedWa, Papioaior Sé * podoyodaw Ta appo- 
r = Luke ; tp eR ee gh Ser U rk ay f 
= Tepa: 9 éyévero 6€ ™Kpavyn 'pweyadyn. Kal ¥ avaotayTes 


. lal Aw lal / 
jKings xxii, TUES TOV Ypappatewv Tod “ wépous THY Papicaiwy * dvepa- 


s — John xii. 42. Rom. x. 9,10. 1 Tim. vi. 12. t Luke i. 42. Rev. xiv. 18 only. Neh. v. 1. uas 
above (t). Matt. xxv.6. Eph.iv.31. Heb.v.7. Rev. xxi. 4 only. vy =ch.i. 15. xv.7 al. 2 Chron. 
5 w ver. 6. x here only. 2 Kings xiv.6 (compl.). Sir. viii. 1, 3. xxxviii. 28. li. 19 


Ed-vat.(not B) only. 

6. rec expatev, with AEHLP rel vulg Chr: txt BCX 36. rec (for 2nd apicaiwy) 
gapicaiov (corrn, the relation being conceived to be that of a son to his father only), 
with EHLP rel vss Chr: txt ABCN 13. 36. 40 vulg Syr syr(sic) Tert. om 2nd 
eyo B copt. 

7. for Aadnoavtos, exrovtros AEX? abko 13.40 Thl-fin: e:aytos 81: Aadovvros 
B(sic: see table) 66'. 100: txt CHL rel 86 Chr Thl-sif Ce. for eyeveto, 
exemecev B'; exeoev B-corr!-2(appy) syr. rec ins twv bef oad. (insn for uniformity), 
with HL rel 36 Gc: om ABC b k m 0 Thi-sif.—rav oa5d. kat pap. EN ¢ g m syr Chr 
Thl-fin.—om kat odd. (homeotel) P 78. 101-4. Stecxicby E. 

8. caddovKai(sic) X?. om wev B o vulg E-lat sah: ins AC E-gr HLPR rel 36 
syrr copt Chr. rec for Ist unre, unde (corrn, see note), with HLP rel Chr Thl-sif 
(ec: txt ABCEX ach k113. 36.40 Thl-fin. 

9. rec (for Ties Twy ypapmarewy) ot ypaymarers, with rel Thl-sif: ypauparess HLP f 
zeth (ec: tives (and om Tov wepouvs) AE 13 vulg copt: tives ypayparers k 212 Syr: twes 
Tav (papicaiwy) ypauuarewy m: txt B(C)N ac 13. 36. 40 syr sah arm Did Chr, Thl- 
fin.—quidam scribarum et pars phariseorum sah: scribe et pharis@i wth: for pepous, 


not be able to gainsay. All prospect of a 
fair trial was hopeless: he well knew from 
past and present experience, that personal 
odium would bias his judges, and violence 
prevail over justice: he therefore (Neand.) 
uses, in the cause of Truth, the maxim so 
often perverted to the cause of falsehood, 
‘divide et impera.’ In one tenet above all 
others, did the religion of Jesus Christ and 
the belief of the Pharisees coincide: that 
of the resurrection of the dead. That they 
looked for this resurrection by right of 
being the seed of Abraham, and denied it 
to all others,—whereas he looked for it 
through Jesus whom they hated, in whom 
all should be made alive who had died in 
Adam,—this was nothing to the present 
point: the belief was common—in the 
truest sense it was the hope of Israel—in 
the truest sense does Paul use and bring it 
forward to confound the adversaries of 
Christ. At the same time (De W.) by this 
strong assertion of his Pharisaic standing 
and extraction, he was further still vindi- 
cating himself from the charge against him. 
So also ch. xxvi. 7. vi. dapicaloy | 
A son of Pharisees, i.e. ‘A Pharisee of 
Pharisees, — ‘by descent from father, 
grandfather, and upwards, a pure Pharisee.’ 
This meaning not having been appre- 


hended, the -wv was altered into -ov. 

é\7. K. dvaor. | the hope and the 
resurrection of the dead. The art. is 
omitted after the prep., see Midd. ch. vi. 
§ 1. 8.] See note, Matt. iii. 7, for 
both Pharisees and Sadducees: and for an 
account of the doctrine of the latter, Jos. 
Antt. xvili. 1.4; B. J. ii. 8. 14. In the 
latter place he says, uxjs thy dianovyy, 
kal Tas Kal Gdov Tiuwplas kal Timdas avat- 
povat. The former ute has been 
altered to undé to suit Ta dupdrepa, be- 
cause with avaor. pyre ayy. ware mv. 
three things are mentioned (and thus we 
have hee omnia as a var.): whereas, if 
pnbe is read, the two last are coupled, and 
form only one. But 7a duo. is used of 
both things, the one being the resurrection, 
the other the doctrine of spiritual ex- 
istences: the two specified classes of the 
latter being combined generically.—7ré 
aug., them both,—both of them,—the 
two. 9.] The sentence is an apo- 
siopesis, not requiring any filling up: an- 
swering to our Engl. But whatif a spirit 
(genus) or an angel (species) have spoken 
to him? Perhaps in this they referred to 
the history of his conversion as told to the 
people, ch. xxii. On the recent criticism 
which sees in all this a purpose in the 


7—18. 


Na a c ! 

‘gh 10 qonrAfs O€ yevowévns *oTadcews, * PoBnGeis 0 yiAlapxXos * <7. 

mo \ b ae a ( pete Sef: Sic / 

3) P Suaotrac On o LladXos UT’ avT@v, éExédevoeEv TO ° oTpPa- 
a U 

tevpa “kataBav °apracat avdtov 'éx pécov avTa@v ayeL 


Te eis TV ® mapewBorjv. 


Tladnov. 


(xvi. 11 reff.). 

23. Exod. xviii. 20. 
n ch. iy. 12 reff. o ch. xii. 18 reff. 

&c. 3ce. Mark xiv. 7l only. Num. xxi. 2. 


i= ch. iv. 1 reff. 


yevous 99. 105: ins ex bef rT. ypaup. C. 
om ev XN! 137. 


TIPABEIZ ATIOSTOAON. 


UH 8 » ériovon vurti £ 

T2 be > fal © / J © / é e \ k 8 

v- igmictas avT@ 6 KuUplos elev Oapoe. ws yap * dveuap- 

= , jaa | ee A mee © , er n§ a \ 

a TUpo 'ta ‘dept ewov “ets “lepovcadnp, ovtws ce det Kal 
a ~ \ 

ifg™ els “Popuny paptupicat. |? °yevowévns Sé ° 7) Mépas TroLI)- ¢ = Jom vi. 
m Lal 

13. gavtes Paovotpopiy ot “lovdaior Yavefeuwaticay éavtovs, *: 

Aéyovtes unte* hayeiv pre * riety Ews ov aTroKTEVwoL TOV 

13 Foay S€ WrElovs TecoEpaxovTa ot TaUTHY TIV 


l ver, 15. ch. xxviii. 31. 


255 


nr , = 
ev.. YOVTO A€yovTes Ovdev Kaxov ¥ evplaxowev ev TH aVOpaTTM ¥ Zh" 
CE TOUT" 


xxiii. 14, 
Mal. ii. 6. 


ei O€ 'TvEedua EAaANTEV ALTO 7) MyYENOS; 1 = Kom. ix. 


22. 


b Mark vy. 4 
only. Jer. ii. 
20. 


ce = Luke 
xxiii. 11. 
ver. 27 
(Matt. xxii. 
Rey. ix. 
16. xix. 14, 
19 bis) only +. 
1 Mace. ix. 
3. 


15. ch. viii. 


Judg. 
xxi. 21. 
f ch. xvii. 33 


reff. 
g ch. xxi. 34, 
37 reff. 
h ch. vii. 26 
k ch. viii. 25 reff. w.acc. ch. xviii. 5. xx. 21, 24. xxviii. 
Sir. xix. 30. m = ch, xix. 22 reff. 

p ch. xix. 40 reff. 4 Kings xy. 15. q here, 

rch, ix. 9, 


aft Sveuayovro ins mpos adAnAous &. 


rec aft ayyeAos ins wn Geouaxwuer (interpoln from ch v. 


39), with C3HLP rel 36 sah; quid est in hoc? Syr: om ABC!ERN 13. 40 vulg syr copt 
zth arm, also (from their explanations) Amm Euthal Chr Isid Thl Cec. 
10. cracews bef yevouevns AC vulg sah: txt BEHLPN p 13.36 rel Syr Chr Th] Ec. 


—vyevouevos (but 7 is written above o) X!. 


* rec evraaBnbeis, with HLP rel 


Thl-sif He: goBnéers ABCEN a c p 13. 36. 40. 1387 arm Chr Thl-fin Lucif. ar 


autwy CE. 


36 Syr Chr. 


om ek pegou avtwy NX}. 


deducere vulg: txt BCHLPR p 13. 36 rel sah Thl Ee. 


kataByver kat HP rel 137 vulg syr sah Thl Gic: txt ABCEN af p 13. 


atayew (corrn for particularity) AK, 
om ve B m copt. 


11. rec aft @apoe: ins rave, with C3HLP p rel arm-zoh(1805) Thl ec Cassiod Ambrst; 
aft exrey ins Paulo Syr eth, avrw b o: om ABCIEN 13. 36. 40 vulg syr coptt arm 


Chr Lucif. dieuaptupov C. 
12. for de, re Bc syrr eth. 


rec Tives TWY Lovdaiwy avaTpopyy (corrn to suit 


ver 13), with HLP rel vulg Syr sah Thl-sif @e Lucif: txt ABCERX (a) p 13.36. 40. 137 
syr copt eth arm Chr Thl-fin.—(L k m have cvorpopny bef twes ; ¢ 137 syr Chr Thl- 


fin, aft o: covd.: a omits a.) 
arm Chr. mety B(so ver 21). 


writer to compare Paul with Peter, see 
Prolege. to Acts, § iil. 4. 10.] The 
fact of all our best Mss. reading poBnGels 
here, and not the unusual word edAaBnéels, 
must carry it into the text. It is one of 
those cases where, notwithstanding our 
strong suspicion that the later Mss. con- 
tain the true reading, we are bound to fol- 
low our existing authorities: no sufficient 
subjective reason being assigned for the cor- 
rection either way. StactracGy | to be 
taken literally, not as merely = ‘should 
be killed’ The Pharisees would strive to 
lay hold of him to rescue him: the Sad- 
ducees, to destroy him, or at all events to 
secure him. Between them both, there 
was danger of his being pulled asunder 
by them. 11.] By these few words, 
the Lord assured him (1) of a safe issue 
Srom his present troubles ; (2) of an ac- 
complishment of his intention of visiting 


om Aeyovres CR% ab cho 40 syrr(ins_syr-mg) 
for awoxtevwow, aveawow Ah 14. 38.113 Chr. 


Rome ; (3) of the certainty that however 
he might be sent thither, he should preach 
the gospel, and bear testimony there. So 
that they upheld and comforted him (1) 
in the uncertainty of his life from the 
Jews : (2) in the uncertainty of his libera- 
tion from prison at Cesarea: (3) in the 
uncertainty of his surviving the storm in 
the Mediterranean: (4) in the uncertainty 
of his fate on arriving at Rome. So may 
one crumb of divine grace and help be 
multiplied to feed five thousand wants and 
anxieties. eis, see reff. and ch. ii. 39, 
—pregnant. 12.] ot *Iovd. as opposed 
to Paul, the subject of the former verse. 
The copyists thought it unlikely that a/ 
the Jews were engaged in it, and so altered 
it to Ties Ty "Iovs5., and then transposed it 
for euphony. Wetstein and Lightf. ad- 
duce instances of similar conspiracies,—not 
to eat or drink till some object be gained. 


256 TIPAZEIS AITOSTOAQN. XXIII. 


s here only. 


/ rr 
‘guv@pociay Tromaoapevot, | * oitwes “mposedOovtes Tots 


(-orms, Gen. , e A EB m ‘i P 
. 13.) vw 
25) apxylepedow Kal Tois mpecBuTépos eimrav Avabéuate 
reff. qw 2 fal , x £ ‘ fa) pa U 6 4  ofiee J 
u = ch. ix, 1 avebepatiaamev * EauTous nGevos ¥yevoad Fat Ews ov atro- 


reff. 
vy Rom. ix. 3 
reff. 


a 4 a 5 fay 2 f 
kteivopev Tov LladAov. 1° * viv *obv vets * é€upavicate 


v Deut. xiii. fal ce o / Sak 
wBEe= oO yidapyo ’ovv TO °ovvedpiw, OTs *xaTayayn avToOV 
x 2 Cor. iii. 1 ox fe ig F ‘ 
2 Cor. iii. x e P , > , 
tell ge eS Dds © @s méAdovTas f diaywacKew © axpiPEoTEpov 
: Luke xiv. 24. hes \ > A Ne a be i \ n k 2 io auTov 1 grou- 
Rakin 2T@ wept avtov: nuets dé i7rpo Tov * éyyioar 


24. a a , A eee e\ A 
zch.x.33reff fol €omev TOD ™averety avTov. 16" axovcas Sé 0 vios THS 
a = ver. 22. 


* fol \ / \ > 
chexsil aderps [Lavdov tiv ° évédpav, ? maparyevopevos Kat ets- 
Matt. xxvii. . pe ; 

Ss Join €NOOV Els THY 4 TapemBory arnyyerev TO LlavrAw. 


xiv. 21, 22.) 


e nr r e Ul 
Heb. (ix. 24.) 17 qroogxkaneoapevos O€ 0 IlabdXos Eva TeV ExaToYTAapY@V 


xi. 14 onty. 

Esth. ii. 22. a > , \ \ , . 
b-1eer.i2. €bn Tov *veaviav todroy *amayaye mpos Tov x%iALapyxov 
2 Cor. i. is t ¥ ‘ > 7 , 9 us. 18 < \ Su X \ 
eer OXC’ Yap aTrayyelNal TL AUTOM. ° 0 sev OUP ~ TAPa aBpov 

ee i \ / / c , 
dacts=Iuke abrovy Iyayev Tpos TOV xLAlapyov, Kai pyow “O Y déopuos 
30. xxii. 30. = / , a) , 5 ‘ 
wy, 20, 2, Ilatros Tposkadecapevos pe “ NpwTnoEy TOUTOY TOV 
om. x. 6, 
L.P. 3 Kings / > cal f t» / me 1 
a pass. veavickoy ayaye mpos ae, ‘e€yovTa TL AaANTAaL Gol. 
Pass - e = Luke xxiii. 14. ver. 20. ch. xxvii. 30. xxviii. 19. f ch. xxiv. 22 only. Num. ~* 


xxiii. 56. 2 Macc. ix. 15. (-yvwots, ch. xxv. 21. -yvwpicev, Luke ii. 17.) ; 
h Sere ie i Luke xxii 15. Gal. ii. 12 al. Gen. xiii. 10. k ch. xxi. 33 reff. 1 constr., 
here only. (Luke xxii. 33.) 1 Kings xiii. 21. m = ch. v. 33 reff. n constr., Matt. xi. 
2. Luke xxi. 9al. 3 Kings x. 1. och. xxy. 3 only. Josh. viii. 7. (-dpor, Josh. viii. 2. Wisd. xiv. 12 
al. fr.in LXX. -8pevew, ver. 21.) p xbsol., ch. xvii. 10 reff. q ch. xxi. 34, 37 reff. 
r Os 9 reff. e s = Luke xiii. 15. [ch. xxiv. 7.] 4 Kings xi. 4. , t = Luke vii. 40, 42. ch. 
xxv. 26 al. u ch. xvi. 33 reff. v ch. xvi. 25, 27 reff. w ch, xvi. 39 reff. 


g = ch. xviii. 26 reff. 


13. rec memoinkotes (corrn appy to connect men. noav as pluperf), with HP rel Chr 
Thl ie: monoavres Le g 11. 27-9. 80. 126: om o: txt ABCEN a 13. 36. 40 Thi-fin. 

14. fermav, so ABCEP p.] rec pndevos (corrn to more usual form), with 
BCEHPX rel 36: txt AL k. (13 def.) 

15. syr-mg (and simly sah Lucif) after mune igitur has rogamus vos ut hoc nobis 
faciatis, ut quum congregaveritis consessum, indicetis chiliarcho ut deducat eum ad 
NOS. rec aft omws ins avptoy (interpola from ver 20), with HLP rel Thl He: om 
ABCER a p 13. 36 vulg syrr copt eth arm Chr Lucif. rec avtov bef katayayn, 


with HP rel Chr: txt ABCELN a g h k m p 13. 40 vulg arm Chr-e Lucif. rec 
(for ets) xpos (corrn to more usual), with CHLP rel 36 Chr: txt ABEN p sah. 
axpiBeatepov bef diaryiwwoKe (C) cl m 40.137 vulg Syr Lucif. (ywwor. C.) om Ta 


137. om 2nd rov EX! ag. at end ins eav den kat arobavery 137 syr-mg. 

16. elz ro evedpoy, with HLP rel Chr Thl-sif @e: txt ABCEN ac k p 13, 36.—B? 
has thy evedpar(sic). mapayevanevos B}. 

17. for edn, ermev L p 36. 180. amaye BN p. 
CHLPX rel 36 vulg Chr Thi e: txt ABE k p 13. 

18. rec veaviay (from preceding verse), with BHLP rel 36: txt AEN a g p 13. 40. 


co is written over the line by B!. 


rec tt bef amayyetAat, with 


See 1 Sam. xiv. 24 ff.; and Jos. Antt. xv. 8. 
3,4. 14.] It is understood from the nar- 
rative that it was to the Sadducees, among 
the chief priests and elders, that the mur- 
derers went. That the high priest be- 
longed to this sect, cannot be inferred with 
any accuracy. 15.| obv TO ovvedp. 
belongs to ‘eis, or perhaps better to 
eupavicare—do you give official intima- 
tion (intimation conveyed by the whole 
Sanhedrim). Srws expresses the pur- 
pose of eupav.,—Tod dv. avt., that of Ero 
pol éou. (Meyer). Stay. axp.| not 


as E. V. ‘enquire something more per- 
Sectly ° —but (see reff.) to determine with 
greater accuracy, or perhaps, neglecting 
the comparative sense, to determine ac- 
curately. 16.] It is quite uncertain 
whether Paul’s sister’s son lived in Jeru- 
salem, or had accompanied him thither. 
The juas of ch. xx. 5, will include more 
than merely Luke. But from this know- 
ledge of the plot, which presupposes other 
acquaintances than he would have been 
likely to make if he had come with Paul, 
I should suppose him to have been domi- 


ABC 
HLP 
bed 
hk] 


op 


14—24. IIPAE RIS AIIOZTOAQN. 


19 X érriXNaBomevos Se THs * yeupos avTod 6 yirlapyos Kat * 


ve ’ > 
Yavaxwpycas *kat idiav *éruvOdvero Ti eat 6 * eyes 
> ~ / 90 s N gel, e 2 a b / 
amayyeiiai por; 9 eitrev 5é Ott of “lovdatos » cuvébevto 
c ee a3 a / a” e ” \ fal f 
TOU “épwtThcat oe “oTws © avptov tov IladXov *£ xat- 
/ > \ g £5 h e / i > , 
ayayns els TO Sauvédptov "as pédArAwY TL } axpiBéoTEpoV 
i fal 9S \ a a 
KquvOaverOar Tepi adtov. -*! ob ody ui) rec OHs adtots: 
m > ) 7 \ > \ 3 > an ” ) / 
évedpevovaw yap avtov €€ avTa@v avdpes TrElous Tecce- 
paxovta, ™oitwes “aveOewaticay Eavtovs pte ™ payely 
pyre ™ Truety Ews ov “avéXwow avTov' Kai viv eiow EToLmoL, 
° mposdexouevot THY ATO Gov PétrayysNiav. 7 Oo péev ody 
/ 
yirlapyos TamréAucEV TOV vEeavicKoV, * TapayyelXas pndevi 
n lal / ’ 
SéxNadhoar Ot. TavTa ' évepavicas mpos “pe. 8 Kal 
\ lal € Ye ca 
mMposkadecamevos SV0 ‘Twas TOV ExXaTOVTAaPYwY EtTrEV 
/ ty lal 
“‘Etowacate otpatitas Siakoclous, Oras TopevOaow 
fal e Le \ / 
*€ws Katoapelas, kal ¥ iamets ERSounKovta Kat * de&todd- 
Bous dtaxocious, * amo Tpitns » wpas THS > vUKTOS, 74° KTHVN 
Te ‘qapacthoat, va © émiPiBdoavtes Tov IladXov f dvacw- 
o ch. xxiv. 15 reff. 


11. (-8pa, ver. 16. ch. xxv. 3.) n see vy. 12—15. 


q = ch. xiii. 3 reff. r ch. xvi. 18 reff. 
Demosth. Tept T. Tapamp., p. 354. 23. 

u constr., ch. i, 4. xvii. 3 al. v = Luke vii. 19. L. 

x ch. xvii. 15. y ver. 32 only. Gen. 1.9. 

b ch. xvi. 33. c 1 Cor. xv. 39 reff. 
x. 34. xix. 35 only. 2 Kings vi. 3. see Matt. xxi. 5. 
xiv. 36. Luke vii. 3. 1 Pet. iii. 20). w. ets, Gen. xix.19. Jos, Antt. xii. 4. 9, end. 


z here only +. 
d constr., here only. see Col. i. 22. 


19. emAaBouevov(sic) N?. eruvOaveto bef kat idiay A. 


257 


Mark viii. 23. 
Zech. xiv. 


13, 
y Matt. ii. 12 


al9. Mark 
iii. 7. John 
vi. 15. ch. 


xxvi. 31 only. 
1 Kings xix. 
10. 

z Matt. xiv. 13, 
23. xvii. lal. 
fr. 2 Macc. 
iv. 5 only. 

a= ch. iv. 7. 

x. 29. 

b Luke xxii. 5. 
John ix. 22 
only. 1 Kings 
xxil.13. Dan. 
ii. 9 Theod. 

e constr., ch. 
lii. 12 reff. 

d Luke vii. 3. 
xi. 37. see 
ver. 18. 

e 1 Cor. xy. 32 
reff, 

f ver. 15 reff. 

g ch, iv. 15 reff. 

h = ver. 15 
reff. 

i = ch. xviii. 
26 reff. 

k w. Tept, here 
only. 

1= ch. v. 36, 
37 reff. 

m (trans.) Luke 
xi. 54 only. 
Deut. xix. 


p ch. i. 4 reff, 


shere only+. Judith xi. 9 only. 7s 0 €xAaAyjoas ; 

t ver. 15 reff. w. ™pos, here only. 
w and constr., Rey. viii. 6. (ix. 15.) 
a = Matt. xxvii. 45. 


Wisd. xvi. 21. 


e Luke 


f = ch. xxvii. (43) 44. xxviii. 1,4 (Matt. 


20. cuvebovto H'. rec eis TO guvedpiov katay. Tov mavdov, With HLP rel Thl-fin 
(Ee: karayayns bef tov mavaov L ec 137 syrr coptt (perhaps transpositions to avoid 
auplov TOV 7avaAov) : OM Toy mavaAoy (homeotel) 40: txt ABEX a m p 13 am(and demid 
fuld tol) Chr. rec peddovtes (corrn to suit ver 15), with b? ec d 1 Thi-fin Ge: 
MeAAovTa HLP am Thi-sif: weAdovtwy N88 f g h k 36. 1387 Chr: txt ABE o p 40 copt 
ath, weAAov NX! b! 13. ins Tt bef wept H}(7a H?). 

21. rec erommor bef crow, with HLP rel 36 vulg Chr: txt ABEX a m p 13. 40 Thl-fin. 

22. rec veaviav (ver 17), with HLP p rel 36 Chr: txt ABENa 13. 40. eve BN. 

23. twas bef 5v0 BN p13: om twas 78. for «Bdounkoyta, exarov 137 syr-mg 
sah wth-rom. deEoBoAovs A (ms mentd by Erasm): jaculantes dextra Syr : 
lancearios vulg sah eth: jaculatores copt. 


24, aft mavAov ins vuxtos 137 syr-mg. diacwrovow KEK m: 


diagwor B! o: 
vorinus, Beza, Kuin., al., explain it mapa- 
pvaAakes:—Meursius, in his Glossarium 
Grecobarbarum,—a kind of military lic- 
tors, mapa Tb AaBety Thy Tov Sdeopulou 
dekidv ;—the Vulgate, lancearios (spear- 
men, Ki. V.) :—Meyer, a sort of light-armed 
troops, rorartvi or velites,—either jacu- 
latores or funditores. He quotes a pas- 


ciled at Jerusalem, possibly under instruc- 
tion, as was formerly Paul himself, and 
thus likely, in the schools, to have heard 
the scheme spoken of. 21. (Thy) 
émayyeAtayv | not, ‘an order’ (as Rosenm., 
al.), nor ‘a message’ (as Grot., Beza, Wolf, 
al.): but the promise (to that effect): as 
K. V. and constantly in N. T. 22. | 


omL. .. pe, a variation of person, as sage from Constantine Porphyrogenitus 
in reff. 23. S¥o0 tTwds] some two: (oi 5¢ Acyduevor Toupudpxat eis broupylay 


Tov oTpaTnyav éraxOnoav. onuatver be 

TowovToy atiwua Toy ~exovTa bp éavTdy 

otpatidtas totopdpovs mevtakoctous, Kal 

MEATATTAS Tplakocious, Kal SekoAdBous 

éxatdv) where they are distinguished from 

bowmen and _ peltastee,—and ate the 
we 


see reff., and Winer, edn. 6, § 25. 2. 

otpatiwtas, the ordinary heavy- 

armed legionary soldiers: distinguished 

below from the imme?s and detioAdBor. 

SeEtokaBous | This word has never 

been satisfactorily explained. Suidas, Pha- 
Vot, II. 


258 TIPAZEIS AIIOZTTOAON, XXIII. 
sf \ VA \ e / = / h2 ‘ ABE 
eae tty, COCR! TOS PyAcxa, TOV & nyewova, 2 ypayas emerrohay as 
ar [Eaepeléyoucay tov * rizrov todTov: *6 Kravdios Avoias 64 ¢' 
xxvii. 2, &c. i. , ‘ 
Luke ax.” TO 1 Kpatior@ ® Ayeuove Pyruxe ™yaipew. 77 Tov avdpa P* 


(Gen. xxxvi. 
15 al.) Jos. 
Antt. xviii. 
3, 1. 

ch. ix. 2 reff. 
= 1 Pet. ii. 6 
(Luke vy. 9) 
only. 

2 Macc. xi. 
16. 7) MeV 
érittoAH 
TOUTOV 
TEPLELXE 
TOV TpoTor, 
Jos. Antt. xii. 


4. 11, beg. 
k = (Rom. vi. 
17). 3 Macc. iii. 30. 1 Luke i, 3. ch. xxiv. 3. xxvi, 25 only$. 
i. 16 reff. o ver, 15. p = ch. iv. 1 reff. 


1 Cor, xiti. 12. Jer. y. 5. 


w ch. xv. 2 reff. 


s = Luke i.4. ch. xxii. 24. 
v ch. iv. 15 reff. 
31. Rom. i. 32 only. 
xvi. 26 reff. xxvi. 29, 31 al. 
b ch. xxy, 16 only +. 


y = as above (x). 
Ps. ii. 3. 


Siacwoovra AO. 
syr-w-ast. 


plu., ch. xviii. 15. 
Luke xii. 48. ch. xiii. 46 al. 
a =1 Tim. v. 12. 


lal rn \ / 
Tovtov "avrrdnudbérvta bro Tov “lovsaiwy Kat méovTa 
a > lal \ a / 
°avaipetcbar UT abTtov Pémictas atv TO IoTpaTEvpaTL 
*éEeiNaunv [adtov| pabav oti “Pwpaios éoruw. 
, s 3 lal \ , , PS) , A t > K to y 
pevos Te *% émuyvavat tiv aitiay ov iw * évexddov 
n , lal a 
avT@, “KaTHYyayov avTov eis TO Y cuvédpLov av’Tav: 7 ov 
lal / lal 
evpov * éyKaovpevoy Tept “ CntnwaTwy Tov vo“ou avTar, 
, lal g v 
pnoev Se *¥ aEvov * Oavatov % * Secpav *éxyovta » éykAnpua. 


28 Bovno- 


m ch. xv. 23 reff. nch. 
ver. 10. r = ch, vii. 10 reff, 
t ch. xix. 38 reff. u ver. 15 reff, 

x Luke xxiii. 15. ch. xxv. 11, 25. xxvi-. 
Deut. xxv. 2. zch. 
John ix. 41. xv. 22,24. xix. 11. 1 Johni. 8. 


aft nyeuova add es kaicaperay 95!. 137, so (aft diacwowow) 
at end ins epoBnOn yap unmoTre apracavTes avToy oL Lovdalot amoKTEVwot 


Kat avTos meratu eyKAnua EXN ws apyupioy eEtAndws 137 syr-w-ast Cassiod, so also vulg- 
ed(not am demid fuld tol &c) and (aft d:acwo1v) arm-usc(rejected by Zohrab). 
25. rec repiexovoay, with AHLP rel 36 Chr Thl Me, repiexovoa f: om sah: exovcay 


BEN ac p 18. 187. 
27. [efetAauny, so ABEN p 13.] 


om avtov (as superfluous in the constr) 


ABER a d p 13. 36 vulg Chr @c: ins HLP rel Thi. 
28. rec (for re) de, with HLP rel E-lat syr copt Chr ec: ovy sah: txt AB E-gr 8 36 


vulg Syr eth Thi. 
137 Chr-ms. 
avtwy Bl(ins B1-marg{ see table ]) p. 


29. aft avTwy ins pwuoews Kat moov Tivos 137 syr-mg. 
rec eykAnua bef exovta, with EHLP rel Chr: txt ABR abhI mop 
at end ins efyyayov avrov pods Tn Bia 137 syr-w-ast(but 


137 Chr. 
13. 40 vulg Thl-fin. 


aTny.). 


name from grasping the weapon with the 
right hand, which the peltastee and bow- 
men could not be said to do. The reading 
of A, 5ef:oBdAous (jaculantes dextré Syr.), 
is apparently a correction. 24. S.a- 
guowo.w) escort safe the whole way. 

@yAtxa | FrLix was a freedman of 
the Emperor Claudius: Suidas and Zonaras 
gave him the prenomen of Claudius, but 
Tacit. (Ann. xii. 54) calls him Antonius 
Felix, perhaps from Antonia, the mother 
of Claudius, as he was brother of Pallas, 
who was a freedman of Antonia (Tacit. ib. 
and Jos. Antt. xx. 7. 1). He was made 
sole procurator of Judma after the depo- 
sition of Cumanus (having before been three 
years joint procurator with him, Tacit. ib.) 
principally by the influence of the High 
Priest Jonathan (Antt. xx. 8. 5), whom he 
afterwards procured to be murdered (ibid.). 
Of his character Tacitus says, ‘ Antonius 
Felix per omnem svevitiam et libidinem 
jus regium servili ingenio exercuit,’ Hist. 
v. 9. His procuratorship was one series 


rec yvwvat, with EHLP rel Chr: txt A B(sic) 8 ack p 13. 36. 
om (passing from avtw to avtwy) Karnyaryov avToy els TO wuVvEdpLov 
om avtrov AN k 13. 137. 


om Se LP b gho p40. 


of disturbances, false messiahs, sicarii and 
robbers, and civil contests, see Jos. Antt. 
xx. 8. 5, 6, and 7. He was eventually 
(A.D. 60) recalled, and accused by the 
Cesarean Jews, but acquitted at the in- 
stance of his brother Pallas (Antt. xx. 8. 


10). On his wife Drusilla, see note, ch. 
xxiv. 24, 25.| [aepuléex., TU1., see 
reff. 26. kpatiotw] See ret. Luke. 


This letter seems to be given (translated 
from the Latin) as written, not merely ac- 
cording to its general import (see the false 
statement in ver. 27): from what source, 
is impossible to say, but it may be ima- 
gined that the contents transpired through 
some officers at Jerusalem or at Cesarea 
friendly to Paul. Such letters were 
called elogia : so Modestin. Dig. lib. 49, tit. 
16, leg. 3 \ Facciolati) : ‘ Desertoremauditum 
ad suum ducem cum elogio preeses mittet,’ 
‘with an abstract of the articles brought 
against him.’ 27. atv TO otp.| with 
the troop; see above ver. 10, and note, 
ch. xxi. 32. etch. paddy Ste ‘P. 


25—35. ITIPABEIS AIIOSTOAON. 259 
30 ¢ unvubeions Sé pou 4 émiBourhs * eis Tov avdpa EvecOan, © Wve xx. 37. 
£2 ar) My / g + \ a 1 Cor. x. 28 
e& avrijs ereuyya mpos oe, Smapayyetdas Kal TOI ont. 
2 Macc. iii. 


, , ; RE \ > lal 
“ catnyopo.s Néyew ira impos adtov *ért cod. %1 OF wey 7 .U. 
5 a \ \ a ahi ixodieed 
ovy oTpaTi@tar KaTa TO !dvaTeTaypévoy avTots ™ avanra- oot 
/ \ I lal BA n \ \ >] \ > ff. 
Bovtes tov Ilatdov Hyayov “dua vuKros eis THY >Avti- 
/ ¢ lal a 
matpioa, 32 °%rH 5é °émavpioy Pédoavtes Tovs % la7rets 
> / \ > a 
TamépyecOar ovv atte, Siméotpeway eis THY * Tapep- 


reff. 
f ch. x. 33 reff. 
g ch. i. 4 reff. 
h (John viii. 10 
rec.] ver. 35. 
ch. (xxiv. 8.] 


xxv. 16,18 

. * only. a 
Boryjv. 8 “oltwes eiseNOovtes els tiv Katodpeay cat ©rv,xxii. 

v2 , \ vw 2 \ a ye , i iv. 5 only. 
avadovTes THY “emltaToAny T@ *nyew“ovt, Y TapecTnoay (iyanp, a 
ev. Xil. . 


A \ a a 
Kat tov IladAov aiTa. 


34 a \ \ X Zz > 7 a oma 
avayvovs 5é Kab * émepwT- ich, xxviii. 0 
; ; 3 é re . see ver. 
cas *ex "mroias °érapyias 1 éotiv,. kai muOdpevos bre 
bd % / sf 
"amo Kuduxias, *° * Avaxovcouai cov, épn, Otay Kal oi 


1 Luke xvii. 9,10. 1 Cor. vii. 17. L.P., exc. Matt. xi.1. Judg. v. 9. 
iv. 1l only. (ch. i. 2. vii. 43.) n ch, y. 19 reff. 
(ch. xvi. 7 al.) only. q ver. 23. 

t ch. xxi. 34, 37 reff. u = ch. x. 41 reff. 
edopots Tas emtaToAas, Diod. Sic. xi. 45. 


15. 

k = Matt. 
xxviii. 14. ch. 
xxiv. 19. xxv. 
9. xxvi. 2. 

m = ch.xx. 13,14. 2 Tim. 
och. x. 9 reff. p = here 
r = ch. v. 26 reff. s ch. viil. 25 reff. 

v here only +. Sir. i. 22 only. avedwke TOLS 
w ch. ix. 2 reff. x vv. 24, 26. 


y = Matt. xxvi. 53. ch. ix. 41. (2 Cor. iv. 14.) Gen. xlvii. 2 Ald. z Matt. xii. 10 al. 1 Kings 
xvii. 56 A (B def.). ach. ii. 5 reff. = ch. iv. 7 reff. ech. 
xxy. 1 only +. (-os, Ezra vy. 3.) d pres., ch. xvi. 38 reff. e here only. Deut.i.16. Job 


ix. 33 BN F(not A) only. 


80. rec ins medAAcw bef eveoOa (see ch xi. 28; xxiv. 15; xxvii. 10), with HLP rel 
syr Chr Thl @c: om ABEN a p 13. 36. 40. 137 vulg eth. rec aft eceoOa: ins 
umo Twy tovdaiwy (explanatory gloss), with HLP rel Syr sah Thl (Gc): om ABEN ac 
p 18. 36. 40. 137 vulg syr copt arm.—for e& avtys, e& avrwy AEN ac p 13. 40 syr 
arm : txt BHLP rel 36 Syr copt Thl Gic.—emiB. eveobat ers Tov avdpa e& avtwy emeupa 
k.T.A. 13: et quum mihi perlatum esset de insidiis, quas paraverant illi, misi Ke 
vulg: aft ef avrys ins ovy L. aft 7. kaTnyopors ins avtov E Syr coptt. for 
Ta mpos avtoy, avtovs AN 13 vulg coptt: avrov 40: om ta B E-lat Syr. om emt 
cov p: for em, mepe 67. 137. rec at end adds eppwoo, with ELN p rel 36 demid 
tol syrr «th-pl (Chr) Thl Ec ; eppwode (see ch xv. 29) HP 26. 78. 100-1 Chr(mss and 
edd): om AB 13 am fuld coptt eth-rom. 

81. rec ins t7s bef vuxros, with HLP rel Thl-sif @e: om (cf ch v.19; xvi. 9; xvii. 
10) ABEN p 13. 40. 137 Chr Thl-fin. 

32. ree mopeverOat (corrn for less usual exprn), with HLP rel 36 syr Cyr Thl Ce, tre 
E-lat, ué irent vulg: passed over by Syr sah: txt AB E-gr 8 e p13, abire copt. 
eveotpevay &. 

38. tw nyeuov bef rnv emiotoAny L m 40. om Kat Tov mavAoy E: om tov 137. 

84. rec aft avayvous de ins o nyenwy (supplementary), with HLP rel sah Thl Gc: om 
ABEN p 13. 36. 40 vulg syrr copt eth arm Chr. aft Atcias ins ect A X}(but 
inarked for erasure) 68. avayvous Se THY EMLOTOANY ETNPwWTNTE TOV TaVAOY EK TOLAS 
eTapXlas €L KGL ELTEV KLIALKLAS Kal avGouevos €lTEVY AKOVOOMAL OTaY K.T.A. syr-m¢g: 
simly 137 ins tnv emoroAny, has e for ecriv, and continues epy KALE Kk. TU9. Epy akouc. 
Gov oTay K.T.A. 


éotiv| This was an attempt to conceal 
the fault that he had committed, see ch. 
xxii. 29. For this assertion cannot refer 
to the second rescue, see next verse. 


it was a ‘semirutum oppidum’ (Winer, 
Realw.). They might have well made 
so much way during the night and the 
next day,—for the text will admit of that 


30.] Two constructions are combined here: 
(1) enrvvéclons emiBovdAns THS eoomerns, 
and (2) unvvdevros, émiBovdAhy ExecOat. 
31.] AnTIPATRIS, forty-two Roman 

miles from Jerusalem, and twenty-six 
from Czsarea, was built by Herod the 
Great, and called in honour of his father. 
It was before called Kapharsaba (Jos. 
Antt. xiii. 15. 1; xvi. 5. 2). In Jerome’s 
time (Epitaph. Paul, 8, vol. i. p. 696) 
Ss 


interpretation,—rf émavp. being not neces- 
sarily the morrow after they left Jeru- 
salem, but after they arrived at Antipatris. 

32. rots tmets | As they had now 
the lesser half of their journey before 
them, and that furthest removed from 
Jerusalem. The detoAaBor appear to have 
gone back with the soldiers. 35. 
Staxove. | ‘The expression is in conformity 
with the Roman law; the rule was, “ Qui 


260 


f ver. 30 reff. 

g absol., ch. 
xvii. 10 reff. 

h Jobn xviii. 
28 || Mt. Mk., 
33. xix. 9. 
Phil. i. 13 
only +. 

1. — Ch, xi 
reff. 

k absol., ch. 
viii. 15 reff. - 

1 here only. 

There ony: ,,, Llavdov. 

n ch. xxiii. 15 
reff. oand constr., ch. xxv. 2. 

r ver. 19. ch. xxy. 16. xxviii. 19$. 1 Macc. vii. 6. 


35. om ka: 37. 101-37 vulg(not am demid) syrr copt «th Thl-sif. 
rec exeAevoe Te (emendation of style), with 


P: -yevovra f p: -yovra: HL 61. 


DOPAZEIS AIOSTOAON. 


p ch, xxiii. 24 &c. reff. 


XXIV. 


q = ch. iv. 18, 2 Kings ix. 9. 


TapayLvovTat 


HLP 13. 36 rel Chr: neAevoavros N!: txt A B(sic: see table) 8% ¢ k p 40. 137 syr 


Thl-fin. 
p 13. 
40. 137 vulg arm Thl-fin. 


CHap. XXIV. 1. for weve, twas A. 


for rov, Tt» B: om HLP rel 187 Chr Euthal Thl Gc: txt AEN ec gh m 
rec avrov bef ev tw mpaitwpiw, with HLP rel 36 Chr: txt ABEN ck p 13. 


rec (for mpecB. Tiwy) Twy mpecBuTepwr, 


with HLP rel Syr copt 2th @c: txt ABEN ck m 13. 36. 40. 137 vulg syr sah arm 


Syr Th)-sif. etredav. P. 

cum elogio mittuntur, ex integro audiendi 
sunt.’? Hackett. évy TO pair. T. 
“Hp. | The procurator resided in the former 
palace of Herod the Great. Here Paul 
was ‘militi traditus’ (Digest. cited by 
De W.), not in a prison, but in the build- 
ings attached to the palace. 

Cap. XXIV. 1—XXVI. 32.] Pauvt’s 
IMPRISONMENT AT CHSAREA. 1. peta 
mévte np. | After five days—or on the fifth 
day—from Paul’s departure for Caesarea. 
This would be the natural terminus a quo 
from which to date the proceedings of the 
High Priest, &c., who were /ef¢in Jerusalem. 
That it is so, appears from ver. 11. See 
note there. apeoB. trvav | The more 
ancient Mss. reading this, all we can say is 
that we have not sufficient authority to re- 
tain the reading of the rec. rév mpeoBurté- 
pwy, though it appears more likely to be 
original, and to have given offence as seem- 
ing to import that the whole Sanhedrim 
went down. This is one of the cases where, 
in the present state of our evidence, we are 
obliged to adopt readings which are not 
according to subjective canons of criticism. 

pyTopos | An orator forensis or causi- 
dicus, persons who abounded in Rome and 
the provinces ; sometimes called cuyfyopo., 
or dixoAdyot. Kuin. says: ‘ Multi adoles- 
centes Romani qui se foro dederant, cum 
magistratibus in provincias se conferebant, 
ut caussis provincialium agendis se exerce- 
rent, et majoribus in urbe actionibus pree- 
pararent.’ So Czlius (see Cic. pro Celio, c. 
30), in Africa. TeptvAAov | A diminu- 
tive from Tertius, as Lucullus from Lucius, 
—Catullus from Catius. The name occurs 
Plin. Ep. v. 15; and Tertulla, Suet. Aug. 
69 (Wetst.). évedavigay | (not, ‘ap- 
peared, éavtovs, sub.;—see reff.) laid 


2. om avtovu B. 


information; and, as it seems, not by 
writing, but by word of mouth, since they 
appeared in person, and Paul was called to 
confront them. 2.] ‘Inter precepta 
rhetorica est, judicem laudando sibi bene- 
volum reddere. (Grot.) Certainly Ter- 
tullus fulfils and overacts the precept, for 
his exordium is full of the basest flattery. 
Contrast with awoAAjs eip. tuyx., Tac. 
Ann. xii. 54: ‘Interim Felix intempestivis 
remediis delicta accendebat, zemulo ad de- 
terrima Ventid. Cumano, cui pars provincia 
habebatur : ita divisis, ut huic Galileorum 
natio, Felici Samarite parerent, discordes 
olim, et tum, contemptu regentium, minus 
coercitis odiis. Igitur raptare inter se, im- 
mittere latronum globos, componere in- 
sidias, et aliquando preliis congredi, spo- 
liaque et predasad Procuratores referre;’ 
—Hist. v. 9, quoted above, on ch. xxiii. 
24;—and Jos. Antt. xx. 8. 9, of mpw- 
TevovTes TAY Thy Katodpeay kaToikotyTwy 
*lovdalwy eis thy ‘Péuny davaBalvovot, 
PjAikos Katnyopovvres' Kal mavTws &y 
ededaKet Tinwplay Tay eis “lovdalous adikn- 
udtwv, ef uh TOAAG aitoy 6 Népwy T@ 
adeAp@ TidAAavTt mapakadéoavTi ouv- 
exépnoe .... There was just enough 
foundation for the flattery, to make the 
falsehood of its general application to Felix 
more glaring. He had put down some 
rebels (see ch. xxi. 38, note) and assassins 
(Antt. xx. 8. 4), ‘ipse tamen his omnibus 
erat nocentior’ (Wetst.). It has 
been remarked (by Dean Milman, Bampton 
Lectures, p. 185) that the character of this 
address is peculiarly Latin (but qu. ?); and 
it has been inferred from a passage in Va- 
lerius Maximus (cited at length in C. and 
H., vol. i. p. 3), that all pleadings, even in 
Greek provinces, were conducted before 


‘katyyopol cov *Tapayévwvtar, Kedevoas év TH " Tpal- ABI 
Ttwpiw Tov ‘Hpwdov ‘ durdccec Oat ator. 

XXIV. ! Mera 6€ wévte tyépas * xatéBn 6 apyvepeds 
"Avavias meta mpecButépwv tivav Kal | pyropos TepTvr- 
Nov Twos, ™oitwes ™ evepavicay TH P ryyewove °KaTa TOD 
24 «rnOévtos b€ abtod ipEato * Katnyopelv 6 


1—6. 


IIPAREIS, ATIOZTOAQN. 


261 


Téprurros Aéyor 3 TloAAHs elprjvns § tuyydvovres * Suds — Luke xx. 


n ‘\ / n 
gov Kat “dwopPwpudtwv ‘ywopuéevov TO EOver ToUT@ Sid 
Lol Q, , “ 
THS oS “ mpovolas, *TavtTn TE Kal Y TavTayod * aTro- 
/ lal 
dexouea, *xpaticte DANE,» wera °rdons ‘ebyapiotias. , *, 
4 7 be Nie Qu DON ar f2 , la) > an 
Wa 0€ pn °émi mrelov oe féyKoTTw, ® TapaKare axkod- 
Ul e lal h / an n i > / 5 k ce / 
cai ce nuav cuvTopws TH of | értetKeia. EUpOVTES 


- ch. xxvi. 
22. xxvii. 3. 
2 Tim. ii. 10. 
Heb. viii. 6. 
xi. 35. L.P.H. 
1 Mace. xi. 


Luke xxii. 
22 ||. Rom. 
v. 12, &c. 

u here only t. 


\ \ V4 a \ an ‘ , ii 
yap tov dvdpa tovtov !oimov Kat ™KWwodvta “atacw * yen 


a fal ai 5 / a Oo \ \ op > / q 

maow Tots lovdalous Tots ° Kata THY °? oiKoUpévnY, 4 TpwTO- 
z a an 

oTatny Te THS TOV Nalwpaiwy *aipécews, § O35 Kal TO 

e \ b] / Le 

lepov ‘érreipacev ‘BeBnd@oat, ov Kal “ expatioapev [xai 


xii. 17.) 
ii. 41 reff. a ch. xxiii. 26 reff. 
d= Cor. xiv. 16. 2 Cor. iv. 15. ix. 11, 12 al. 
xxxvii. ll. 2 Macc. ii. 27 only. 


x here only +. Sir. 1. 22 only. 


Paul only, exc. Rey. iv. 9. vii. 12+. 
e ch. iv. 17 reff. 


43 al. fr. 

w Rom. xiii. 14 
only. Josh. 
xx. 3 F(not 
A). Wisd. xiv. 
3. xvii. 2. 

2 Mace. iv. 6 
only.(-voeto- 
Oat, Rom. 

y ch, xvii. 30 reff. 

b ch. xvii. 11 reff, ce = ch. xx. 19 reff. 

Wisd. xvi. 28. Sir. 


f Rom. xv. 22. Gal. v.7. 1 Thess. 


ii, 18, 1 Pet. iii. 7only+. Dan. ix. 26 Theod. (Ald.) g = Matt. xviii. 29. ch. xiii. 42. constr., 
ch. viii. 31 reff. hhere only. Prov. xxiii. 28 only. (-os, 2 Mace. ii. 31.) i 2 Cor. 
x. l only+. Wisd. ii. 19. (-Kys, Phil. iv. 5. -K@s, 1 Kings xii. 22.) constr. dat., Matthie, $ 499. 
k = Rom. vii. 10 al. 1= here (Luke xxiv. 11) only. 1 Kings xxx. 22, Ps, i. 1. m = ch. 
xxi. 30 (xvii. 28 reff.). n = ch. xix. 40 reff. o here only. p = ch. 


XVii. 6. 
ch. xvi. 7 only ¢. 
u = acc., Matt. xviii. 28 al. 


q here only. 


Ps. ly. tit. 


Job xy. 24 only. 
t Matt. xii. 5 only. Neh. xiii. 17,18. Ezek. xxii, 26, (-Aos, 1 Tim. i. 9.) 


rch. v. 17 reff. s = and constr., 


3. rec KaTopOwuatwy, with HLP rel Chr Thi Gc: txt ABEN p 13. 36. 137 Chr-ms. 
yevouevoy Lc 137 Thi-fin: yryywuevwv m. 


4. exxowrw L rel Thl-fin: komrw Al(appy) m 13. (eveomrw ABIEN.) 


akovoa E: om oe Le m 36 Chr. 


ove bef 


5. oraces (corrn as suiting better macw T. 10vd. k.T.A.) ABEN p 13.36. 49 vulg copt 
Chr Thl-fin ie: txt HUP rel syrr sah eth Thl-sif. 
6—8. om from kat kata to mpos ce ABHLPN d g' hl p am} (and fuld tol) coptt: ins 


Roman magistrates ix Latin. But Mr. 
Lewin has well observed (ii. 684), “ under 
the emperors trials were permitted in 
Greek, even in Rome itself, as well in the 
senate as in the forum [ Dio Cassius, lvii. 
15, says of Tiberius, toAAGs wév Slkas ev TH 
diad€xT@ TavTy (viz. Greek) xa) exe? (in the 
senate) Aeyouevas akotwy, ToAAaS BE Kal 
avTds émepwr@y|; and it is unlikely that 
greater strictness should have been ob- 
served in a distant province. The name 
Tertullus proves little, as the Greeks, and 
even the Jews, very commonly adopted 
Roman names.” On this latter point, see 
note, ch. xiii. 9. Sidp0wpa is ‘an amelio- 
ration or reform: KatdépOwua, ‘res preeclare 
facta,’ generally, whether military or civil 
(‘que nos aut recta aut recte facta dica- 
mus, si placet, illi autem appellant caropéd- 
para.’ Cic. de Fin. iii. 7). Phrynichus re- 
marks, p. 250, auaprdvovcw of phtopes 
ovx clddtes Ste TH KaTopOSca, SdKipmov. 
7) 8 amd TovToU byoua addKimuov, Td KaTdp- 
@wua,—where see Lobeck’s note. I have, 
as always where reason to the contrary is 
not very clear, followed the authority of 
the most ancient Mss. Tpovotas | 
‘providentiz.’ ‘ Hoc vocabulum sepe diis 
tribuerunt’ (Beng.). ‘ Providentia Cz- 
saris’ is a common phrase on the coins of 


the emperors (Mr. Humphry). 3. 
TavTH K. TavTaxov| belongs to amodex., 
not to yivouévwy, in which case they 
would naturally precede the participle,— 
We receive, &c., not only here in thy 
presence, but also at all times and in 
all places. A refinement of flattery. 

4. émwi wAciov] viz. than the matter 
demands: too long. éykorr. | See 
reff. ouvtopws | As Meyer observes, 
we need not supply Actéytwy, but take 
ouyr. as the measure of the time implied 
in drodoa. 5. Aowov] See reff. 
and Demosth. p. 794. 5, obros oty aitov 
etaithoetat 6 papuakds, 6 Aowwds... The 
construction here is an anacoluthon, there 
being nothing to follow up the part. edpdv- 
tes. ‘The part. cannot be taken for the 
finite verb. See Winer, edn. 6, § 45. 6.b. 

H oikovpevy | would here mean the 
Roman ‘orbis terrarum.’ Nalop. } 
This is the only place in the N. T. where 
the Christians are so called. The Jews 
could not call them by any name answer- 
ing to Christians, as the hope of a Messiah 
was professed by themselves. [6. ] 
Considerable difficulty rests on the omis- 
sion of the words xa) card to mpds oé. 
Their absence from the principal Mss., 
their many variations in those which con- 


zch. * 


262 


v= Luke xii. 
37. xvii. 7. 


Exod. iii. 3. 
w ch. v. 26 
(reff.) only. 
x ch. xii. 11 
reff. 
y ch. xxiii. 17 
reff. 
z ch, xxiii. 30 
reff. 


a ch. iv. 9 reff. 

bch. xxiii.28 d 
reff. 

c attr., ch. i. 1 
reff. 


KaTnyopovmev avTod. 


constr., ch. 
xxv. ll. Mark xv. 3,4. 
iii. 7 AN. 
vii. 1 reff. 


1 Mace. vii. 25. 
RCH. xxXy.0L9: 


IIPABEIZ AITOZTTOAON. 


KaTa Tov ueTEpov vomov nOEAncapev Kpivat. 
eMwv 5& Avaolas 6 xidlapyos “ wera Todds “ Blas ex 
TOV *xElpov Nnuov Famnyayev, ® KeXeUcas TOvs * KaT- 
nyopous avtod épxecOar mpos ce]: map’ ob duvncy avtos 
‘avaxpivas Tept TavT@Y ToUT@V 


Py lal f / an g c/ g ” 
aol, pacKovTes TaVTa OUTWS EXEL. 


see Luke xxiii. 14. 


Rom. i, 22 only. Gen. xxvi. 20. 2 Macc. xiy. 27, 32 only. 


XXIV. 


es) Tap- 


lal e r 
eruyvavar “@v nets 


9 © guveréOevto S€ Kal ot “lov- 
10 amexpiOn TE 


Ps. 
g ch. 


e here only. Deut, xxxii. 27. 


(with consid varr, see below) E 13 rel 36. 40 syrr «th Chr Th] Gc Cassiod. (See notes.) 


for n0€A., nBovAnbnuer (or €8.) m 40. 662. 


kpwa Ea b g? k mo 13.36 Chr Thl-sif. 


auTOV EK TWY XELpwY HuwY TEeuWas mpos ae f. (cfm below.) 
for amnyayev, apeireto g? 32. 42-6. 57 Syr(adding ka zpos ce 

for keAevoas to oe, Kat mpos oe ameoretrAev 32. 42-6. 57. 66): 
KeAcvoaobat em TE TapayyeiAas Tos KaTnYyopols epxeTbar emi go 180. 
8. aft keAevoas ims kata g? 32. 42. 57. 69. 133 
rec em, with rel: mpos E a 46. 133. 


42-6, 57. 66'. 


ameoTEIAEV Kal). 


ins QuTOV €K TWYV XEpov NU@Y mm, 
arm. om avutov 69. 


rec kpwewv, with rel Thi-fin c : 
7. for wera moAAns to mpos oe, npTacev 
Bia woAAn g* 32. 


aft arnyayev 


8. for of, w E 36: wy b m! o 8. 15. 27-9. 66}. 106-80: txt ABHLPR vulg copt Chr 


Thl e. 
137 syr-w-ast. 


om autos A vss: avtous 40. 


at end ins e:toytos de avtov Tavta 


9. ree cuvebevto, with b o (ec: amexpiwayto sah eth: adjecerunt vulg E-lat: liti- 
garunt Syr: txt AB E-gr HLPN p rel 36. 40. 187 syr Chr Thl: cuvveme:@ovro 13. 180. 
10. rec de (alteration of characteristic re), with HLP 13.36 rel E-lat Chr: om copt : 


tain them, are strongly against their genu- 
ineness; as also is the consideration that 
no probable reason for their omission can 
be suggested. On the other hand, as De 
Wette observes, it is hardly imaginable that 
so little should have been assigned to the 
speaker as would be if these words were 
omitted. Besides this, the historic aorist 
éxpaTioapev seems to require some sequel, 
some reason, after his seizure, why he was 
there present and freed from Jewish dur- 
ance. The phenomena are common enough 
in the Acts, of unaccountable insertions, 
and almost always in D (here deficient). 
See a list of such in Prolegg. to Acts, 
§ v. 3. But in this place it is the omission 
which is unaccountable, for no similarity 
of ending, no doctrinal consideration can 
have led to it. The two reasons cited from 
Matthzi by Bloomfield, ed. 9,—1) “ that 
the critics believed the Jews hardly likely 
to have accused Lysias himself,’—2) “be- 
cause the words zap’ ov, at ver. 8, must be 
referred to Paul: though by its (sic) posi- 
tion, it seems to refer to Lysias,” are futile 
and childish enough (on the latter of them, 
see below); and I only refer to them, to 
shew by what sort of considerations English 
readers are still supposed to be influenced. 

I still retain the words, in dark 
brackets, being as much at a loss as ever 
to decide respecting them, and being 


moved principally by the aorist éxpa- 
Tioapev, inexplicable without any sequel. 
It may of course be said that this very 
circumstance may have given rise to their 
insertion. But of the two it seems to me 
less likely that Tertullus should have ended 
with éekparfjoauev, than that an abridg- 
ment of his speech should have been at- 
tempted. It may be a question how far 
we can detect traces of deliberate abridg- 
ment, in our early Mss., of the text of the 
Acts.] 8.| wap’ ov, if the disputed 
words be inserted, refers naturally enough 
to Lysias; but if they be omitted, to 
Paul, which would be very unlikely,— 
that the judge should be referred to the 
prisoner (for examination by forture [Grot. 
and al.| on one who had already claimed 
his rights as a Roman citizen can hardly 
be intended) for the particulars laid to his 
charge. Certainly it might, on the other 
hand, be said that Tertullus would hardly 
refer the governor to Lysias, whose inter- 
ference he had just characterized in such 
terms of blame; but (which is a strong 
argument for the genuineness of the 
doubtful words) remarkably enough, we 
find Felix, ver. 22, putting off the trial #72 
the arrival of Lysias. 9. cvverred. | 
joined in setting upon him, bore out Ter- 
tullus in his charges. 10. é« wohAGv 
érav| Felix was now in the seventh year 


ABE 
LPR : 
edf 
klm 

pl 


7—12. 


IIPABEIS ATOSTOAON. 


263 


id lal ’ “~ rn z , 238 9 
0 Iladdos, "vevcavtos a’ta@ Tod ‘iyewovos Aéyew, *’ Ex ™ Jon xiii, 24 


only}. Prov. 
iv. 25 only. 


Ley) > a ] pA \ a mM ¢ > / 
TOAN@Y éTaV | OvTAa GE KPLTIV TO EOvEL TOUTM ETLATAMEVOG ich. xxiii. 21 


&c. reff. 


> / ? a fal ‘ < 
™ evOvuws ™ Ta ™ epi EuavTod °atroNoyobdmat,  duvapévon * = &h- ix. 33. 


oov P eruyyavat OTL ov Telous Eloy P wot Hwépar * SwHdEKa 
agp’ 5 * avéBnv * mposxurijcwv eis “Iepovcadjp, | Kai 
ovTe év TO lep@ cvpov pe ‘pos Tiva “ Scadeyouevor 7) 
“ériatacw Towdvta dydov, ovTE év Tals cuvaywyais oUTE 


ch. xxvii. 36, -€¢v, ch. xxvii. 22.) 

20, 23. o ch. xix. 33 reff. 
q constr., 1 Cor. vii. 1. see ch. xx. 18. 

Vili. 27 reff. 


v 2 Cor. xi. 28 only +. 2 Macc. vi. 3 only. 


txt AB E-gr 8 al c p 40. 1387 Syr eth Thi-sif. 


t Mark ix. 34. ch. xvii. 17 only. 


xv. 21 al. 

l constr. par- 
ticip., Luke 
iv. 23. viil. 
46. ch. vii. 
12. xix. 35. 
XXVi. 3. 

2 Tim. ii. 8. 

m here only +. 
Polyb. itl. 34. 
9. (-Os, 

Luke xxii. 37. Phil. ii. 19, 

Hom. Il. xX. 155. . 765. 

8 = chy. 
u = ch. xvii. 2 reff. 


n ch. xxiii. 15, xxviii. 15. 
p constr., Matthie, $ 388. 
r= ch. xi. 2 reff. Ezra vii. 6, 7. 
Exod. vi. 27. 


aft 


for etwy, eviavtwy FE. 


kpiTny ins dixatoy Ec eh k 36. 40. 137 syr Chr(ove €ort radTa KoAakelas TH phuata, Td 


Maptupiica TE SikacTH Aixasocivnv) Thi Avit. 


rec evduuotepov, with HLP rel 


Chr Thi-sif He: txt ABEN ¢ d p 13. 36. 40. 137 vss Ath Thl-fin. 


11. om oov A. 
36. 187 Thi. 


rec yywvat, with HUP 13 rel Chr Mc: txt ABEN bcekop 
rec aft nuepa: ins 7: om ABEHLPN rel. 


* ree SEKAOUO 


(see ch xix. 7 reff), with HLP rel 36 Chr ce: Swdexa ABEN cm p 13. 40. 137 Thl. 


(Ke: 
12. twas H-gr. 

txt ABEN 13. 40 vulg. 

where the word occurs.) 


of his procuratorship, which began in the 
twelfth year of Claudius, 4.D. 52. The 
contrast between Tertullus’s and Panl’s 
‘captatio benevolentix’ is remarkable. The 
former I have characterized above. But 
the Apostle, using no flattery, yet alleges 
the one point which could really win atten- 
tion to him from Felix, viz. his confidence 
arising from speaking before one well 
skilled by experience in the manners and 
customs of the Jews. 11. Hpepar 
Swdexa] ‘The point of this seems to be, 
that Felix having been so long time a 
judge among the Jews, must be well able 
to search into and adjudicate on an offence 
whose whole course was comprised within 
so short a period. The twelve days may 
be thus made out: 1. his arrival in Jeru- 
salem, ch. xxi. 15—17; 2. his interview 
with James, ib. 18 ff.; 3. his taking on 
him the vow, ib. 26; 3—7. the time of 
the vow, interrupted by—7. his apprehen- 
sion, ch, xxi. 27; 8. his appearance before 
the Sanhedrim, ch. xxii. 30 ff.; 9. his de- 
parture from Jerusalem (at night); and so 
to the 13th, the day now current, which was 
the 5th inclusive from his leaving Jeru- 
salem. This, which is also De Wette and 
Meyer’s arrangement, is far more natural 
than that of Kuin., Olsh., Heinr., &c., who 
suppose that the days which he had already 
spent at Casarea are not to be counted, be- 
cause his raising disturbances while in cus- 


mposkuynoat Hi 137 sah, adorare vulg. 
om 13: txt ABEHPN a? d p 13. 36. 40 coptt Thl. 
ree emiovoracw, with HLP rel: erootaciay p!: amootaciay p?: 
(There is the like varn in the mss in the only other place 
for 3rd ove, ovde p. 


rec (for ets) ev, with L rel Chr 


tody was out of the question. The view 
advocated by Wieseler (Chron. der Apost.- 
gesch. pp. 103 ff.), that Paul was appre- 
hended on the very day of his appearance 
with the men in the temple, I cannot but 
regard, notwithstanding his arguments in 
its favour, as inconsistent with the text of 
ch. xxi. 26, 27; as also his idea that the 
Apostle did not take the vow on himself: 
the expression oby avrots ayvicels clearly 
negativing the latter supposition ; and ray 
NMep@v TOU ayvicpuod, ver. 26, being mani- 
festly, unless to one warped bya hypothesis, 
identical with af émrad juépat of ver. 27. 
See note there. I mention this here, 
because these suppositions materially affect 
his arrangement of the twelve days, 
which he gives thus: 2nd, from Ceesarea 
to Jerusalem ; 3rd, interview with James ; 
4th, (Pentecost) visit to the temple with 
the Nazarites, and apprehension; 5th, 
before the Sanhedrim; 6th, departure 
from Jerusalem; 7th, arrival in Czsa- 
rea; then, five days from that (but see 
note on ver. 1), Ananias, &e., leave Jeru- 
salem (but how dces this appear from 
ver. 1 ? karéBy must surely denote their 


“arrival at Caesarea, where the narrator, or, 


at all events, the locus of the history is) ; 
13th, arrival of Ananias, &c., at Czesarea, 
and hearing (improbable) of Paul. So that 
the above hypotheses are not the only rea- 
sons for rejecting Wieseler’s arrangement. 


264 TIPABEIS AMOZTOAON. XXIV. 

w Luke viii. W 5 rp Sry? 13 oF x a 30 , . 
ieib “xara thy mod 18 obre * raoacthoas Svvavrai got mept ABE 
= nere on y. fal a rn Pra 

x ee SOV vuvrt *Katnyopodaly jou. 1 oporoy@ S€ TODTO Gol, cate 


OTe TAVTHV 
EXEL LOXUY, 


° \ \ a £3) A , bist a c , klm 
OTL KATA TV odov v A€eryoudlw » aipeglY OVTWS AaTpevw 13 
Pp 


Jos. Antt. na , 6 a e , cal Wet ¢ \ \ g , 
ne TO TTATP@OW €@, TLOTEUMY TACLY TOLS “ KATA TOV VOLLOV 
Aen. aC. 
xiii. 1. , et Pe haoje & 4 f 15 i (Sq, C be 
ym le sonn KL [Tots €v] » Tots * mpodytas yeypapypevols, €Xmrioa sai | 
xvii.9. Heb. » ie \ 6 \ A Ne) ee \ Ee l by , ABCE 
v.8. 2 Pet. EX @V €lS TOV €OV 7)V Kal QvuTOl OUTOL T pos EXOVTAL, LPNa 
ii. 12. , , 
cundemste, Maydotracw ™wédrew “EcecOar Sukaiwy TE Kal adikwv. 4 fe 
a see ch. ix. 2 / \ aan 5) A > , , 
ge? 16 ogy tovTw Kal avTos PacK® I amposKoTroy *auveldnow P13 
b ver. 5. 
- ore vie 7 reff. d ch. xxii. 3 reff. e = dat., Luke i. 20 al. fr. 2 Chron. ix. 6. f ch. 
xxii. 12 reff. g ch. xiii. 15 reff. h constr. (if dat. of agency), Matt. vi.1. Luke xxiii. 15. xxiv. 
35. Gen. xxxi. 15. il Pet.i.21. (John v.45. 2 Cor. i. 10.) see 1 John iii. 3. (ch. xxvi. 1.) k ver. 
20. ch. xxv. 25. Rom. xiii.6. 2 Cor. ii. 3. vii. 11, &e. 1= ch. xxiii. 21. Tit. ii.13. Jude2l. 2 Macc. 
viii. 1). m ch. xvii. 18 reff. see Dan. xii. 2. n ch. xi. 28 reff. o = Matt. 


phere only+. 2 Macc. xv.4 only. aoKet TovavTn vouv dv at@vos pevety, 


vi.7. John xvi. 30 al. 
q1Cor. x. 32. Phil. i. 10 only. P.+ Sir. xxxv. (xxxii.) 21 only. r 2 Cor. 


Soph. Electr. 1024. 
i. 12 reff. 


18. ovde BR p. Steph aft rapaornoa (Tischdf [ed 7] is wrong) ins ye, with 
c f g 1m 661-9. 78. 80. 96-7. 100-4-6-42 Chr-ms Gc; wo: 2. 18.161; co 15. 133-80; 
pe vy HP 27-8. 98-9 Thl-sif; wor vvv 177: om ABELN p 13(sic) rel vss Chr Ee. 
rec om oo, with HLP rel syr sah eth Chr Thi Hc: ins ABER a? d gh m p 13. 40 
vulg Syr copt arm. rec (for vuvt) vuy, with EHLP 13. 36 rel: om k 3. 30: 
txt ABN dm p 137 Thl-fin. 

14. ins pov bef Gew 137: patri deo meo vulg. om rac B. om Tov 
B 56 Chr. Steph om rors ev, with AHLP N(ev tos) 13 rel vulg coptt eth Thl- 
sif Qc: elz om rots, with (syrr) Epiph Chr: txt BEX! b c k m o p 36. 40. 137 Thl-fin. 

15. for ers, mpos CX a 68-9 Thl-fin. om tov C 180. om outa: &. 
rec aft eveaOa: ins vexpwv (supplementary addition), with EHLP rel 36 syrr eth Thl- 
sif: om ABCN ck p 13. 40 vulg coptt arm Chr Thl-fin. 

16. rec de (Kat not being understood), with HP 13 rel copt He: Se ca ¢ g 25. 80. 100- 
77 arm Chr Thi-sif: re xa: m: txt ABCELX b dk o p 40. 137 vulg syrr sah Thl-fin. 

exoy HLP rel 36. 137 Chr: txt ABCEX d p 18 vulg syrr coptt Thl Ge. 


out more clearly those erarépes, in whom 
Felix had no interest further than the 
identification of Paul’s religion with that 
of his ancestors required. KaTa T. v. | 
See on kat. r. téAw, above. Then (if the 


12. kara tHvy mwod.| throughout 
the city, ‘any where in the city ; as we 
say, ‘wp and down the streets. 14. | 
The 8€ here has its peculiar force, of 
taking off the attention from what has im- 


mediately preceded, and raising a new point 
as more worthy of notice. But (‘7f thow 
wouldst truly know the reason why they 
accuse me’), ‘hine ille lacryme. 

atpeo.v, in allusion to aipéoews used by 
Tertullus, ver. 5. The word is capable of an 
indifferent or of a badsense. Tertullus had 
used it in the latter. Paul explains what 
it really was. ovTws = Kata TavTHY. 
Notice in the words watpéq 6e¢ the skill 
of Paul. The term was one well known to 
the Greeks and Romans, and which would 
carry with it its own justification. ‘“ In- 
visum quippe erat gentibus, nominatim 
etiam Romanis, si quis se peregrinis aut 
diis aut deorum cultibus addiceret; pra- 
terea Jud@is per multa imperatorum et 
magistratuum decreta et senatus consulta 
sancita erat potestas, Deum patrium co- 
lendi, patriis ritibus et sacris utendi. Jos. 
Antt. xiv. 17; xvi. 4”’ (Kuinoel). In his 
address to the Jews (ch. xxii. 14) the similar 
expression 6 0. Téy matépwy jay, brings 


words in brackets be omitted: and it is not 
easy to imagine that St. Luke wrote them) 
the dat. is used of the personal agents, the 
prophets. He avoids saying ‘by Moses,’ 
because the mention of the Jaw would carry 
more weight. 15. avtot otro} It 
would appear from this, that the High 
Priest and the deputation were not of the 
Sadducees. But perhaps this inference is 
too hasty; Paul might regard them as 
representing the whole Jewish people, and 
speak generally, as he does of the same 
hope ch. xxvi. 7, where he assigns it to 7d 
dwoexdpudAoyv jar. vekpayv, inserted 
here in some Mss. to fill up the meaning, 
is not likely to have been spoken by the 
Apostle. The juxtaposition of those words, 
which excited mockery even when the Gos- 
pel was being directly preached, would 
hardly have been hazarded in this defence, 
where every expression is so carefully 
weighed. 16. év tovTw] Accord- 
ingly, i.e. ‘having and cherishing this 


138—20. 


IIPABEIS AILOSTOAQN. 


265 


lj 
éxew Smpos tov Oeov kal tovs avOpwmmous * dia Tavs, *=Rom.v.1 


\ t ch. ii. 25 reff. 


es fal \ f / / > 
180 érav Sé Y rAEvwver * éXenwoavvas * Toujowy Y els TO Matt xvi. 


” Zz / \ s b2 Bink, Cee 61. 
€Ovos pou * rapeyevouny Kat * rposhopas, 18  év * ais ebpov 1a. Dent. 
c Af / b ae a > d Se HOE d \ - 
Me “nyviopévoy ev TH lep@, ov 4 weTa © OyAov ovdE * peTA * 5, 
*@opuBou, twes S€é amo Tis “Acias ‘Tovdator, 9 ods Eder ret. 
x= ch. 


al. ii. 


Vv = ch. ii. 40 
off. 
w ch. ix. 36 


x.2 


Paeees eh a \ i Pe vk kl 2 m x reff. 
€7Tl COU TTAPELVAL Kal KATNHYOPELVY €l ~ Tb EN OLEV Tpos y = ch. ii. 22. 
3.52 290 3 on > Ne me SiS, , e 3 > ‘ Luke ix. 13 
EME. ay auTot OUTOL ELTTATWMOAY TL €vpov [ev é0t | a 
z absol,, ch. 
xvii. 10 reff. ach, xxi. 26 reff. b = Mark vi. 48. Luke xvi. 10 al. ; ech. 
xxi. 24, 26 reff. d — ch. v. 26 al. e Luke xxii. 6. Ezek. xxiii. 24. fch. 


xxi. 34 reff. Ezek. vii."1l. 
k Matt. v. 23. Mark xi. 25 al. 


edn. 6, $ 41.4. ¢. m = ch. xxv. 19. 


aft mpos ins re L be dh 1 0 187 syr Chr Thl-fin. 


om dia mavtos 32. 42. 571. 137. 


ch. xxiii. 30 reff. 
1 opt. (subjective possibility), = ch. xvii. 27. 
1 Cor. vi. 1. Col. iii. 13. 


i ver. 2. 
Luke xxii. 23 al. Winer, 
n ver, 15. 


» hsee ch. x. 33. 


d1a mavtos bef zpos E esyr: 


17. rec mapeyevouny bef ceAenuoouvas x.T.A. (transposn for perspicuity), with HLP 
rel vss Chr; xa: mposp. bef mapey. ER? c 137: om mapey. A: txt BCR! m p 13. 40 


vulg Thl-fin. 


18. * rec ofs, with HLP rel Chr Thl-sif: as (corrn to suit mpoopopas ?) ABCEN b! 


bo 18. 36. 40. 137 Thl-fin. 
dicentes tolle inimicum virum demid. 


137 Thl. 


aft @opuBou ins et apprehenderunt me clamantes et 
elz om de, with HLP Thl-fin: ins ABCEN p 
13 rel 36. 40. 187 vulg syr coptt Thl-sif He. 

tovdaiwv E bc o 36 syr Thi. 


ins twy bef aro CE bc f 0 836. 40. 


19. Steph de, with HL b fg k 1m 137 sah wth Chr, We: txt ABCEPX p 13. 36 


rel vulg syrr copt Chr, Thl. 
20. for 7, e (ttacism ?) AC. 


rec we, with HLP rel 36 Chr: txt ABCEN p 13. 
rec ins et bef t: (corrn from ver 19), with a e 
vulg syr ic: om ABCEHLPX p 18. 36 rel Syr copt arm Chr Thl. 


om ev emote 


ABN p 13. 40: ins CEHLP rel 36 vss Chr Thl Ce. 


hope ;’ see reff. kat] also, ‘as well as 
they. 17.| 8€ refers back to the former 
dé, ver. 14. * But the matter of which they 
complain is this, that after an absence of 
many years,’ &e. See 1 Cor. xvi. 3, 4; 
2 Cor. viii. ix. notes, ch. xx. 4. 18. ] 
De W. observes, that 7yvicu. can only 
refer to mposd., not to éAenu.: thus ats 
may have been altered to ois, to give a 
general neuter sense, amidst which occupa- 
tions: and the sense will be among or 
engaged in which offerings: it being in 
the temple. But this seems far-fetched 
and unlikely, and Meyer’s supposition, that 
ois has been altered to ais to suit mpos- 
gopas, certainly has an air of probability. 
The use of a verb referring to two sub- 
stantives, to only one of which it is appli- 
cable, is too common to require illustration. 
But, as so often in this book, we must follow 
the best Mss., our only fixed evidence, as 
against any questionable subjective con- 
siderations. The construction is irre- 
gular. A subject to ebpoy has to be supplied 
by a reference to some nominative case 
implied in od peta dx. ovd. mu. Oop., thus : 
amidst which they found me purified in 
the temple, none who detected me in the 
act of raising a tumult... . but certain 
Asiatic Jews .... This would leave it to 
be inferred that no legal officers had appre- 


hended him, but certain private individuals, 
illegally ; who besides had not come for- 
ward to substantiate any charge against 
him. Bornemann would supply ovy obra: 
uev before twes 5€; but the objection to 
this is, that the negative od wera dy..... 
stands already as the proper opponent 
clause to tives 5é, and we should thus have 
two negative clauses together. On this 
sense of 5, see Viger, ed. Hermann, p. 16, 
note 24; and Hermann’s note, p. 702. 19. 
The latter remarks, “intelligitur in hac 
formula, quam malum, stultum est, vel 
simile quid.” 19.] Exouev, not Zxoveir, 
implying the subjective possibility merely, 
and disclaiming all knowledge of what the 
charge might be. The sentence is an ana- 
coluthon : de? is absolutely asserted in the 
present: then éxorey in the opt. follows, 
as if the hypothetical @5«: had been used: 
and hence the correction to @%e. [So I 
wrote in former editions, and so [ still 
believe: but the text must follow the 
evidence of the great mss.] On the 
opt. after the hypothetical indicative, see 
Bernhardy, Syntax, p. 386 ff. This also 
is a skilful argument on the part of the 
Apostle :—it being the custom of the Ro- 
mans not to judge a prisoner without the 
accusers face to face, he deposes that his 
real accusers were the Asiatic Jews who 


266 TIPASEI® AIIOTTOAON. XXIV. 


o ch, xviii. 14 
reff. 

p ch. iv. 15 reff. 

q = ch. xiii. 27 
al. 

rattr., ch. i. 1 
reff. 


0 284 s ee ~ 5 , 213 \ , 
adiknua otavtos mod ® éi Tod P cuvedpiou, *!% mept pias 
4 q fol r «e s 3 , 3 > lal € / id \ 
TavTns Thorns 'hs Séxéxpaka év avtois éctws, OTL TEpi 
‘ dvactacews tvexpov ey “Kpivowat onpuepov & ep’ buon. 


s aor. redupl., 5 aA , > 
hereon,” 22 ¥ @yeBdXeTo O€ avTovs 0 DANE, Y axpuBécTepov eidas TA 
Num. xi. 2. es < a . 1 
LXX almost qrepl THs *od00, elas “Otay Avaias o xilapyos ¥ KaTa- 
Fania 2 an > a ¢ A 
Uae? BA, * &sayvacouar * Ta “Kal vpas, * » dvataEdpevos TH 
u ch, xxiii. 6 e , re 5 ME. ” 4 \ 
off. c d 
ea CheTOU TEKS Tnpeio Bas airy, yew te “Aver, “Kae 
{Ps exw. umdéva © KmAVEW TOV fidlwv avTOv § UTNpETELY AUTO. 
Schleusn. 


Lex. V. T. in voc.) To mAovadtépav Thy TOAW ToLety avaBadovueba, Xen. Mem, iii. 6. 6. (-BOA7, ch. 


xxv. 17.) w ch. xviii. 26 reff. x = ch. ix, 2 reff. y absol., ver. 1. zch. 
xxiii. 15 only (reff.). ach. xxv. 14. Eph. vi. 21. Phil. i. 12. Col. iv. 7. b Luke viii. 55. ch. 
XVili. 2 al. c = ch. xii. 5, 6 reff. d = here (2 Cor. ii. 13. vii. 5. viii. 13. 2 Thess. i.7) 
only. L.P. 2 Chron. xxiii. 15. e = ch. xvi. 6 reff. = ch. iv. 23. 1 Tim. y. 8. see John 
ill. Titus i. 12. g = ch. xiii. 36 (reff.). xx. 34 only. 


21. mwvns bef tavtns E c k 137 syr Thl-fin. rec expata, with EHLP rel 36 Thl- 
fin: txt ABCN ab dm o p13. 40 Chr, Thl-sif Ge. rec eatws bef ev avtats (corrn 
to avoid ambig of reference of ev avt.?), with HLP rel syrr Chr Ee: txt ABCEN ¢ k m 
p 138. 40. 137 vulg copt Thi. om eyw C. rec up. (corrn, the force of 
ep not being perceived), with EHLPN rel 36 vulg Chr: txt ABC m p 13. 40 syr (ath). 

22. rec at beg ins akovcas de tava (omitting the de following), with LP rel 36 Thl 
(c: om ABCEHN ec p 13. 40. 137 vulg syrr copt 2th arm Chr.—o pnAit aveBadeto 
avrous L &e as above: o @yAré bef avtovs ¢ Chr: avrots p. rec exwv (corrn to 
more usual form), with EHLP rel 36: txt ABCN p. for Ka9, Kateoce(but corrd) X?. 

23. aft diaratauevos ins Te, with H rel vulg Syr Chr; S¢ L: om ABCEPN b! cop 
13. 36. 40. 187 syr copt arm Thl-fin. for exatrovT., xiAtapxn &}, but corrd by NX? 
or N-corr!. rec (for avtov) Tov mavAov, with HLP rel Syr eth Chr: txt ABCEN 
ck p 18. 36. 40. 137 vulg syr copt arm Thl-fin. rec aft vnpetew adds 7 mpos- 
epxecOai, with HLP rel 36 Chr: om ABCEN p 13 vulg syrr copt arm. 


first raised the ery, against him in the 
temple,—not the Sanhedrim, who merely 
received him at the hands of others,—and 
that these were not present. 20.] Or 
let these persons themselves say, what 
fault they found in me while I stood 
before the Sanhedrim, other than in the 
matter of thisone saying...... Tt serves 
for ti dAdo. Soin English: What fault 
but this: i. e. ‘ What other fault but this.’ 

21.| ed’ tp., before you: less usual 
than t¢ du., which is probably a correc- 
tion. 22. aveBadero avr. | ‘ ampliavit 
eos’ viz. both parties. ap. €iSds 
7% 1. T. 65.| These words will bear only 
one philologically correct interpretation, 
having more accurate knowledge about 
the way: not, ‘¢ill he should obtain more 
accurate knowledge’ (ungrammatical) : nor, 
‘since he had now obtained’ (viz. by Paul’s 
speech: but eiSés cannot be rendered ‘ cer- 
tior factus’). But this, the only right ren- 
dering, is variously understood. Chrys. 
says: éemirndes bmepé0ero (he adjourned 
the case purposely), od d5eduevos pabety, 
GAAG Siakpovoatba BovAduevos tovs *lov- 
dalovs. apetvar od HOeAc Se exelvons. 
Luther and Wolf: “distulit, .... non quod 
sect ignarus esset, aut pleniorem sibi no- 
titiam ejus comparare vellet, sed quia, cum 
satis illam jain cognitam haberet, Judaos 





amplius sibi molestos esse nolebat.” But 
these interpretations, as De W. observes, 
overlook the circumstance, that such a 
reason for adjournment would be as un- 
favourable to Paul, as to the Jews. Meyer 
explains it, that he adjourned the case, 
‘ because, &e. But this (De W.) would 
imply that he was favourably disposed to 
Paul. The simplest explanation is that 
given by De W.: He put them off to an- 
other time, not as requiring any more in- 
formation about ‘the way,’ for that matter 
he knew before,—but waiting for the arrival 
of Lysias. Whether Lysias was expected, 
or summoned, or ever came to be heard, is 
very doubtful. The veal motive of the 
‘ampliatio * appears in ver. 26. The com- 
parative implies, ‘‘more accurate than to 
need additional information.” Stayv. 
7a ka@ dp. | I will adjudge your matters. 
So in reff. also. 23. | Siatagfapevos is 
in apposition with e%ras, and both belong to 
aveBarero. aveow | De W.and Meyer 
explain this of ‘ custodia libera,’ pvdAakh 
aeouos (Arrian, Exp. ii. 15). But this 
can hardly be. Lipsius (Exeurs. IL. on 
Tacit. Ann. iii. 22; vi. 3, cited by Wieseler, 
Chron. d. Apost.-g. p. 380) says, ‘ Preeter 
custodiam militarem alia duplex, apud ma- 
gistratus, et apudvades. Apud magistratus, 
quum reus Consuli, Preetori, Addili, inter- 


ABCE]I 
LPR a 
edfg 
kl m¢ 

pls 


21—26. IIPABEI> AILOSTOAON. 267 


h ch. x. 48 reff. 
i absol., ch. 
xvii. 10 reff. 


k i xvii. 10 reff, 
atdeliialah dag 


4 Mera 6€ "ijuépas ™ twas ‘tapayevouevos 0 Pir 
atv Apovaoihdyn TH yuvaiti, oan “lovdaia, 


\ a vy te ? a \ “ ea pi! xxvi. 18, 

tov Ilatrov kai HKoveevy avTod Tepi Tis leis yprotOV Ris. 
, 95 mn , \ > ms \ no , Paul, or of 
miorews. % ™ Syaneyomévou S€ avTod Trepi ™ Sixacogvvys Paul, only. 
m ch. xvii, 2 


\ = a Lt 
Kal Péyxpatelas Kal Tov IxKpimatos Tov * wéAXOVTOS, , Mi 1. 


SEupoBos yevouevos 6 DANE amrexpiOn *Td t vor t you ° svi di ei 
Topevov, “xapov Sé ¥ pwetarkaBav “ petaxarécoual ce 2 Bet 1.6 
26 Gua Kal édrrifov ote *ypnwata SoOjcetat ab’Ttd v0 (titi) only. 

ee ea ada tue Tah ceo ta 


vi. 10. Hagg. i. 2, 4. 
Polyb. ii. 16. 15. 
24. twas bef nuepas AE c 137 vulg Syr: txt BCHLPN 13. 36 rel vss Chr. rec 
aft yuvaik: ins avtov, with EX!3 rel vulg syr-mg Thl-sif ec: pref 1d:a BC? &-corr! 36 
Amm-e Thl-fin; ins both A p: om both C1'HLP ab k mo Chr. (Both td1a and avrov 
are additions to fix the sense of yuvaikt.) aft covdaia ins Tapakadoven ows 157 
Tov mTavAov Kal akovon Tov Aoyov ws ovy EBovAETO LKavoY ToInToL EmOLnTEV TOUTO Syr- 
mg. ins kar bef peremeuato N1(N% disapproving). om autovu C. 
aft xpioroy ins mmoovv ELN! d f g h 1 m p 36 vulg syr copt eth arm Chr Thl-fin; 


w(sic) B: pref, am(and fuld tol) ath: om A C!2(appy) HPX-corr!3 13 rel Syr Thl- 


v = (and constr.) here (ch. ii. 46 reff.) only. METaA, KaLp, apuoTToVTa 
w ch. vii. 14 reff. x ch. iy. 37 rel si : 


sif Ge. 
25. eyxpareras kat Sixacocvyns &. 
40 arm Chr-comm,. 


exov L13: exouvy H. 
Thl-sif. 


BeAXovtos bef icpimatos (omg tov) C m 


rec aft meAAovTos ins eoecOa (appy a corrn aft ver 15), 
with HLP rel Chr, Thl Gc: om ABCEN p 138. 36. 40. 137 syr. 
mapahaBwy A: AaBwy a bdk op 13. 40 Chr 


aft eupoBos ins de A. 


26. rec ins Se bef «a1, with copt Thl-fin @c: om ABCEHLN p 13. 36 rel 137 vulg 


syr Chr Thl-sif. 


dum et Senatori, etiam non e magistratu, 
committebatur: quod nonnisi in reis illus- 
trioribus usurpatum, eaque custodia libera 
dicta: vid. Tacit. Ann. vi. 3; Sall. Cat. 
xlvii.; Liv. vi. 36; Cic. Brut. xcvi.; Dio 
lviii. 3. Custodia apud vades, quum eorum 
periculo fidejussoribus reus tradebatur : 
vid. Tacit. Ann. v. 8; Suet. Vitell. 2.’ 
Now, Wieseler argues, as Paul was not 
bailed,—and was not ‘e reis illustrioribus,’ 
and besides was delivered to a centurion 
to keep, his cannot have been ‘ custodia 
libera, but ‘militaris:’ relaxed however as 
much as was consistent with safe custody. 
He cites Josephus, who says (Antt. xviii. 
6. 10) of the custody of Agrippa, pvAak? 
wey yap Kal THpnois Hy, meTa pmevTot 
avéemews THs cis THY Siattavy. Remission, 
or relaxation, would be a better rendering 
than § liberty,’ 24. mwapayev.| Into 
the hall or chamber where Paul was to 
speak. ApovaotAdy | She was daughter 
of Herod Agrippa I. (see ch. xii.) and of 
Cypros,—and sister of Agrippa II. She 
was betrothed at six yearseld (Jos. Antt. 
xix. 9.1) to Epiphanes, son of Antiochus, 
king of Commagene ; but (Antt. xx. 7. 1) 
he declining the marriage, not wishing to 
be circumcised and become a Jew, she was 
married to the more obsequious Azizus, 


om Ist avtw B: avtw bef So8nceTra c. 


king of Emesa. Not long after, Felix, 
being enamoured of her beauty, persuaded 
her, by means ofa certain Simon, a Cyprian 
magician (see note on ch. viii. 9), to leave 
her husband and live with him (Anit. xx. 
7.2). She bore him a son, Agrippa: and 
both mother and son perished in an erup- 
tion of Vesuvius, in the reign of Titus 
(ibid.). The Drusilla mentioned by 
Tacitus (Hist. v. 9), a granddaughter of 
Antony and Cleopatra, must have been 
another wife of Felix, who was thrice 
married, and each time to persons of royal 
birth ; ‘trium reginarum maritus, Suet. 
Claud. 28. 25.] It is remarkable 
that Tacitus uses of Felix (Ann. xii. 54) 
the expression ‘cuncta malefacta  sibi 
impune ratus.’ The fear of Felix appears 
to have operated merely in his sending 
away Paul: no impression for good was 
made on him. 26.] ‘Lex Julia de 
repetundis preecipit, ne quis ob hominem 
in vincula publica conjiciendum, vincien- 
dum, vincirive jubendum, exve vinculis 
dimittendum ; neve quis ob hominem con- 
demnandum absolvendumve. . . . aliquid 
acceperit.’ Digest. xl. 11. 3. Cited by 
Mr. Humphry, who observes: Albinus, 
who succeeded Festus, so much encouraged 
this kind of bribery, that no malefactors 


268 


y here only+. 
2 Mace. viii. 


8 only. e I ero 
(vos, Luke “@MLAEL AUTO. 
y.33. 1.Tim 


y. 23 only. 
Ezek. xxxi. 
3 A only.) 

z Luke xxiv. 
14, 15. ch. 
xx. 11 only. 
w. dat., here 
only. Proy. 
xxii. 30. 

ach. xxviii. 
30 only +. 
(-77s, Matt. 
ii.16. 2 Mace. 


IladXov » dedeuévor. 


b = ch. vii. 23 
reff. 
c here only. 1 Chron. xviii. 17. so successorem accepit, Plin. Epist. ix. 13 end. 
reff. e ch. xxv. 9. f = as above [e] (Mark xy. 46) only. 
ABN), evepyeotav katabea0ar, Demosth. 193. 22. 
xlii. 7. i = here only. see ch. xx. 18, xxi. 4. 


Matt. xx. 18. Ezra vii. 6, 7. 
p = Matt. xviii. 29. 


T= ch. xv.2. 
xiii. 50 reff. 


TIPASEIS AIIOSTOAON. 


m ch. xxiii. 15 reff. 
q Matt. viii. 34 only. 


XXIV. 27. 


lal , } \ \ y / > \ k Lf A 
tov IlavAov, d10 Kat ¥ TUKVOTEpOY aUTOY * weTaTTEWTOMEVOS A 


XXV. |! Dijotos otv i éwiBas 7H * érrapyia peta 
tpeis nuépas lavéBn eis “lepoodd\upa amo Kaioapelas, 
2mn évehavicav TE AUT@ of apXLEpels Kai ol °TPHToL TOV 
*lovdaiwy “Kata tov IlavAov, Kai P\mapexadovy avTov 


d = 2 Cor. viii. 4 
1 Macc. x. 23 Ed- vat. F (not 
g = ch. xviii. 19 reff. h = Mark xv.7. Isa. 
k ch. xxiii. 34 only+. (-Xos, Ezra v. 3.) 
n ch. xxiv. 1. och. 

Plut. vit. Demetr. $ 38. 


rec aft mavAov ins omws Avon avtov (a gloss from the marg), with HLP rel 36 copt 


eth-pl Chr Thl ic : om ABCEN p 40 vulg syrr arm. 


15-8. 36. 180. 

27. patoroy P (so elsw). 
dpovoiAAay 137 syr-mg. 
copt Chr Thl. 


for wutret, SreAeyeto C 


aft @notoy ins Tov de mavAoy e:avev ev THpnTEL dia 
for te, 00 NBbcdeghk!* o p? 13. 40. 137 vulg Syr 
rec xapitas, with HP rel 36 Amm-ce Thl-sif He: xapuw (see ch 


xxv. 9) ELN3 c k 40. 187 vulg (syrr copt) Chr Thl-fin: txt ABCN? p 18. 


Cuar. XXV. 1. 77 exapxeww A N1(-xiw) : Thy ewapxiay p. 
2. evepargoay H 25-6. 68.105 Thl-fin Gc (so also ch xxiii. 22; xxiv. 1; xxv. 15). 
rec 5¢ (alteration of characteristic te), with EHLP rel syr copt Thl-sif: txt 


ABCR k p 13. 40 vulg Syr eth Chr Thl-fin Gc. 


rec o apxtepevs, with HP rel Thl- 


sif ic: txt ABCELX ec d p 36. 40. 187 vulg syrr copt «th arm. 


remained in prison, except those who did 
not offer money for their liberation (Jos. 
B. J. ii. 14.1). St. Paul did not resort to 
this mode of shortening his tedious and 
unjust imprisonment, and Tertullian (‘de 
Fuga in Persecutione,’ 12, p. 116) quotes 
his conduct in this respect against those 
who were disposed to purchase escape from 
persecution: a practice which prevailed 
and became a great evil in the time of 
Cyprian. See his Epistles, lii. and Lxviii., 
denouncing the Libellatici. 27. 
Sterias | viz. of Paul’s imprisonment. 

Ilépxiov Paartov) Festus appears to have 
succeeded Felix in the summer or autumn 
of the year 60 a.D.: but the question is 
one of much chronological difficulty. It 
is fully discussed in Wieseler, Chron. d. 
Apost.-g. pp. 91—99. He found the pro- 
vince (Jos. Antt. xx. 8. 10) wasted and 
harassed by bands of robbers and sicarii, 
and the old plague of false prophets. 
He died, after being procurator a very 
short time,—from one to two years. 
Josephus (B. J. ii. 14. 1) contrasts him, 
as a putter down of robbers, favourably 
with his successor Albinus. On the 
deposition, &c., of Felix, see note, ch. xxiii. 
24, xapita KatabéoBat) See reff. 
‘Est locutio bene Greca, Demostheni 
quoque usitata et Xenophonti: quales locu- 
tiones non paucas habet Lucas, ubi non 


alios inducit loquentes, sed ipse loquitur, 
et quidem de rebus ad religionem non per- 
tinentibus.’ Grot. The reading xapita, 
brought into the text by the evidence of 
the best Mss., has apparently been a cor- 
rection to suit the context, only one such 
act being spoken of. The plural would 
describe the wish of Felix to confer obliga- 
tions on the Jews, who were sending to 
complain of him at Rome,—and so win 
their favour. SeSepnevoy | There was 
no change in the method of custody, see 
note on ver. 23. He left him in the ‘ cus- 
todia militaris’ in which he was. 

XXV. 1.] The term ézapxla is properly 
used of a province, whether imperial or 
senatorial (see note on ch. xiii. 7),—but is 
here loosely applied to Judea, which was 
only a procuratorship, attached to the pro- 
vince of Syria. So also Josephus calls 
Festus éxapxos, Antt. xx. 8. 11; as also 
Albinus, ib. 9. 1. 2. ot apx.} It has 
been imagined, that 6 apx. of the rec. has 
been a correction to suit the former part 
of the narrative. But it may be that oi 
apxtepets has been substituted for it, to suit 
the assertion ofeestus, ver. 15. So Meyer 
and De Wette. The High Priest now was 
Ishmael the son of Phabi, Jos. Antt. xx. 8. 
ue mp@tot is more general than 
mperBurepot, though most of the first men 
must have been members of the Sanhedrim, 


BCEI 
PR a 


27 @Averias 5é ’ wAnpwbelons EédaBev odtal 
© 8uadoyov 6 PAE Tldpxiov Piotov, Oédwv Te “ yapiTa P's 
 gatabécOar tots “lovdaious 6 DAE £ KatédXuTEev TOV 


XXV,. 1—8. ITPABEIS ATOSTOAON. 269 


8 = 2 Cor. viii. 
4 reff, 


bi 1 Cor. 


viii. 9. 
c here only. 
Ps. xlviil. 17. 


lA ss 
3 aitovpevor *yapw Kat adtod, SOras t weratréuapyntat * 5c Xi? 
avtov eis ‘lepovoadnm, “ évédpav trovobvtes Y avedeiv avtov i. ™**™ 
“Kata THv Odov. *6 wev ody OF 1 (On * Tnpet- 
” F kev ovv Pharos amexpiOn * Typel~ , sre op 
a0at Tov Ilairov Y eis Karcapevav, éavtov dé wédrewv 7 ev “oriental? 
~raye *éxtropeverOau: 5 Oi ody év tpi iv, 6 ] mes 
x pever Cat L ovv €v vpiv, PynolW, ? dvvaTOL ri. 
“ouyxataBavtes, el Te eotly ev TO avepi *a KOTS Ses 
. ( pt “arotrov ° Kat cy sits, 
i , y 6f§ / be g2 > a Coad: _ 6 reff. ae 
NYOPELTMO AV QUTOU. tatpipas € €V AUTOLS NMEPAS y eR xix. 22 
ov mAélous OKT@ 1) Séxa, “KataBas “eis Karcapecav, ‘rh * kom xi 
t érrav K adi emt ToD | Bn KEN ov Ilab- * ii. 7( 
prov * caGicoas emi Tov | Bnuatos éxéXevoev Tov ad- * ii. 7 (enix. 
ov ™ayOjnvar. 1" rapayevouévov Sé avdtod ° mepréotncay 

NX e > NEG Ve , > a 

avtov ot amo ‘lepocodvpwv P KataBeBnKkotes “lovdaioz, 
\ \ , r ? te s f a > 
aoe Kat 4 Bapéa ane nae EE STS Ns Cait rp 
ioxvov “arrodetEat, § rod IlavAouv * aronoyoupévou OTe 245 ¥ ii 
d ch. xxviil. 
6 reff. e and constr., ch. xxiv. 8 reff. f ch. xii. 19 reff. g = ch. xxiv. 21 al. fr. 
h ch. xviii. 22 reff. ich. x. 9 reff. k = ch. xii. 21. ver.17. Matt. xxiii.2. 3 Kings 
Viii. 20. lch. xii. 21 reff. m = ch. viii. 32 reff. n = absol., ch. xvii. 10 reff. 
o = John xi. 42 (2 Tim. ii. 16. Tit. iii. 9) only. 2 Kings xiii. 31. p Mark iii. 22. Luke 
x. 30 al. q Matt. xxiii. 4, 23. ch. xx. 29. 2Cor.x.10. 1 Johny. 3only. Exod. xviii. 18. 
r here only +. s = ch. xxvi. 10 (xx. 9 bis) only. Gen. xxxvii. 2. t = ch. vi. 10 reff. 
u ch. ii. 22 reff. v ch. xix. 33 reff. 

3. for kar, map C e 18. 36. 105-80 tol Syr Chr-txt. tepocoAupa Ei k 96. 
evedpoy c 137 Chr. at end ins o: tTnv evxny wemoinKoTes KaTa TO SuvaToy wa eV 
TALS XEpow QUTWY YEVYTAL syr-mg. 

4. rec ev katoapeta, with HLP rel 36 Chr: txt ABCERN p 13. 40. om meAAew EK. 

exmopeveoOa bef ev Taxer N3. 

5. rec duvara: bef ev vay pyor (transposition for perspicuity), with HLP rel syr eth 
Thi @e: txt ABCE N(but yaw for vay) m 13. 40 vulg arm Chr-comm. katTa- 
Bayes &. rec (for atoroy) tour, with HLP rel copt Chr Thl ec: toute aromov 
ac g? m 137 syr: om 105-33: atomoy bef ev Tw avdpib co: txt ABCEN d p 13. 40 
vulg Syr arm Lucif. 

6. rec om ov, with E-gr HLP a! e fh k 1 syr(ins mAeiovs above the line) Thl-sif He: 
om ov 7Acovs 137 Syr syr-txt sah: ins ABCN p 13. 36 rel vulg E-lat copt arm Thl-fin. 
—ov TAciovs bef nuepas N. mAewovas B: mAeioves 38. rec om oxtw, with 
HLP rel Thl-sif @e: txt ABCEN a? m p 13 vulg syrr coptt arm Thl-fin. ins kat 
bef tn eravpioy A c, so (but kateBn above) 180 vulg syr Lucif. axOnvat bef tov 
mavarov Li copt Lucif. mpoaxOnva: X'(N8 disapproving). 

7. rec om autoy, with HP rel copt Chr Thl-sif Zc: ins ABCLN b o 36. 40 Lucif: 
avtw E p 13 Thi-fin. rec a:tiauata, with rel 36 Thl-sif ic: txt ABCEHLPR a? 
d fm p Chr Thl-fin. rec (for kata.) pepoytes, with HLP rel 36 coptt «th 
Chr Thl Gic: emiepovtes EH: txt ABCN p 13. 40 vulg Lucif. rec adds kata Tov 
TavAdouv (omg Tov mavdov net ver), with P rel 36 syr Chr Thl He: tw mavdw E: kat’ 
avtov L. 17-8. 68 Syr coptt eth: om ABCHN p vulg arm Lucif. toxvoay Rl. 
8. rec aft amoAoy. ins avrou (corrn following on the insertion of kata Tov mavAou 


Festus, relating this application, ver. 15, 
calls them mpeoBurepo:. 3.] xapw 
= Katadikny, ver. 15. TOLovv TES, 
not for momoovres: they were making, 
contriving, the ambush already. The 
country was at this time, as may be seen 
abundantly in Jos. Antt. xx., full of sicarii ; 
who were hired by the various parties to 
take off their adversaries. 5. ot 
Suvarot| not, as in E. V., those among 
you that are able [to go down ? |: but, the 
powerful among you: those who from 
their position and influence are best cal- 
culated to represent the public interests. 
See Meyer and Wordsworth. 6.]| The 


number of days is variously read: which 
has probably arisen from the later Mss., 
which have 7 for the é«7é of the more 
ancient ones: thus 7 has been omitted on 
account of the 7 following. It is possible, 
as Meyer also observes, that a perverted 
notion of the necessity of an absolute pre- 
cision in details in the inspired text, may 
have occasioned the erasure of one of the 
numbers. 7. meptéotyoav | Without 
the avrdy, as inrec., this might mean round 
the Bua, or round Festus: and perhaps 
the insertion has been made to clear this up. 

katadépovtes, bringing against 


him: see var. readd. and ref. 


270 TIPAH EIS, AITOSTOAON. XXV. 


w 1 Cor. vi. 18 
reff. 


” 
OUTE 


w.? \ , a 2 8 / ” > i, eee = SA! 
€lS TOV VOLOV TOV lov ALY OUTE ELS TO LEPOV onre ae ~ al 


BCEP 


* rele) es when Ti “ jwaptov. 96 Piatos dé OédXwv Tois edt e} g} 

y ch. x1. 2 reff. 

net, ‘Lovdaious * ydpw * xatabécOar, drroxpuBets TO Tlavip p13 
from Ps. 1. 4 


3 
(6). eitrev Oédreus ¥ els “lepocodupa ¥ avaBas éxel trepi TovT@Y 
ach. xxiii, 30 
ri eff. . Z fel a ’ 2) 73 lal A 10 24 \ ¢ lal a’ \ ] 5s 
eee KplOnvat em euov 3 2° elev be 0 ILadXos , Ezrt Tov ; Bn 
sis, Wena Matos Kaicapos éatas * cit, ob pe det *xpiverOa. “lov- 
ili. 21. ch. 


PS) / OE Ob ¢ \ \ c / d J /, 

xxvi. 26. QLOUS OVOEV NOLKNTA, WS KaL aU ©“ KaddLOV © ETTUYWWwWOKELS. 
eit ag: a Nene \ 5 25 n \e.7 e 6 , L ! > 

¢ cee €l pev ovv adiK@® Kal © akwov © Pavatou TETPANA Tl, OU 


ch, xxvii. 13. 

2 Cor. vii. 7. viii. 17. 

xxiii, 29 reff. 
above), with HP rel 36 Chr Thl-sif He : tov mavAou amoAoyoupevov avrov L: txt ABCEN 
em p13. 40. 137 vulg syrr copt «th Thl-fin Lucif.—add de (aft the first word) E 36 
am(and demid fuld) Thl-sif Lucif, te Syr. om 71 57. 80. 105: twa 137. 

9. for de, ovv A k 40. rec To.s tovdators bef GeAwy, with HLP rel Chr Thl-sif 
(ic: txt ABCEN c k m p 13. 40, 137 vulg arm Thl-fin. xapita A. rec 
KpweoOa, with HLP rel 36 Chr: txt ABCEN dk p 138. 40 Thl-fin. 

10. om o A f. eotws bef ert Tov Bnuatos katcapos Nt m: 
places. ndixnka BR (p). ywooreas Cc d! 2. 30. 137. 

11. rec (for ovv) yap (corrn, as Meyer, because et wev ovv seemed contradictory to ovdev 


2 Tim, i. 17,18 al. Winer, edn. 6, $ 34. 4. d ch. xxiii. 28 reff. ech. 


B has it in both 


ndiknoa), with HLP rel vss Thl-sif Qe : 


8.1 These were the three principal charges 
to which the 7oA. «. Bap. air. of the Jews 
referred (Meyer). 9.| KprO7Avar, the 
aor., refers to the one act, of deciding 
Jinally concerning these charges. This not 
having been seen, the later Mss. have sub- 
stituted kplyec@a:, which is more ‘ going to 
law,’ ‘being involved in a trial. The 
question is asked of Paul as’ a Roman 
citizen, having a right to be tried by Ro- 
man law: and more is contained in it, 
than at first meets the eye. It seems to 
propose only a change of place; but 
doubtless in the éket KpiOjvar was con- 
tained by implication a sentence pro- 
nounced by the Sanhedrim. ém épod 
may mean no more than em gov, ch. 
xxvi. 2, viz.,that the procurator would 
be present and sanction the trial: so 
Grot., “visne a synedrio judicari me 
presente?” Otherwise, a journey to Je- 
rusalem would be superfluous. Festus 
may very probably have anticipated the 
rejection of this proposal by Paul, and 
have wished to make it appear that the 
obstacle in the way of Paul being tried by 
the Sanhedrim arose not from him, but 
from the prisoner himself. 10.] Paul’s 
refusal has a positive and a negative ground 
—l. ‘ Cesar’s tribunal is my proper place 
of judgment: 2. To the Jews I have done 
no harm, and they have therefore no claim 
to judge me’ (De W.). én. tT. B. 
Kaio.| Meyer quotes from Ulpian, “ Que 
acta gestaque sunt a procuratore Cwsaris, 
sic ab eo comprobantur, atque si a Cesare 
ipso gesta sint.” In od pe Set xpiver@ar, 
Wordsworth has again fallen into the 


om 40 E-lat: txt ABC E-gr 8 dk p 36 copt 


mistake of supposing pe (and again in 
ver. 11) to be emphatic (see note, Matt. 
xvi. 18), which it cannot possibly be under 
any circumstances. The form of the sen- 
tence which would express the sense built 
by him on this error, would be, of Se? eueé 
KpiOjvat, or ob eue Set KpiOjva. But the 
sense, when thus given, surely is wholly 
alien from the person speaking and from 
the situation: as is also the understanding 
de? as alluding to divine intimation made 
to him. The 6e7 is simply of his right as a 
Roman citizen : the we simply enclitic, and 
of no rhetorical force at all. KadAvov | 
Not ‘for the superlative,’ here or any 
where else :—the comparative is elliptical, 
requiring ‘than... . to be supplied by 
the hearer: so also in reff. Here, the 
ellipsis would be readily supplied from 
Festus’s own speech, which appeared to 
assume that there was some ground of trial 
before the Sanhedrim. «d@AAcoy will there- 
fore mean, better than thou choosest to 
confess. We have an ellipsis of the same 
kind in our phrase ‘to know better’ Or 
it may be in this case as in 2 Tim.i. 18, 
‘ better, than that I need say more onit 2 
but I prefer the other inter pretation. 
ll. L. | Both readings, ef wey yap, and ef wey 
ovv, will suit the sense. In the former 
case, it is,‘ For if I am an offender,....? 
in the latter, If, now, I am an offender 
..++,——taking up the supposition generally, 
after having denied the particular case of 
his having offended the Jews. Meyer and 
De Wette are at issue about the internal 
probability of these readings: I am dis- 
posed to agree with Meyer thata difficulty 


9—13. 


IIPABEIS ATOSTOAON. 


27] 


a \ x . 
frrapattoduat TO amoOavely: ei Sé fF ovdev eaTiy &% wp {Luke xiv. 18, 


odtot “Karnyopovciv pov, ovdeis pe 
Kaicapa * érixadodpat. 
‘ouhAadyjoas peta TO ™aoupBovriov amexpiOn Kaicapa 
emriKexAnoat, » ert Kaicapa " ropevon. 


picacba. 


k 


1 Tim. 
, > ral IVods) Med. 
Svvatat avTots ya- sii. 35 (bis) 
12 P e oF tine Esth. 
rs iv. 8, 
FOTEy 'e noTOS g ch. xxi. 24. 
h and constr., 
, ch. xxiv. 8 
reff. 
i= ver.16 only. 
see ch. iii. 14 
reff, 


¢ col a 
13 o“Hyuepav 6é ? dvayevopévay °twav Aypimmas 6 Ba- yore &e., 


xxvi. 32. xxviii. 19 only. see ch. ii. 21. 

Luke ix. 30 || Mk. xxii. 4 only. 

xv. 22 Theod. 

XXvil. 9 only t. 
Chr-comm Thl-fin. (13 def.) 
1m o Thi. for mov, wor L. 78}, 
rel Chr Thl ce. 


2 Mace. xi. 26 only. 


Exod. xxxiy. 35. 
n ch. ix. ll. xvii, 14. 


for «a, 4 EK 29 vulg Chr-comm. 
for avtois, Touros Cli 36: txt ABEHPR p 


. 4 times. ch. 

lw. METG, Matt. xvii. 3. ™pos Luke iv. 36. dat., 
m = here only+t. (Matt. xii. l4al.) Prov. 

o ch. x. 48 reff, Pp Mark xvi. 1. ch. 


for to, rou H f 


12. ovuBovrdov L. 18: cuvedpiov C: curved. x. cvpB. 68. 


was felt in the ody (no expression is more 
frequently misunderstood and altered than 
bey ovv) and it was corrected into dp. 
This e¢ assumes the conviction after proof ; 
as the following et does the acquittal. 
ov. pe Suv. ] Said of legal possibility : ‘non 
fas est aliquem..... ? The dilemma here 
put by Paul is, “Jf I am guilty, it is not 
by them, but by Cesar, that I must be 
(and am willing to be) tried, sentenced, 
and punished. If Iaminnocent,and Cesar 
_acquits me, then clearly none will be em- 
powered to give meup to them : therefore, 
at all events, guilty or innocent, I am not 
to be made their victim.” Kato. 
émuxad. | I call upon, i.e. appeal to (pro- 
voco ad) Cesar. This power (of ‘ provo- 
catio ad populum’) having existed in very 
early times (e. g. the case of Horatius, Livy 
i. 26), was ensured to Roman citizens by 
the Lex Valeria (see Livy ii. 8, U.c. 245), 
suspended by the Decemviri, but solemnly 
re-established after their deposition (Liv. 
ili. 55, U.c. 305), when it was decreed that 
it should be unlawful to make any magis- 
trate from whom there did not lie an ap- 
peal. When the emperors absorbed the 
power of the populus and the tribunitial 
veto in themselves, the ‘ provocatio ad po- 
pulum ’ and ‘appellatio ad tribunos’ were 
both made to the princeps. See Smith’s 
Dict. of Antt. art. Appellatio. ~ In Pliny’s 
celebrated Epistle respecting the Bithynian 
Christians (x. 97), we read, “ Fuerunt alii 
similis amentie: quos, quia cives Romani 
erant, adnotavi in urbem remittendos.” 
12. cupBovAtov] The ‘ conventus,’ or 
cbvodos of citizens in the provinces, assem- 
bled to try causes on the ayopator (juépat), 
see ch. xix. 38. A certain number of these 
were chosen as, judices, for the particular 
causes, by the proconsul, and these were 
called his ‘ consiliarii’ (Suet. Tib. 33), or 
“assessores’ (madpedpor, Suet. Galba 19). 
So in Jos. (B. J. ii. 16. 1), Cestius, on-re- 


ceiving an application from Jerusalem re- 
specting the conduct of Florus, wera jye- 
podver é€BovdAedero, i.e. with his assessors, 
or ouuBotAwv. He consulted them to 
decide whether the appeal was to be con- 
ceded, or if conceded, to be at once acted 
on. (Mr. Lewin cites from the Digests, 
xlix. 5. 7: ‘Si res dilationem non recipiat, 
non permittitur appellare.’) The sense 
is stronger and better without a question at 
eTLCEKANCO AL. Thus were the two—the 
design of Paul (ch. xix. 21), and the promise 
of our Lord to him (ch. xxiii. 11)—brought 
to their fulfilment, by a combination of 
providential circumstances. We can hardly 
say, with De W. and Meyer, that these 
must have inflwenced Paul in making his 
appeal; that step is naturally accounted 
for, and was rendered necessary by the 
difficulties which now beset him; but we 
may be sure that the prospect at length, 
after his long and tedious imprisonment, of 
seeing Rome, must at this time have cheered 
him, and caused him to hear the ém) Kat- 
capa tmopevon of Festus with no small 
emotion. 13.] Herop Agerippa II., 
son of the Herod of ch. xii. (see note on 
ver. 1 there), was at Rome, and seventeen 
only, when his father died (Jos. Antt. xix. 
9. 1). Claudius (ib. 9. 2) was about to 
send him to succeed to the kingdom, but 
was dissuaded by his freedmen and fa- 
vourites, and sent Cuspius Fadus as procu- 
rator instead. Soon after, Claudius gave 
him the principality of Chalcis, which had 
been held by his uncle Herod (Antt. xx. 
5. 2),—the presidency of the temple at Je- 
rusalem and its treasures (Antt. xx.1. 3), 
—and the appointment of the High Priest. 
Some years after the same emperor added 
to his jurisdiction the former tetrarchy of 
Philip, and Batanza, Trachonitis, and Abi- 
lene (Antt. xx. 7. 1), with the title of King 
(B. J.ii.12.8). Nero afterwards annexed 
Tiberias, Tarichea, Julias, and fourteen 


272 IIPAH EIS AITOSTOAQON. XXV. 


q ch. xvi. 1 reff. 
r ch. xviii. 22 
<xi. 7. 
Exod. xviii. 


ABCEH 


\ \ ) , : > ' > 
atrevs Kat B q aio ape ' aoTra- A 
s Kat Bepvixn KarayTngay eis Kav ap Lav atts, 


f \ fel 
Capevoninoy Pijorov. 


Cr 
s ch. ii. 40 reff. 


avéQeto ¥ ra * kata Tov ILadXor, 


t ver. 6. 
sal. ii. 2 
“ouly. 2Mace. MEYOU "Avnp tis éoTtiv “ KaTadereppevos UO PydALKos 
ot. : i ‘ 
veh aaiv.22 * Ségpuos, 1 Yarept ob *yevouévouv pov “eis ‘lepoooAupa 
reff. id Pp ey lad BK p 


w ch. xxiv. 27 
x ch. xvi. 25, 


27 reff. 


Aa > / e > rat \ c 
evehavicay ot apxXlepets Kal ob 


> apecBurepor Tov ‘lov- 


Py U c > , > > a d 8 / 16 ‘ A 

yhere only.  Oal@v, °aiTovpevor Kat’ avTod “xaTadixny: 16 mpos ovs 
~» acc. I. ff. 

a > / « / / 

car )° amexplOny ote odK eat © Bos ‘Pwpaioss t yapiferOai Twa 

a aa 15 ” ra] \ ae g , h eu , 

; ins avOpwrov mpiv i) 6 § Katnyopovpevos » Kata ” poswTroV 


r \ i ! 5 ae jee a / 1% 13 

echixil,20 reff. Exoe TOUS KaTHYOpPOVUS, TOTTOV) TE aTvro oyltas aPotu 
3. 

d Se onlyt+. Wisd, xii. 27 only, lian, Var. Hist. y. 18. Herodian, vii. 4. e = John xix. 40. Heb. 


x. 25. (ch. vi. 14 reff.) 
x. 1 reff. 
lch. xxii. 1. 


f = ver. 11. 
i ch, xxiii. 30 reff. 


1 Cor. ix. 3, 2Cor. vii. 11. Phil. i. 7, 16, 


13. om tiwy c k 1. 36. 1387 syrr Chr: 


g absol., ch. xxiv. 2 reff. pass., ch. xxii. 30 reff. 


2 Tim. iv. 16. 


Ttpiwy 3. 95. 108. 


h 2 Cor. 
Wisd. xii. 10. 
Wisd. vi. 10 only. 


Heb. viii. 7. xi, 17. 
] Pet. iii. 15 only t. 


k = Rom. xy. 23. 


Bepevixn C? arm: 


Bepnuixn (appy) C}, but ver 23, C has Bepovixns, and so here E-lat demid tol Cassiod. 
rec agmacouevor with p rel 36 vulg H-lat syrr Chr Thl-fin He: txt AB E-gr HLPR 


copt eth Thl-sif. (C is uncertain.) 


14. derpiBev HP df gk 1 eth-rom Thi-sif (e-ed. 


15. evedaroOqoay Bl(txt B?-3, Tischdf ). 
rec dixny (see note), with EHLP p rel 36 Chr Thl He: 


damnationem vulg. 
16. pwuaovs Pm 101. 


Twi C 0 27-9. 105 Bas. 


aft evepavicay ins wo: E-gr vulg arm. 
txt ABCN 13. 40 Bas, 


rec aft av@pwmoy ins eis 


amwAe.av, with HLP rel 36 Syr syr-w-ast Chr Thl ic: om ABCEN ¢ p 18. 40 am fuld 


coptt arm Ath Thdrt Bas Acta-chaleed ; damnare [= xapi¢ 
exot bef kata mposwrov XN. 


donare am fuld. 


neighbouring villages to hiskingdom (Antt. 
xx. 8.4). He built a large palace at Jeru- 
salem (ib. 8. 11); but offended the Jews 
by constructing it so as to overlook the 
temple (ib.), and by his capricious changes 
in the high priesthood,—and was not much 
esteemed by them (B. J.ii.17.1). When 
the last war broke out, he attached himself 
throughout to the Romans. He died in 
the third year of Trajan, and fifty-first 
of his reign, aged about seventy (Winer, 
Realw.). Bepvixy | The Macedonian 
form (Bepevixyn or Bepovixn) for epevixn. 
She was the eldest daughter of Herod 
Agrippa I., and first married to her uncle 
Herod, prince of Chalcis (Antt. xix. 5. 1). 
After his death she lived with Agrippa her 
brother, but not without suspicion (@juns 
emaxuovons, Ti TES AdeEAGH ovvrjer, Antt. 
xx. 7.3; see also Juv. Sat. vi. 156 ff.) ; in 
consequence of which (ofrws yap eAéyiew 
@eTo Wevdeis Tas SiaBoAds, Antt. ib.) she 
married Polemo, king of Cilicia. The mar- 
riage was, however, soon dissolved (ib.), 
and she returned to her brother. She was 
afterwards the mistress of Vespasian (Tac. 
Hist. ii. 81), and of Titus (Suet. Tit. 7; 
Winer, Realw.). aoTagdpevor| on 
his accession to the procuratorship, to gain 


.+. els amwdeiay | vulg-ed® 
for te, de B E-gr. 


his favour. 14. avéGero| laid be- 
fore, so reff. He did this, not only because 
Agrippa was a Jew, but because he was 
(see above) governor of the temple. 

15.| It seems more probable that the un- 
usual word katadixn should have been 
changed to dicny, especially as Kara pre- 
cedes, than the converse. Luke never uses 
dixn, except as personified, ch. xxviii. 4 ; 
and in the only two places besides where it 
occurs in the N. T. (2 Thess. i.9; Jude 7), 
it has the sense of condemnation or punish- 
ment ; and in neither place is there any 
various reading. 16. xapilec Gar | The 
words inserted i in the rec., eis dm@Aciay, are 
a correct supplement of the sense ; to give 
up, i.e. to his enemies, and for ‘ destrsio- 
tion. De W. remarks, that the con- 
struction of zply with an opt. without &, 
is only found here in the N. T. (not that 
it occurs with &). Hermann, on Viger, 
p- 442, restricts the opt. with aply 4 to 
cases where ‘res narratur ut cogitatio ali- 
cujus :’ so Paus., ft) mpdrepoy pdvau (n- 
TOvYTL Bnvicey mply 7) of Kal ev *Axpo- 
KoptvOw yévoito bdwp. On the practice 
of the Romans, here nobly and truly al- 
leged, see citations in Grot. and Wetst. 
in loe. tétrov| This use of témos 


14 @s 6€ S eELovs mpmepas: t $vérpuBov edfgh 
exel 0 Dijatos TO Bacinet 


pis | 


14—21. IIPASEIS, AITOSTOAON. 273 


17 n ovveNOovTa@v ouv [avTov | m ch, xxiii. 29 


‘ la) m “! Vv /, 
Tept Tov ™eyKANMATOS. Rapes 
n = ch.i.6 reff. 


° évOade P dvaBoday pndeulav Troimodmevos, rh 4 ENS 0 ch, xvi. 28 


r r . 1 
Kabicas ért Tod Eipares €xéhevoa * ax Ohvat Tov avdpar P her only t. 


18 qepi ob Satabévtes of *kaTtrryopot ovdeulav “aitiay Y Edepov sao 
® SAN Cpa er, 
av eyo “ urrevoovy [‘rovnpav], 19 * &yrnpata O€é Twa mepi Tecate 


xxiv. 22.) 


Nw / 3 \ aaa, 42. A- 

THs idtas ¥SevorSarpovias elyov * rpos avdtov, Kal Tepl TWOS Xeqdah iN 

2! fal a c nr 

Inoov teOvnkdtos, dv *épackev oO Ilatinros Gv. 29  asro- get. xxi. i vel. 
i be eyo | ed y ) 4 a &% e & sche xi 1a ae 

powpevos d¢ eye [Pets] rv weph Tovray ° Sirnow, ° éheyov 


t ver. 16. 


= Matt. 
ef Bodbdovro mopeves Pat els ‘lepocodupa Kaxel * xptvec Oar ™ xxvii 31 a1. 
Gen. iv. 13. 
mept touTwv. 1 rod dé Ilavdovu 8 érixadecapévou i rypy- ¥ =, Joon xviii 
2 Pet. ii. 
On ee Ney il ‘only. see 
nvVat QUTOV els THY TOU ver. 7. 


Kk geBaotod | dudyvoow, éxéNevoa 
h x EN o em 2 , SN \ , w ch. xili. 25 
TnpEetaBat avTov Ews ov ™ avaTréwrrw avtTov mpos Kaicapa. _ rt 


x ch. xv. 2 reff. 
a ch. 
2 Cor. iv. 8. Gal, iv. 20 only. Gen. 


y here only +. 


= Jos. Antt. xix. 5.3. (-mwy, ch. xvii. 22. 
xxiv. 9 reff, 


z = ch. xxiv. 19 reff. 
b Mark vi. 20 v. r. 


Luke xxiv.4, John xiii. 22. 


xxxii. 7. w. els, here only. see Matthiz, $ 578. (-pta, Luke xxi. 25.) c = Rom. iv. 20. 
d=1 Tim. vi.4, 2 Tim. ii. 23. Tit. ili. 9 (John iii. 25, ch. xy. 2. 1 Tim. i. 4) only f. e constr., 
here only. f ver. 9. g ver. ll. h ch. xii. 5, 6 reff. i2 Pet. ii. 4. 
k = ver. 25 only +. see ch. xxvii. 1. lhere only+. Wisd. iii. 18 only. (- ~YWaoKELV, ch, xxiii. 15. 
Xxiv. 22.) m = Luke xxiii. 7 (11), 15 (Philem. 11) only+. Polyb. i. 7. 12. 


17. ree ins avtwy, with AEKHLPN p 13(sic) rel Chr Thl Gc: om B 40-2. 57. 81. 
951-7: evOade bef avrwy C ¢ (137). endemav bef avaBorAnv Ek. Tmonoauevor N}. 

18. rec emedepov, with HP rel Chr Thl He: vredepoy 80 lect-5: txt ABCELN c p13. 
36. 40. 137. rec umevoouy bef eyw, with EHLP rel 36 Chr Thi-sif dic: txt ABCN 
m p 13 vulg Thl-fin. rec om movnpay, with HLP rel Chr Thl-sif He: ins rovnpey 
BEN? p; malum vulg; movnpa C21; movnpias arm ; movnpay AC! c k m 18(sic) 36. 40. 
137 am(malam) syrr copt eth Thl-fin. 

19. for avrov, avtous A. for epackev, eAeyey c 137. 

20. rec ins evs, with CEL rel: om ABHPX bd fhk1lo p Thl-sif &e.—om wept ec m 
137: aft wep: ins rnv hk. ree Toutov (corn to suit mavados, or noov?), with HP 
rel Chr,: txt ABCELN chk m p 138. 36. 40 syrr copt «th Chr, Thl-fin. for 
mopevecOa, KpiverOat NR}. rec tepovoaAnp, With LP 13 rel: txt ABCEHN ck m p 
36. 137 Thl-fin. KpiOnvar L. 

21. for rnpnOnvat, Thpero dau C. avtov bef rnpero bar C13. 68. 137. rec 
meuw (neglect of force of compound), with HLP rel Chr: txt ABCEN c k m p 13. 36. 


40. 137 Thl-fin. 


as the Lat. ‘locus,’ is not found in good 
Greek. 18. aept ov ora. | See ver. 7: 
E. V., ‘against whom,’ supposing mep) ob 
to refer to Lem |épepov, is wrong. The word 
Tovnpay or movnpay, added in the best 
Mss. at the end of this verse, looks very 
like a gloss to explain @yv or airiay, and 
this suspicion is strengthened by the varia- 
tions in its form and place. ‘ Hine iterum 
conjicere licet, imo aperte cognoscere, adeo 
futiles fuisse calumnias ut in judicii ra- 
tionem venire non debuerint, perinde ac si 
quis convicium temere jactet.’ Calv. 

19. | SeroSarp..is used by Festus in a middle 
sense, certainly not as = ‘ superstition,’ 
E. V., speaking as he was to Agrippa, a 
Jew. 20.| See the real reason why 
he proposed this, ver. 9. This he now 
conceals, and alleges his modesty in re- 
ferring such matters to the judgment of 
the Jews themselves. This would be pleas- 

Vou. II. 


‘and ‘ demanding to be kept’ 


ing to his guest Agrippa. arrop. eis | 
so ov & eis Tu untpds mh poBovd vuuder- 
para, Soph. Gd. Tyr. 980; and augwoe 
és Tépas, Antig. 372. éXeyov | There 
is a mixed construction between ‘J said, 
wilt thou ?’ as in ver. 9, and ‘I asked him 
whether he would... . 21.] Typn- 
O@yAvar is not for eis Td Typ. (as Grot. and 
De W.), but follows directly on éemnadreoa- 
wevov. The construction is again a mixed 
one between ‘ appealing so as to be kept,’ 
ocBac- 
tov | This title, = Augustus, was first con- 
ferred by the senate on Octavianus (aitbs 
yevouevos apxh oceBacuov Kal Tors éreira, 
Philo de Legat. ad Caium, 21, vol. ii. p. 
566), and borne by all succeeding emperors. 
Dio Cassius (lili. 16) says: Atyouoros, as 
Kal mheiby Tt i) Kate avOpemous dv, emrendnOn. 
mayTa yap To eVTIMOT OT kal Ta bepdbrara 
av-yovrra mposaryopeverar. e& ovmep kal 


274 


n imperf., = 
Rom, ix. 3. 
(ch. xxii. 22.) 
Gal. iv. 20. 
see Winer, 
edn. 6, $ 41. 
a. 2. 

o 1 Cor. xv. 32 
reff. 

p ch. x. 9 reff. 

q = ch. v. 26. 
xxvii. 10 al. 
fr. 1 Mace. 
ix. 37. 

r here only }. 
Hab. ii. 18, 
19. Zech. x. 
1. Wisd. 
xviii. 17 only. 
= Polyb. i. 
37.5 al. 

s here only +. 
(-7™Ms, Rom. 
ii. 13.) 


Tov avOpwtrou aKkodaat. 


“nyv@n Oo Ilabnos. 


t here only}. Job xxxix. 28 only. u ver. 6. 


w Rom. viii. 27, 34. xi. 2. 


Heb. vii. 25 only+. 2 Macc. iv. 36 al. 


TIPABREIS AIIOSTOAQN. XXV. 22—27. 


22 "Aypinmas 6€ mpos Tov PHatov ™’EBovdouny Kat adros 


° Avjptov dnolw axovon avTov. 
c 


23 PTH ody P érravpiov €XOovT0s Tov ’Aypimma Kal THs 
Bepvixns % peta mrodAns * havtacias Kai eisehMovTw@v 
els TOS aKpoaTyplov avy TE yIALapyoLs Kal avdpaow Tots 
kat ‘éEoynyv THs TOhEws, Kal KEAeVTaVTOS TOD DijoTov 
4 xal dnow 6 Pijotos ’Aypimrma 
Baowdred Kal TavTes of Y cuutTrapovTes Hiv avdpes, Oewpetre 
TovTOV TEpt ov aTrav TO TAGs THY lovdalwy “ évéeTvYoV 
plot év Te ‘lepocoAvpors Kat * évOade [¥ érri| Bowvtes py Setv 


Wisd. ix. 10 only 
y here 


vhere only. Prov. viii. 27. 
x ch, xvi. 28 reff. 


only+. Wisd. xiv. 1 only. Qeovs émtBowmevor, Thucyd. iii. 59. Polyb. xviii. 8.1. Boav, ch. viii. 7 reff. 


22. rec aft gnorov ins edn, with CEHLP p rel 36: exweva: om ABN 13 am. (ex was 


written and rubbed out by &%.) 
om ABR vulg copt. 


rec ins o de bef avpiov, with CEHLP p 13 rel (36) : 
(The account of both these insertions I take to have been, that as 


the words stood, aypirnas appeared to be the subj of pnow,—and en and o de were 


inserted to distinguish the speakers.) 
23. etseAdovtos E. 


akpwrnpioy &. 


rec ins tas bef x:Atapxous (the usage 


of omg art aft a preposition not being recognized), with HLP rel 36 Chr: om ABCEN 


ck p 138. 40. 137. 


rec aft kar’ eoxny ins ovat (supplementary interpoln), with 


EHLP rel 36: om ABCN p 13. 40 Chr-comm. 


24. [amav, so ABCELN ck p 13. 36. 40. 137 Thl-fin. ] 
syr-mg has ut traderem eum iis ad tormentum sine defensione. 
tradere eum propter mandata que habemus ab Augusto. 
turus esset, dicebam ut sequeretur me in Cesaream, ubi custodiebatur. 


venissent, clamaverunt ut tolleretur e vita. 


vissem, compert quod in nullo reus esset mortis. 


everuxev B 25. 40. 

Non potui autem 
Si autem quis eum aceusa- 
Qui quum 
Quum autem hance et alteram partem audi- 
Quum autem dicerem: Vis judicari 


cum tis Hierosolyme? Caesarem appellavit. De quo nihil certum seribere domino meo 


habeo. 


aceBaotby avtoy Kal éAAnViCovTés Tws, 
step Twa ogemtov, amd Tov ceBalerba, 
mposeirov. On davaréutw, Bornemann 
cites Lucian, Tox. § 17: 6 5& Baoide?t 7G 
MeyaAw avaméeurer avrdv. 22. | éBou- 
Adpnyv does not (as Caly.) imply any former 
wish of Agrippa to hear Paul. It is, as 
Meyer explains it, a modest way of express- 
ing a wish, formed in this case while the 
procurator was speaking, but spoken of by 
Agrippa as if now past by, and therefore 
not pressed. We say somewhat similarly, 
‘I was wishing. See ref. Rom. and note 
there. Cf. Aristoph. Av. 1027: éxkAn- 
oidou & oby ededunv otkot wévwy : and see 
other examples in Bernhardy, Syntax, 
p- 373 ff. Agrippa, as a Jew, is anxious 
to hear Paul’s defence, as a matter of na- 
tional interest. The procurator’s ready 
consent is explained, ver. 26. 23. | 
davracia is of frequent use in this sense 
in Polybius and later Greek writers. He- 
rodotus uses the verb gavrd(ec@a for 
‘superbire,’ vii. 201: dpGs ws Ta bmep- 
éxovra (aa Kepavvot b Beds, 008 eG ay- 
td¢ec0at. See Wetst., who finely remarks 


rec emBowyres, with CEHLP rel: Bowvtes ABN p. 


on the words, ‘In eadem urbe, in qua 
pater ipsorum a vermibus corrosus ob su- 
perbiam perierat.’ axpoatyptoy | after 
the Latin ‘ auditorium ? perhaps no fixed 
hall of audience, but the chamber or saloon 
set apart for this occasion. xtArdp- 
xos] Jos. (B. J. iii. 4. 2), speaking of 
Titus’s army, says, mposeyévovto 5€ Kal 
amd Kawrapelas mévre (oreipa). These, 
then, were the tribunes of the cohorts sta- 
tioned at Caesarea. Stier remarks (Red. 
der Apostel, ii. 397), “ Yet more and more 
complete must the giving of the testimony 
inthese parts be, before the witness departs 
for Rome. In Jerusalem, the long-suffering 
of the Lord towards the rejectors of the 
Gospel was now exhausted. In Antioch, 
the residence of the Prases of Syria, the 
new mother church of Jewish and Gentile 
Christians was flourishing ; here, in Ceesa- 
rea, the residence of the procurator, the 
testimony which had begun in the house 
of Cornelius the centurion, had now risen 
upward, till it comes before this brilliant 
assembly of all the local authorities, in the 
presence of the last king of the Jews.” 


XAVT. 1. 


a ._X lel / 
avTov Shy pnKere. 


TIPAB EIS ATIOSTOAON. 


275 


23 eyo O€ *KaTeNaBounv pndev * aEvovy *—- iv. 


= ch. xxiii. 


TaN / fo fA F: 
avtov * @avatov trempayévar, » adtod dé ” TobTOU © émt- * weit 


/ \ 
Karecapmévov Tov SaceBaaTov, © Expwa Téutreww. 


, bch, xxiv. 15 


26 TreEpl reff. 


ec ver. ll. 


% 1 é 4 1 & i d ver. 21. 
od ‘aodarés Te ypdat TH & Kupiw ovK »éyaw, 610 'mpo- oa xy. 19 
4 SN 503) © a \ , a, SN a a”. Dem ’ 
nyayov avtov iép’ tudv Kat padiota Jért cov, Pacwnded 5 = ch. xxi. 31 
rem. 
> / v a a , = re ‘ AS 
Aypita, omws tis “avaxpicews yevouévns Layo The 5.0" 


E 
h ch, xxiii. 17 


/ lal } 
ypayo: *7 ™dnroyov yap mo Soket tTréwmrovTa "Oéopoy | &. ref. 
1—ch. xX 


\ \ \ ? b A o ef p Lad fF. 
#42) KL TAS KAT GAUTOU ~ ALTLAS * ONMAVAL. Rae 


j ch. xxiii. 30 


XXVI. 1 ’Aypiras S€ mpos tov Tladdov &pn 8’ Eare- x iteve omyt. 


, a 
TpémeTal cor wept ceavTov Réyeu. 


ch. xxiv. 8 al.) 
(Exod. vi. 12. 


only ft. Numb. vi. 12. 
p ch. xi. 28 reff. 
4.29. w. aor., ch, xxi. 39, 40 reff. 


Snunyopjowr, Polyen. iy. p. 317. (Wahl.) 


lsee ch. iy. 14 reff. 
Wisd, xi. 15 only.) 

q and constr., ch. xxviii, 16. i 
r Matt. viii. 3al. Gen. xiv. 22. avérewe thy Seftav ws 


3 Mace. vii. 5. 
Polyb. viii. 

19.8. (-vew, 

m = here (2 Pet. ii. 12. Jude 10) 

n ch. xvi. 25, 27 reff. o ver. 18. 

1 Cor. xiv. 34. 1 Tim. ii. 12. Xen. Cyr. viii. 


rote 0 LlavxXos * éx- 


rec (nv bef avrov, with HLP rel Chr, Thi-sif Ee: om ¢nv B'(Tischdf): txt A B-corr! 
CEX al bk mo p 18. 40 vulg syrr arm Chr-comm, 'Thl-fin. 
25. rec karaAaBouevos and ins ka aft mempaxevar, with HLP &}(but om raz) rel 36 


syr Th] (13 Thl-fin retain kar): txt ABCEN3 p 40 vulg syr copt. 


rec Oavarov bef 


uutov (transp of characteristic order), with HLPN rel 36 Chr: om avtoy p 73 Chr : 
avtov bef atioy g 68 arm Thl-fin: 0. rempaxevat bef avroy c 105-37: txt ABCE 13. 


40 am(and demid fuld tol) Thl Cc. 


for rovrov, Tov mavAov B'(but mavAou has 
dots placed over it by the original scribe, see table: txt B?). 


rec aft meumey ins 


avrov, with EHLP rel vss Chr Thl @e: om ABCEN p 13. 36. 40 vulg arm. 


26. acdadrws C. 
X-corr!s), Kpicews Hi. 


mposnyayov H-gr 116-7: exnyay. A. 
for exw, exw AE p 137 Thi-fin. 


om gov N'(ins 
rec (for ypaiyw) 


ypayat, with EHLP rel 36 Chr: txt ABCN p 13 (syrr). 


27. meurovtt L 37. 48. 133. 


Cuap. XXVI. 1. emvretpemra: L: emretpartrat b c o p 137 Thi-fin. 
mept) uep, with BLP rel Chr: txt ACEHN c p 18. 36.—Aadew epi o. ¢ 137. 


24, dmav To wA.| At Jerusalem (ver. 1) 
literally, by the popular voice (probably) of 
some tumultuous outcry :—here, by their 
deputation. 25. avtod Sé TovTov | he 
himself moreover. These reasons did really 
coexist as influencing his determination. 
Mr. Lewin cites, on ver. 12, Dig. xlix. 1. 
16: ‘Constitutiones que de recipiendis, 
necnon, appellationibus loquuntur, ut nihil 
novi fiat, docwm non habent in eorum per- 
sona quos damnatos statim puniri publict 
interest, ut sunt insignes latrones, vel sedi- 
tionum concitatores, vel duces factionum, 

26. dodades | fixed, definite. The 
whole matter had been hitherto obscured 
by the exaggerations and fictions of the 
Jews. 7T® kuptw | viz. Nero. Augustus 
and Tiberius refused this title; Caligula 
and (apparently) all following bore it. 
“Thus Tertullian, Apol. xxxiv. vol. i. p. 
450: ‘ Augustus imperii formator ne domi- 
num quidem dici se volebat ;? and Suet. 
Aug. 53: ‘Dominum se appellari ne a 
liberis quidem aut nepotibus vel serio vel 
joco passus est;’ and Tib. 27: ‘ Dominus 
appellatus a quodam denuntiavit ne se 


E vulg place uy aft arias. 


rec (for 
aft 


amplius contumeliz causa nominaret.’ 
Caligula accepted the title, according to 
Victor, ap. Eckhel, viii. 364. Herod 
Agrippa had applied it to Claudius (Philo 
ap. Spanheim. Numism. ii. 482); but it 
was not a recognized title of any emperor 
before Domitian. Suet. Dom. 13: ‘ Mar- 
tial_—Edictum Domini Deique nostri.” 
Mr. Humphry. ypawe has appa- 
rently been altered to ypaWa: to suit the 
Tt ypaar above. Olsh. remarks, 
that now first was eur Lord’s prophecy 
Matt. x. 18, Mark xiii. 9 fulfilled. But 
Meyer answers well, that we do not know 
enough of the history of the other Apostles 
to be able to say this with any certainty. 
James the greater, and Peter, had in all pro- 
bability stood before Agrippa I. See ch. 
xii. 2, 3. XXVI.1.] The stretching 
out of the hand by a speaker was not, as 
Hammond supposes, the same as the kara- 
oelew TH xetpt of ch. xii. 17; xiii. 16. 
The latter was to ensure silence; but this, 
a formal attitude usual with orators. Apu- 
leius, Met. ii. p. 54 (Meyer), describes it 


very precisely: ‘Porrigit dextram et ad 
2 


276 


8 ch. xix. 33 
reff. 

t ch. xix. 38 
reff. 

u = 2 Cor. ix. 
5. Phil. ii. 3. 
Heb. x. 29 al. 
Job xlii. 6. 


v ch. xxiii. 30 
reff. > , a 

where only. "Tovdatous * €Oav te kal * fyTnpatov. 
XXViil. 3. fal 4 2 4 { 
xu Ovpws axodoal pov. 


Theod. d 
x constr., ch. 


éx 


Col. iii. 16 al. 
Paul chiefly. 
see Winer, 
edn. 6, } 63.2. 
yi — ch. xviii, 
15 reff. 
zch. vi. 14 reff. 
a ch. xv. 2 reff. 


k 1 


x ,’ , 
Thv * axpiBeotarny 
"€jaa ™ Dapicaios. 


b here only +. (-M0S, Exod. xxxiv. 6. -pta, Rom. ii. 4. -mecv, 1 Cor. xiii. 4.) 


TIPAZEIS ATOZTTOAON. 


4 \ r lal s 2 lal 
retvas THY * yxelpa * amredoysiTo 
cf lal ae rn 
téyxadovpat ro “lovdaiwy, Bacired ’Aypirra, “ hynwat 
, \ /, v > \ fal / / s > ° 
€u“avTov paKkaploy ‘emt gov péedXwv onMEpOV * aTroXo- 
lal / r 
yeto Oat, ® wadiota “ yuootny * dvTa ce TavToV TOV» KaTa 


XXVI. 


2 Tlept mdvtav av 


610 Séouar » waxpo- 


\ \ 2 
4 ray pev otv °Biwaly pov [rv] 
/ ‘\ > > fol r 
veoTntos, THY fam apyns yevouéevny ev TH EOver pov 
” ¢ 7, g ” / , lal 5 h / 
év te ‘lepocorvpos, &icace raves ‘lovdaior ® » rpoywe- 
/ 7 Y rn 
axovtés pe iavwbev, éav OéXwow J paptupeiv, OTL KaTa 
vA rn 
aipesw Ths nmetépas ™ Opnokeias 
6 \ cal oO > > aN t) Lol > \ 
Kat vov °ém édmldu THS €ls TOUS 


c here onlyt+. Prol. Sir. 


only. Ps. xxxvili. 6 Symm. (-ovy, 1 Pet. iv. 2.) d Mark x. 20{|L. Jer. xxii. 21. eas 
above (d). 1 Tim. iv. 12 only. f Matt. xix.4,8. Lukei.2al. Isa. Ixiii. 19. g Eph. 
v.5. Heb. xii. 17. Jamesi.19 only t+. h = 2 Pet. iii. 17 only. (Rom. viii. 29 reff.) i = Luke 
i. 3$. (Wisd. xix. 6.) j=ch. xxii. 5. John iii. 28. k here only. Sir, xviii. 29. xix. 
25. xxxiv. (xxxi.) 24. xxxv. (xxxii.) 3 only. (-Bas, ch. xviii. 25.) lch. v. 17 reff. m James 


i. 26, 27. Col. ii. 18 only t. 
n constr., here only. ° 
ch. xxiii. 6. xxiv. 21.) 


mavAos ins memoiOws Kal Ev TVEUMATL ayiw TapaKAnGels syr-mg. 


Wisd. xiv. 18, 27 only. 
= ch, iv. 9only, €yxAnGetoar ert happaketa, Diod. Sic. iy. 55. (so TEpt, 


(-Kos, James i. 26. -Kevewv, Wisd. xi. 15. xiv. 16.) 


rec ameAoyeitu 


bef ext. tnv xeipa, with HLP rel syr Chr Thi-sif Ze: txt ABCEN k m p 13. 40 vulg 


Syr copt arm Thl-fin.—vas xeipas ¢ 137. 


2. for wep ravtwy to (yTnuatwy, 137 has wept mavTwy Twy Kata Lovda1ous €Bvn TE Kat 


(Cntnpatwy emioTamevos. 


rec “eAAwv amoroyeroba emt cov onucpov (simplifn of 


order), with He: em a. wu. arodoy. onuepov EHLP rel vulg syr Chr Thil-sif: txt ABCN 


m (p) 13 Thl-fin.—for peAAwy, peAAw p. 


8. ce bef ovra CX! m2 73 Chr,: om ae 180. 
nowy HLPadfg 


tovdaiwy AE d f. 


om maytwy A 17. 25 copt eth. 
m Thl-fin : e@vwy A 15. 27. 105. 


aft Cnrnuatev ins emotauevos ACR 13 (ec: aft wadsora (above), 15-8. 36 Syr: aft 


oe, 7: aft oe ins cidws 6. 29. 


rec aft Seouor ins cov, with CHLP rel Syr copt Chr: 


om ABEX k p 18. 36. 40 vulg syrr eth arm. 
4. rec ins tnv, with AC2ELPR p 13 Chr: om BC!H m e.—rny am’ apxns bef thy ex 


veotntos EH. 


ins AB E-gr § 40 Syr. 


rec om Te (misapprehension), with CHLP p 13. 36(sic) rel vulg Chr : 
tcaow CEP: txt ABR rel. 


rec ins ot bef sovd. (more 


usual exprn), with AC2HLPX rel 36: txt BC!E dk m p 13 Chr-commg. 


5. mposywwoxortes C}. 


om pe ¢ 137. 


6. rec (for eis) mpos (corrn, see note), with CHLP rel 36 Chr: txt ABE d p 13. 40. 


instar oratorum conformat articulum, duo- 
busque infimis conclusis digitis ceteros emi- 
nentes porrigit.’ The hand was chained— 
tovtwy T. deou., ver. 29. 2.] There 
is no force in Meyer’s observation, that by 
the omission of the art. before *Iovdalwyr, 
Paul wishes to express that the charges 
were made by some, not by all of the Jews. 
That omission is the one so often overlooked 
by the German critics (e.g. Stier also here), 
after a preposition. See Middl. ch. vi. § 1, 
and compare katd& “Iovdalovs in the next 
verse, of which the above cannot be said. 
péAdwv contains the ground of 

fyynuat, in that I am to defend myself. 
évta oe} For the construc- 

tion see reff. ; and cf. Viger (ed. Hermann), 
p- 337, where many examples are given— 
e.g. Herod. vi. 109: ev gol viv Eorw 4 


KatadovA@oa “AOjvas, 7) eAevPépas zot- 
hoavra pynudovvoy AvrécGat K.T.A. 
4.) The pey oty takes up amodoyetoba : 
q. d. ‘well, then, to begin my apology.’ 
5. axptBeoratny| See ch. xxii. 3: 
kata axpiBeay Tov matpwouv vduov. Jos. 
(B. J.i. 5. 2) calls the Pharisees ctvtaypd 
Tt lovdalwy Soxovy evaeBéarepoy elvar TaY 
tdAwy, kal tobs vduous axpiBearepov ap- 
nyctoGa. The use of the term finds an- 
other example in Eph. v. 15, BAérere 1@s 
axpiB@s mepimateire, which command it 
illustrates. Opnoxeta| 7 Aatpela bev 
Kal €repdOpnakos, érepddotos. Suidas. 
We have an instance here of afpeois used 
in an indifferent sense. 6.] The rec. 
text has apparently been corrected after 
ch. xiii. 32; for there we have zpdés, and 
no juav. The eis has its propriety here, 


2—8. 


/ e lal / a lal 
Paratepas Pnuav eémaryyeNias yevouévns vd Tod Oeod 
ig / lal 
EoTnKa “Kpwopevos, 7 eis Hv TO 'dwdeKadvroy uav év 
s 21 € a 4 / \ .e f ey fa) 2n / Vv a 
extevela ‘vUKTa Kal nuepav “aTpedov édmifer Y KaTaVTH- 
¥ cya odpmar vm ‘Tovdaian, Baatred. 
8 té * dmrioTov Y«plvetac *Tap viv *6¢ 6 Beds veKpods peti 225 


oat, Tept 4s édridos 


u Acts vii. 7 reff. 
w ch. xix. 38 reff. see above (0). 

AC ovdév amtoTtov tows. 

vi. 9. a Rom. viii. 13, 17. 


rec om nuwy, with HLP 13 Thl-sif He: 
om tou L 142. 


vulg syrr copt «2th arm Chr Thl-fin. 
7. Aatpevwy H 73. 
ABCEHILPN rel. 


TIPAZEIZ, AITOSTOAQON. 


v = Paul (1 Cor. x, 11. xiv. 36. 

x = here only (1 Cor. vi. 6 al.) $. 

y = ch. xiii. 46 reff. 
Col. iii. 1. 


kataytTnoew B. 
rec aft BaotAev ins aypirra, with HUP rel 40 syrr: 


277 


p ch. v. 30 reff. 
q ch. xxiii. 6 


reff. 

r here only +. 

s here only +. 
Judith iv. 9 
bis. 2 Macc. 
xiy. 38 only. 
( ele 1 Pet. 

vas. 


tch. xx. 31 “reff. 
Phil, iii. 11) only. (ch. xvi. 1 reff.) 
Demosth., p. 15, ult., Kat ma 
z= Matt, vi.1, Rom. ii. 13. Eph. 


Eph, iv. 13. 


ins ABCEN b ec d m o p 386. 40. 137 


rec ins twy bef tovdaiwyv: om 


om 


BCEIR p 13 vulg Chron Thl-sif.—rec Bao. ayp. bef uvro [twy | tovdaiwy, with HLP rel 
syr Chr: om BaciAev Laypimma| A 18. 36: Baotdev (with or without ayp.) aft vo tovd. 
BCEIX a? d k m p 13. 40 vulg Syr eth Chron Thl-fin. 


combining the ideas of address towards, 
and of ethical relation to, its object: so 
es & dmas €p@ odor, Esch. Pers. 159: 
Woyos és “EAAnvas Meyas, Eur. Bacch. 778 
(735) : dnuorpatias Katiora eis Tas TéALaS, 
Herod. vi. 43. See Bernhardy, Syntax, p 
217, where many more examples are aiveee 
The promise spoken of is not that of 
the resurrection merely, but that of a Mes- 
siah and His kingdom, znvolving (ver. 8) 
the resurrection. This is evident from the 
way in which he brings in the mention of 
Jesus of Nazareth, and connects His exalta- 
tion (ver. 18) with the universal preaching 
of repentance and remission of sins. But 
he hints merely at this hope, and does not 
explain it fully; for Agrippa knew well 
what was intended, and the mention of any 
king but Cesar would have misled and pre- 
judiced the Roman procurator. There is 
great skill in binding on his former Phari- 
saic life of orthodoxy (in externals), to his 
now real and living detence of the hope of 
Israel. But though he thus far identifies 
them, he makes no concealment of the dif- 
ference between them, ver. 9 ff. Ue 
7d Swdexagvr.| The Jews in Judea and 
those of the dispersion also. See James i. 
1. There was a difference between Paul 
and the Jews, which lies beneath the sur- 
face of this verse, but is yet not brought 
out: he had already arrived at the accom- 
plishment of this hope, to which they, with 
all their sacrifices and zeal, were as yet only 
earnestly tending, having it yet in the 
future only (so Rom. x. 2: (jAov O00 
éxovoiv, GAN ov Kat enlyvwow). It 
was concerning this hope (in what sense 
appears not yet) that he was accused by the 
Jews. The adverb éexrev@s and subst. 
éxtéveita are disapproved by the philolo- 
gists, as belonging to later Greek. See 
Lobeck on Phrynichus, p. 311. We have 


the adj., Asch. Suppl. 990: exrevts 
plaos. 8.] Having impressed on his 
hearers the injustice of this charge from 
the Jews, with reference to his holding that 
hope which they themseives held, he now 
leaves much to be filled up, not giving a 
confession of his own faith, but proceeding 
as if it were well understood. ‘You as- 
sume rightly, that I mean by this hope, in 
my own case, my believing it accomplished 
in the crucified and risen Jesus of Naza- 
reth. Then, this being acknowledged, he 
goes on to shew how his own view became 
so changed with regard to Jesus ; drawing, 
by the péy ody (ver. 9), a contrast in some 
respects between himself, who was super- 
naturally brought to the faith, and them, 
who yet could not refuse to believe that 
God could and might raise the dead. All 
this he mainly addresses to Agrippa (ver. 
26), as being the best acquainted with the 
circumstances, and, from his position, best 
qualified to judge of them. It may be, as 
Stier suggests, that if not open, yet prac- 
tical Sadduceism had tainted the Herodian 
family. Paul knew, at all events, how 
generally the highly cultivated, and those 
in power and wealth, despised and thought 
umotov the doctrine of the resurrection. 

ei. ... éyelper} not, as commonly 
rendered, ‘that God should raise the dead’ 
(E. V.): but the question is far stronger 
than this, if the conjunction be taken in its 
literal meaning: why is it judged by you 
a thing past belief, if God raises the 
dead? i.e. ‘if God, in His exercise of 
power, sees fit to raise the dead (the word 
impiying that suca a fact fas veritably 
taken place), is it for you to refuse to be- 
lieve it 2? Compare the declaration of our 
Lord, Luke xvi. 31: ot éeay tis ex vexpav 
avacth mecOnoovTa. We have many in- 
stances of this use of ef .---Xen. Mem. i. 1. 


278 


= ch. x. 40 

reff. 

w. dat., 

= here only. 

Sox®@ ot, 

Xen. Hier. i. 

6. see 1 Cor. 

ili. 18 reff. 

Herod. ii. 93, 

and exx. in 

Wetst. 

= ch. xxiv. 

19 reff. 

» = ch. (xxvii. 
4) xxviii. 17. 
1 Thess. ii. 15. 


b > / <A 
EVELPEL ; 


to) 


Tit. ii. 8. 
(Ezek. xviii. 


6. 
al 
a] 
J) 


. ld 
eis tas “éEw mTrodeus. 
’ 
Aapackov ~“ met 


reff. 

Luke iii. 20 

only. Jer. 

XXXIX. 

(xxxii.) 3. 

h ch. ix. 14. 
Bel & Dr. 26. 

i ch, ii. 33 reff. 

(Rey. ii. 17 bis) Axes 


oi) 


j ch. v. 33 reff. 
(Exod. iy. 25.) 


IIPASEIS AITOSTOAON. 


9 BI] \ \ 8 
éy@ pev ovv 

"Incod tov Nafwpaiov Seiv odda © évaytia rpakat, 
106 nat érolnca év ‘lepocodvpors, Kal ToANOUS TE TOV 
fdyiov eyo év hudakals ® KaTéxNeca, THY Tapa TaV 

2 

: , lal 

apxvepéwov 'éEovoiay | haBaov, | dvarpovpévev te avTav 
k 4 ] a ala \ om \ , x x 
katynveyKa ‘wigpov, 1! kat ™Kata Tacas Tas cuvaywyas 

TOANAKLS ™ TIYLMPHY avTOUS 
Iqepica@s TE 1 éupalvouevos avTots 


> / \ 

e€ovolas Kal 
nr > J 13 y e / y / Zz \ \ SOC 16 

TOV ApYLEepewr, nuepas Y wéons *kaTa THY odoV éloor, 


i Che xxree 
m = ch. xxii. 19 reff. 


XXVI. 


c ot) bl ad \ \ » 
éd0€a euavt@® “apos To dvoma 


° nvayKavov ? Bracdnpeiv, 
Sédimxov 'éws Kal 
12v2 e , > \ 

2Véy ois Topevomevos els THY 
x ériTpoThs THs Tapa 


Gen. xxxvii. 2 1 = here 


(xx. 9 bis) only. 5 
n ch, xxii. 5 only (Paul). Ezek. 


v.17. (- -pia, Heb. x. 29.) o = ch. xxvili. 19. Gal. ii. 3,14$. (Prov. vi. 7 only.) 2 Mace. vi. 1 al. 
p = Luke xxii. 65. 4 Kings xix. 4, 6, 22. q Matt. xxvii. 23. Mz aoe x. 26. xv. 14 only. Ps. xxx, 23. (Rom. 
iii. J. 2 Cor. i. 12 reff.) r here only+. (-mMavys, Wisd. xiv. 2.) s = Matt. xxiii. 34. 1 Macc. 
Vv. 22, t w. prep., ch. ae 5 reff. =here only. 4 Kings xvi. 18. see 1 Cor. 
y. 12 reff. v ch, xxiv. 18 (v. r. w = Luke xxi. 27. Isa. xxxiii. 17. Dan. vii. 13 Theod, 
x here only+. 2 Mace. xiii. 14 only. (- -7F0S, Mi ia xx. 8.) y here only. see Matt. xxv. 6. zch. 
viii. 36 al. Ezek. xliii. 2. 


9. om per B. 
10. for o, d:0 B. 
ins Se 36. 180: txt ACEIX p 13 
Chr : 
B-lat syr copt Thl-fin. om autwy E. 
11. om te B: Se E-gr copt. 


ins tov bef ina. X'(N3 disapproving). 

eroinoay N}(but corrd). 
: rec om 2nd ev (as unnecessary), with HP rel 
ins ABCEILX b k m o p 138. 36. 40. 137 vulg. 


vaCopaiov &. 
rec om Ist te, with BHLP rel: 


for 2nd te, 5¢ H a? ¢ 137 
Kkatnveyrav &. 


12. rec ins kat bef ropevouevos, with HLP p(e sil Scriv) rel Syr Chr Thl-sif @e: om 


ABCEIRX ¢ p(Tischdf) 13. 36. 40 vulg syr copt 2th arm Thl-fin. 


k 0 187. 
om tns 80 Thl-fin : 
13. om 7jrepas XN}. 


13, eOatpale 5é ci uh) pavepdy avtots eorly: 
ib. 18, 60a 5€ mavres Hdecay, Bavpaortdy 
el ph TovTwy evebuvunbnoar: ib. i. 2. 13, 
eya 8 ci wey Tt kakdy exelym Thy TOAW 
emoincdtny ovK amoAoyhoouwat: on which 
examples Hermann remarks, ad Viger. 
p- 504, “in his locis omnibus rem non 
dubiam et incertam indicat «i, sed plane 
certam et perspicuam.” 9.) Hence- 
forward he passes to his own history, — how 
he once refused, like them, to believe in 
Jesus: and shews them both the process 
of his conversion, and the ministry with 
which he was entrusted to others. 

pev ovy, well then, resuming the character 
described vy. 4, 5 10, 11.] This is 
the diwypds wéyas of ch. viii. 1. We are 
surprised here by the unexpected word 
aylwy, which it might have been thought 
he would have rather in this presence 
avoided. But, as Stier remarks, it belongs 
to the more confident tone of this speech, 
which he delivers, not as a prisoner defend- 
ing himself, but as one being heard before 
those who were his audience, not his judges. 
katyveyka Whdov can hardly be taken 
Jiguratively, as many Commentators, 
trying to escape from the inference that 


om tn»vEabch 


om Ts Tapa (as unnecessary) AKI 40 vulg Syr: om zrapa BN ¢ p 137: 
txt CHLP 13 rel syr Chr Thl-sif Ge. 
for kara Thy, katny(sic) X, 


BactAevs B'(Tischdf). 


the veavlas Saul was a member of the 
Sanhedrim ; but must be understood as 
testifying to this ver ‘y fact, however 
strange it may seem. He can hardly 
have been less than thirty when sent on 
his errand of persecution to Damascus. 
The genitive is supposed by Elsner and 
Kypke to be dependent on karhveyKa; 
but this is harsh, and it is better to take 
(as most Commentators, and Meyer, and 
De W.) it as absolute, and karhveyra 
as local, ‘ detuli sententiam ? when their 
deaths were being compassed, I gave 
in my vote (scil. against them, as in 


ref.). On the fact, cf cuvevdox@v tH 
avaipeoer avrov, ch. viii. 1. it: 
TiLwpa@v] viz. by scourging ; compare 


Matt. x. 17. Avay«alov does not imply 
that any did blaspheme (Christ: so Pliny, 
Ep. n. 97, speaks of ordering the Bithy- 
nian Christians ‘ maledicere Christo,’ and 
adds, ‘quorum nihil cogi posse dicun- 
tur qui sunt revera Christiani’): the im- 
perf. only relates the attempt. The per- 
secuting the Christians even to foreign 
cities, forms the transition to the narrative 
following. 12. év ots} In which 
things (being engaged). 13.] See 


ABCE 
ILPS 
bedf 
hkli 
opk 


9—16. TIPAREI> ATOZTOAON. 279 


a a > , bs \ \ c , A e / + 
couple ovpavobev seid oP eel Solis TOU MOU » rik. ps 
fn ’ = 2 ARE 
“mepiiauway me pas Kal TOUS aU Emol TropEevOMevOUS, a." 
c here only. 


14 eis e , ¢ fal > \ ie) f ” Bevicaeiee 
TAVTOV TE “KATATTETOVTMVY NUWY ELS THY YNV °“NKOVTA Ps. lxxxix 


. Dan, xii. 
\ t , an oh y 
poviy Néyovoay Tpds pe TH ®“EBpaide ” Suar€xtw Daovn q tures 


, / : , R only +. 
LaovrA, Ti pe ‘di@xers; SoxAnpov cor mpos | KévTpa e Luke viii. 6. 


ch. xxviii. 6 


/ > 5 ¢ , 2 
™)axtiew. 15° Kyaw dé eta Tis el, xvpie; 0 dé KUpLog Dy: {Ps 
? Sah ie 
> > > ? A a Nos f constr., ch. 1x. 
ei7ev “Ey eius “Incods dv ov idioxers. 16 adda ™ava-- ‘Srett ie 
g ch. xxi. 40. 


\ fol \ / n * 0 - 
ornGs Kat °otH@t Ceri Tovs Todas cour Peis TodTO yap , *X2omy. 
yA t i = ch. vii. 52 
1@HhOnv cor, * wpoyerpicacbal ce Svrnpérny Kal ' wapTupa ’ reir 
k = here (Matt. 


xxv. 24. John vi. 60. Jamesiii.4. Jude 15) only, Gen. xxi. 12. 11 Cor. xv. 55 (from Hos. 
xiii. 14), 56, Rey. ix. 10 only. m here only+. (amoAak., Deut. xxxii. 15.) nch. 
ix. 6 reff. o Rev. xi. 11. Ezek. ii. 1. p Mark i. 38. ch. ix, 21 al. q ch. 
ii. 3 reff. r ch. iii, 20. xxii. 14 (reff.) only. s = ch, xiii. 5 reff. t ch, x. 39 reff. 


14. rec de (altern of characteristic re), with HLP rel copt Chr: txt ABEIN ¢ p 18. 
36. 40. 137 vulg syrr Thl-fin. om nuev Bd. aft ynv ins 61a Tov poBov eyw 
povos 137, simly syr-mg. rec (for Aeyourav mpos me) AaAovoay mpos me Kat 
Aceyouoay, with LP rel eth Chr Thl-sif dic: om 13: so also, omg ka: Aeyoucay, H bo: 
pwns Aeyovons mpos we H-gr m, vocem loquentem ad me E-lat, simly vulg: txt ABCEIN 
p 36.40 syrr arm. (Zhe shorter reading rey. mp. we may perhaps have been adopted 
Jrom ch ix. 4, xxii. 7, or, as also Aad. mp. we, to avoid what seemed, but is not, a 
tautology ; ar. and rey. not being equivalent.) 

15. om de LI. [eura, so ABCEHR k 1 p Thl-fin. ] rec om kupios, with HP 
rel eth-pl Chr Thl-sif ic: ins ABCEILX k m p 36 vulg syrr copt arm Thl-fin. (13 
def.) aft exmev ins mpos pe EK Syr copt eth-pl. aft io. ins o va¢wpasos 40. 


137 Syr syr-w-ast. 


notes on ch. ix. 3—8, where I have treated 
of the discrepancies, real or only apparent, 
between the three accounts of Saul’s con- 
version. See also ch. xxii. 6—-10. 

14. rq “EBp. StaA.] These words are ex- 
pressed here only. In ch. ix. (see note) 
we have the fact remarkably preserved 
by the Hebrew form SaovA; in ch. xxii. 
he was speaking in Hebrew (Syro-Chald.), 
and the notice was not required. [Beware 
again of the supposed emphatic ue of 
Wordsworth. | o«dnp. coup. kK. X. | 
This is found here only; in ch. ix. the 
words are spurious, having been inserted 
from this place. The metaphor is derived 
from oxen at plough or drawing a burden, 
who, on being pricked with the goad, kick 
against it, and so cause it to pierce deeper. 
(See Schol. on Pind. 1. ¢. below.) It 
is a Greek, and not (apparently) a Hebrew 
proverb; but this is no reason why it 
should not be used in Hebrew, just as it 
is in Latin. Instances of its use are 
Pind. Pyth. ii. 173: xph 5€ mpbs Oeov 
ovK épi(ew ... . ¢epew D edabpas émav- 
xeviov AaBdvTa Cvydyv aphyet. worl kév- 
Tpov dé Tor AanTiCewev TeACBEL GALCONpds 
oluos. Aischyl. Agam. 1633: mpds kév- 
Tpa py AdKTiCe, uN Thoas woyps. Hurip. 
Bacch. 791 : @uotmevos mpds Kévtpa AakTt- 
Cot, Ovntoss dv beg. See also Asch. 
Prom. 323, and other examples in Wetst. ; 
Plautus (Truc, iv. 2. 59); and Terence, 


Phorm. i. 2. 27: ‘Nam que inscitia est 
advorsum stimulum calces ?? 15— 
18.] There can be no question that Paul 
here condenses into one, various sayings 
of our Lord to him at different times, in 
visions, see ch. xxii. 18—21; and by 
Ananias, ch. ix. 15; see also ch. xxii. 15, 
16. Nor can this, on the strictest view, 
be considered any deviation from truth. 
It is what all must more or less do who 
are abridging a narrative, or giving the 
general sense of things said at various 
times. There were reasons for its being 
minute and particular in the details of 
his conversion; that once related, the 
commission which he thereupon received is 
not followed into its details, but swmmed 
up as committed to him by the Lord him- 
self. It would be not only irreverent, but 
false, to imagine that he put his own 
thoughts into the mouth of our Lord ; but 
I do not see, with Stier, the necessity of 
maintaining that all these words were ac- 
tually spoken to him at some time by the 
Lord. The message delivered by Ananias 
certainly furnished some of them; and the 
unmistakeable utterings of God’s Spirit 
(7d mvedua "Inood, ch. xvi. 7) which su- 
pernaturally led him, may have furnished 
more, all within the limits of truth. 

16.] eis rotro refers to what follows, 
mpoxep. &¢e.,—ydap gives the reason for 
avaorn, &c. (Meyer.) arpoxetp. | 


280 


u constr,., see 
note. 

v = ch. vii. 10 
reff. 

w constr., Mark 
iii. 14. 
i. 17. 4 Kings 
xix. 16. see 
ch. y. 21, 

x 1 Cor. x. 13 
reff. 

y ch. xiv. 15 


Eph. v. 8. 

b = Luke xx. 
20. xxii. 53. 
Col. i. 13. 

ce ch, v. 31 reff. 

d ch. i. 17 reff. e see ch. xx. 32. 

ii. 17. iii. 1, vii. 25. viii. 3. ix. 18. xi. 19. 
Luke ii. 13. 
only.) Dan. iy. 23 (26) Theod. 


Eph. i. 18, 


16. om ka orn Bins B?-3, Tischdf). 
BC}(appy) 1387 syr Ambr Aug. 


TIPAZEI> AIITOZTOAON. 


Judith viii. 20. 
(Matt. v. 48. vi. 14, 26, 32, xv. 13. xxiii. 9 only. 
k 2 Cor. xii. 1 reff. 


XXVI. 


Ov te eldes “av TE L6PO7jcopai cou, 17 ¥ éEatpovpevos 
oe €k TOU aod Kal ex THY EOVaY, Eis ods eyw ~* aTrO- 
ior, @réAKW oe |5 avoiEat OPOarpovs avTov, * TOD ¥* état pe rat 
Yard *axdtous eis *hos Kat THs » é€ovclas ToD catava | 
~éqri tov Oeov, * ToD NaBety adTovs ° ddecwy ° d4uapTiov Kal 
de KNijpov év Tois © Hytacpévots 
19 £60ev, Bacired “Aypimia, ovK éyevounv * ameOns TH 
‘ovpaviw * omtacia, 29 adda Tois ev AapacKe tp@rtov Te © 


ree, A £3 en 
TLOTEL TT els EE. 


f ch. xxiv. 24 reff. : 
h Rom. i. 13 reff. i fem., 
2 Macc. vii. 34 AB(not Ed-vat.). ix. 10 


g = Matt. xiv. 7. 


Esdr. vi. 15. 


mpoxetpacbar A. aft edes ims we 


for cot, ce R'. 


17. rec om 2nd ex, with CHLP rel 36 vulg E-lat Chr Thl-sif Ec: ins AB E-gr IX k1 p 


13. 40 fuld Thl-fin. 
eyw), with Gc: om ce Syr: 
zth-pl arm Chr Thl-sif Aug. 


ree for eyw, vuy (marginal gloss, which has overborne the 
vulg Thl-fin have both: txt ABCEHILPR® rel syr copt 
rec ge bef arocreAAw, with HLP rel copt Chr Ge: 


txt ABCEIX cd f k m p 13 vulg syrr eth-pl Thl.—amooreAw HIP acd gk demid 
copt Thl-sif: efamoateAAw C m p 13. 36 Thl-fin. 


18. for avtwy, ru¢dAwy EI tol Aug. 


(see ch xx. 32) E. 


See reff. paptupa ay Te eldes | Stier 
remarks, that Paul was the witness of the 
glory of Christ : whereas Peter, the first of 
the former twelve, describes himself (1 Pet. 
v. 1) as ‘a witness of the sufferings of 
Christ, and a partaker of the glory that 
shall be revealed.’ So true it was that this 
éxTpwua among the Apostles, became, by 
divine grace, more than they ail (1 Cor. 
xv. 8—10). The expression imnpérny ay 
eldes may be compared with irnpétra Tod 
Adyov, which Luke calls the airémrra, 
Luke i. 2. dv te dpbyjcopat cor | 
(1) 6~@. must be passive, not (as Borne- 
mann, Winer [not in edn. 6, § 39. 3, 
remark 1], Wahl, al.) causative (‘ videre 
faciam’),—but as E. V., I will appear 
unto thee. (2) the gen. is exactly paral- 
leled (Meyer) by Soph. (2d. Tyr. 788, 
ay pev ikdunvy = tobrwy (rather éxelywy) 
db? & ixdunv. So here av = tobrav 
(éxelvwv) 5 & opé., the things in (or on 
account of) which I will appear to thee. 
That such visions did take place, we know, 
from ch. xviii. 9; xxii. 18; xxiii. 11; 2 Cor. 
xii. 1; Gal. i. 12. 17. éEatpovpevds oe] 
delivering thee from, as E. V.: not, as 
Kuin., al., and Conyb., ‘choosing thee 
out of: see reff. Tov aod] as 
elsewhere, the Jewish people. ‘Hic ar- 
matur contra omnes metus qui eum ma- 
nebant, et simul prparatur ad ecrucis to- 
lerantiam.’ Calvin. eis ots | to both, 


: atrootpeWart AH b c mo p Chr Thi-sif Aug: 
vrootp. P 27.78 Chr-ms: txt BCEIL® 13. 36 vulg. 
a c 36. 137 (vulg) Thl-fin: om ABHPX p 18 Chr Thl-sif Ge. 


ins amo bef tys etovoras CEL 
aft nyaou. ins Tacw 


the people, and the Gentiles; not the 
Gentiles only. 18. tov émor. | 
not, as Beza, and E. V., ‘to turn them ? 
but, that they may turn; see émorpé- 
pew, ver. 20. The general reference 
of ots becomes tacitly modified (not ex- 
pressly, speaking as he was to the Jew 
Agrippa) by the expression oxéros and 
éfoucia Tov gatava, both, in the common 
language of the Jews, applicable only to 
the Gentiles. But in reality, and in Paul’s 
mind, they had their sense as applied to 
Jews,—who were in spiritual darkness and 
under Satan’s power, however little they 
thought it. See Col. i. 13. TOU 
AaB.| A third step: first the opening of 
the eyes—next, the turning to God—next, 
the receiving remission of sins and a place 
among the sanctified ; see ch. xx. 32. 

This last reference determines alore: rH 
eis €ué to belong not to 7y:acuévors but to 
AaBeiv. Thus the great object of Paul’s 
preaching was to awaken and shew the 
necessity and efficacy of wiaris 7 eis Qué. 
And fully, long ere this, had he recognized 
and acted on this his great mission. The 
epistles to the Galatians and Romans are 
two noble monuments of the APOSTLE OF 


Farru. 19. aevOys | See Isa. 1. 5 in 
LXX. 20. rots év Aap. mp.} See ch. 
ix. 20. eis belongs to amnyyea. (De 


W.), not to rots (€v Aau.) as Meyer; see 
Luke viii. 34; and on this sense of es, 


17—23. TIIPASEIS AIOSTOAON. 281 


Fen boomate. 3 
only. 
om xi. 14.) 
w. €ls, Luke 
°weravolas pya TpdoocovTas. m avs = h 
« m abso en. 
- PY li xvii. 30 reff. 


v e a , A lal 
21 €vexa TovT@V me ot ‘lovdatos 4 cvAXABOpevor Ev TO lep@ ® Lwkei.16 


Kal ‘lepooorvpous, [leis] wacav te Thy x@pav THs ‘lovdaias 

Kat Tots Ebvecwy | amryyedNov ™ peTavoeiv Kai ™ ériaTpéepery 

n 2 \ \ 6 / op ” fol 
emt Tov Oeov, aka THs 


(act.); ch. ix. 
a C \ 4 

" €treup@vtTo * duaxerpicacbar. 2 ' érixouplas ody “TUYOV XW. ee 
19. ver. 18. 

Coe > \ lal a ” a e f / vv 1 Pe ees. 
THS amo Tob Geod aypt THs spas TavTas \EoTnKa, Lite, 
a \ 2 \ see 2 Cor. iii 

W wapTupomevos * miKp@® TE Kat * meyadw, ovdev YéxTOs je °°" 


Matt. iii. 8}| L. 
Be EET P “ ae xxiii. 


°qaOntos 6 xploTos, 


Te ol mpopytar éXadnoav 


23 D ¢? 


Aéyor 7 wv 


yivecOat kai Movojs, b gj = chi t6 


eke ix. 26 
s ch, vy. 30 only +. there only+. Wisd. 
vy = here only. w ch. xx. 26 reff. 
y = 1 Cor. xv. 27. Isa. xxvi. 13. 
=ver.8. 3 Kingsi. 51 al. 


only. Prov. xxvi. 18 83 F(not A) only. 

xiii. 18 only. u= ch. xxiv. 2 reff. 
x ch. viii. 10. Heb, viii. 11, Rev. xi. 18, xiii, 16 al. Isa. ix. 14. 
z constr., ver. 16 a. ach. xiii, 34 reff. Isa, xlviii. 6. 
c here only +. 


20. rec om Ist re, with EHLP 13. 36 rel Chr: ins ABN p. ins ev bef sep. AE k 
36. 40 (Syr) Thl: trois ev c 137 lect-12: om BHLPNR p rel Chr ec. om ess ABN 
(on acct of -o1s preceding 2). om tnv H! 96. 142. Steph atayycAAwy, with 
HLP g m Ce: amayyeddAw 14. 38. 65. 76. 95-7-9. 104-13-33-77 Chr: amnyedAdAw 13: 
mapnyeAdoy 96: txt ABEN p rel 36 vulg. ins (wyra bef dcov m 36. 40 arm. 
aft agia ins re E. 

21. ot covd. cvAdAaB. bef we Aa? c 137 syr: o1 covd. bef we EL m p Chr Thl-fin: om 
pe 180. om ot BLN! m p 13 Chron Thl-fin. ovAAaBovupevot &. ins ovTa 
bef ev Tr» EX? m p 18. 36. 40. 187 vulg syr Chron: ovta pe XN}. diaxepwoacGar 1. 

22. rec for ao, mapa (more usual), with HLP rel Chr: txt ABEN p 13. 36. 40 Chron 
Thi-fin. rec paptupoumevos (see notes), with E af g Thi-fin He: waprupepevos 
13: txt ABHLPN p rel 36. 40 vulg Chr Chron Thl-sif. 


note on ver. 6 above. 22.] The ovy ness, as directly appropriate to the office 


refers to the whole course of deliverances 
which he had had from God, not merely to 
the last. It serves to close the narrative, by 
shewing how it was that he was there that 
day,—after such repeated persecutions, 
crowved by this last attempt to destroy 
him. waptupdpevos | ‘The mere love 
of paradox and difficulty, as it seems to ine, 
has led De Wette and Meyer to prefer the 
ordinary reading -povmevos, although very 
weakly supported by Mss., and yielding 
hardly any appropriate sense. jeapTupov- 
pevos must be passive, and signify (see 
reff. below) ‘ testified to,’ ‘borne witness 
of :’ the datives pixp@ and peydAe must 
be the agents, ‘by small and great’ (to 
which there is no objection grammatically, 
but every objection analogically, see ch. x. 
22; xvi. 2; xxii. 12, in all which papTi- 
povya: is followed by 7d), and Aeyav 
must be predicative, ‘as saying »’ i. e., ‘that 
I say.’ But this would be contrary to the 
fact: Paul was not thus borne witness 
of by all, but on the contrary accused of 
being a despiser of the law by a great 
majority of his own countrymen. There 
can, I think, be no question either critically 
or exegetically of the correctness of the 
other reading waptupduecvos, bearing wit- 


to which Paul was appointed,—that of a 
witness (ver. 16); and then pixp@ te kal 
peyddw, to small and great, so flat and 
meaningless on the other interpretation, 
admirably suits the occasion,—standing as 
he was before an assembly of the greatest 
of the land. 23. et | not for é7.—but 
just as in ver. 8,—if,—if at least: mean- 
ing, that the things following were patent 
facts to those who knew the prophets. 
See Heb. vii. 15, where ei has the same 
sense. ma8ytés| not, as Beza, 
‘Christum fuisse passurum’ (so E. V., 
‘should suffer’): but as Vulg., ‘st passi- 
bilis Christus” Paul does not refer to the 
prophetic announcement, or the historical 
reality, of the fact of Christ’s suffering, but 
to the zdea of the Messiah as passible and 
suffering being in accordance with the tes- 
timony of the prophets. That the fact of 
His having suffered on the cross was in the 
Apostle’s mind, can hardly be doubted: 
but that the words do not assert it, is evi- 
dent from the change of construction in the 
next clause, where the fact of the bringing 
life and immortality to light by the resur- 
Sa is spoken of, —ei ra@y7bs 6 xp..-— 

. pedAer karayyéAXetv. In Justin 
ii Trypho c¢. 89, p. 187, the follow- 


282 TIPAR EIS ATLOSTOAON. XXVI. 
d=Colils qo@tos 1€& *dvactacews *vexpav pas *mérew ' KaTay- 


reff. 

f ch. xiii. 5 reff. 

g and constr., 
Luke xii. 11. 
ch. xxiv. 10. 
(xix. 33 reff.) 

h ch. xiv. 10 
only. Proy. 
XXVi. 25. 

ich. xii. 15 
reff. 

k = John vil. 
15. Bur. 
Hippol. 951. 

1 here only. 

Ps. xxxix. 4. 
Hos. ix. 7 
B F(not 
A), 8. Wisd. vy. 4 only. 
Jos, Antt. ii, 14. 1. 
iv. 37 only. 
r and constr., 2 Pet. iii. 5, 8 (Mark vii. 24. 


p ch. ii. 4, 14 only. 
Luke viii. 47. 


23. wedAAew HPN! m! p 40. 


yédkrew TW TE AAD Kal Tots EOverw. 
£amoNoyoupévov 6 Piatos } weyadyn 
j an / t , / 

iMaivyn, Ilatrke Ta torda ce *ypaypata eis | waviav 

™ qrepuTpémrer. 2 6 6€ Od! paivomat pynoww,” Kpatiate DijoTe, 
/ 

GNA adnOelas Kal °cwodppociyys pyuata ? arropVéeyyomat. 
¢€ U4 \ a 

26 érictatal yap Tept ToUTwY 0 Bacuidevs, Tpos ov Kal 

ae: f nr 

1 rappnotalomevos Nao. 


24 radra 6€ avToU 


rn *dovn dnow 


r , \ > , UA 
NavGavey yap avTov TL ToOv- 


m here only}. Wisd. v. 24 only. 79 Ociov—eis opynv Tepitparev, 
n = Luke i. 3. ch, xxiii. 26. xxiv. 3 onlyf. 
1 Chron. xxy. 1. 
Heb. xiii. 2) only. 


o1 Tim. ii. 9,15 only+. 2 Macc. 
(-yma, Deut. xxxii. 2.) q ch. ix, 27 reff. 
Ley. y. 3. 


rec om Te (as unnecessary), with LP rel 36 Chron 


Thi-sif ic: ins AB E-gr HX bh k1lo p 18. 40 Chr Thl-fin. 


24. Aadovytos aut. Kk, arod. E vulg eth-pl. 


rec e@n (corrn to historical tense), 


with HLP relvulg ic: edwynoe 35: eve c 64. 1387: txt ABER k p 13.40 Chr-comm 


Thl. 


25. aft o Se ins ravaos ABEN d p 18 (36) 40 vulg Thl-fin: om HLP rel syr Thl-sif 


Ke. 
26. om kat B 25. 


ing words are put into the mouth of 
Trypho the Jew: radnrdy rv xpiotdy, bre 
at ypabal Knpvocovot, pavepdv eott. See 
also the same, Trypho ¢. 36, p. 133, and 
cn 76s3pa V3: MpOTos && avactacews 
= mp@To0s avactas, or mpwTdToKos ek TAY 
vexpoy, Col. i. 18, but implying that this 
light, to be preached to the Jews (6 Aads) 
and Gentiles, must arise from the resurrec- 
tion of the dead, and that Christ, the first 
e& avactacews, was to announce it. See 
sal xii. Gi) xlixe Gi; xa 15) 25 35) luke it 
32; ch. xiii. 47. 24.| The words 
TavTa amoAoyoumevov must refer, on ac- 
count of the present part., to the last 
words spoken by Paul: but it is not 
necessary to suppose that these only pro- 
duced the -effect described on Festus. 
Mr. Humphry remarks, “‘ Festus was pro- 
bably not so well acquainted as his pre- 
decessor (ch. xxiv. 10) with the character 
of the nation over which he had recently 
been called to preside. Hence he avails 
himself of Agrippa’s assistance (xxv. 26). 
Hence also he is unable to comprehend the 
earnestness of St. Paul, so unlike the indif- 
ference with which religious and moral sub- 
jects were regarded by the upper classes at 
Rome. His self-love suggests to him, that 
one who presents such a contrast to his own 
apathy, must be mad: the convenient hy- 
pothesis that much learning had produced 
this result, may have occurred to him on 
hearing Paul quote prophecies in proof of 
his assertions.” patvy| Thou art 
mad, not merely, ‘thou ravest, nor ‘ thou 
art an enthusiast : nor are the words 
spoken in jest (Olsh.),—but in earnest 


[adaAa, so AELPR rel(not h) Chr Thl (ec. | 
om T B a 36. 137. 


(@vuod Fy K. opyns 7 pwyh, Chrys.). Fes- 
tus finds himself by this speech of Paul yet 
more bewildered than before (De W.). 
7a TOAKG ypapy-| Meyer under- 
stands Festus to allude to the many rolls 
which Paul had with him in his imprison- 
ment (we might compare Ta BiBAla, pa- 
Aorta Tas peuBpdvas of 2 Tim. iv. 13) and 
studied (so also Heinrichs and Kuinoel), 
— but the ordinary interpretation, thy 
much learning, seems more natural, and 
so De W. eis p. wepitpémer | Is turn- 
ing thy brain. 25.| adyGera may 
be spoken warmly and enthusiastically, 
but cannot be predicated of a madman’s 
words: awppoavyvy is directly opposed to 
pavia, So Xen. Mem. i. 16, recounting 
the subjects of Socrates’ discourses, tf 
Sixaoy, th BdiKov: Th owppootyn, Tt 
pavia Tb avdpta, tl SerAla. ‘he expres- 
sion @AnOelas &c. pyuata, though of 
course in sense = phuatra adrndn, &e., 
yet has a distinctive force of its own, and 
is never to be confounded with, or sup- 
posed to be put by a Hebraism for the other. 
Such forms occur in classic as well as 
Hellenistic writers, and indeed in all lan- 
guages: the idea expressed by them being, 
the derivation of the quality predicated, 
from its sowrce:—so here, words (not 
merely true and sober, but) of truth and 
soberness,—springing from, and indicative 
of, subjective truth and soberness. 
26.| Agrippa is doubly his witness, (1) 
as cognizant of the facts respecting Jesus, 
(2) as believing the prophets. This latter 
he does not only assert, but appeals to the 
faith of the king as a Jew for its establish- 


ABEH 
LPRat 
cdfg. 

klmc 

pls 


24.28, 


Tov ov *7elGowat ovOévr ob yap 

yeévov ToUTo. 
Lf 7 iA / 

Tpopytas ; olla OTL TiaTEveEls. 


TIPAREIS ATMOSTOAON, 283 


‘éotuy €v “ yovig TETpa- s = Luke xx. 
7 mictevers, BaoitedD ’Aypinta, Tois tons. ch. 


= 10 reff. 
ec Nic3 , att. vi. 5. 
28 9 dé “Aypimtas mmpos * xxi.42| 


Xxi. 42 ||. ch. 
iv. 11, and 
‘ a vy? cE TL / Ww ‘ te TP t. ii. 7 
tov Iladdov *’Ev odtym we trelOn “ ypiotiavov Trouhoat, 1 Pet-i.7, 
exvii. 22, Rey. vii. 1. xx. 8 only. v here bis. Eph. iii. 3 only. see 1 Pet. v.12. w ch. 
xi. 26. 1 Pet. iv. 16 only. 


rec ovdev, with HLP rel Chr: om A E(but see below) 13. 40: txt B &!(N8 disap- 


proving) p: om Ist ovabcop. 
om eoty HP fehl. 


for 2nd ov, ovde E* m 36.40: ovdey E}(and lat). 


28. rec aft mpos roy mavAoy ins epn, with EHLP rel 36 Chr: om ABN p 13. 40. 137 


vulg. 


rec meifers xp. yeveoOar, with EHLP rel 36 vss(éntroire wth-pl) Cyr-jer Chr 


Thi He: meets xp. tornoat BN p 13. 40 syr-mg copt: txt A. (The reading of BN 
has apparently been the result of some confusion. I have preferred therefore that of 


A: see note.)—xpnotiavor(but corrd) X?. 


ment. év yovia. . . . rouTo] This, 
the act done to Jesus by the Jews, and its 
sequel, was not done in an obscure corner 
of Judea, but in the metropolis, at a time 
of more than common publicity. 

28. év éAtym| These words of Agrippa 
have been very variously explained. (1) 
The rendering ‘propemodum, ‘parum 
abest, quin,’ (‘ almost,’ KE. V.,) adopted by 
Chrys., Beza, Grot., Valla, Luther, Pis- 
cator, Calov., &c. is inadmissible, for want 
of any example of év 6Aly having this 
meaning, which would require 6Alyou 
(6Alyou w amwdéoas, Aristoph. Vesp. 829, 
and al.), or dAtyou det, or map’ dAltyov. 
(2) Calvin, Kuinoel, Schéttg., Olsh., Nean- 
der, take it for év 6Alyw xpdévw, which cer- 
tainly is allowable, but does not correspond 
to “eydAw below, nor, as I believe, does it 
come up to the general sense of the expres- 
sion. (3) The phrase ev éAly@ occurs in 
Greek writers with various nouns under- 
stood according to the nature of the case,— 
and sometimes it will bear any of several 
supplements with equal propriety. Thus 
in Demosth. p. 33. 18, pddiov eis radrd 
mav@ doa BovAeTat Tis APpoicavTa év 
6XAtye, where Schaefer in his Index Greci- 
tatis says, scil. ypdv@, aut xdpw, aut Adye, 
aut révw. So also here we may understand 
Adyw or wéve@ (or xpdvw ?)—or still better 
as it seems to me, leave the ellipsis unsup- 
plied (see Eph. iii. 3). We have a word 
in English which exactly expresses it, — 
one which has fallen into disuse, but has 
no equivalent; lightly: i.e. with little 
pains, few words, small hesitation. Then 
next as to the reading, I have followed the 
most ancient MSsSs., in editing wotfoat and 
not yevéo0a:. This being so, we have to 
choose between zef@eis of BX and mel@y of 
A. It is almost impossible to give any 
assignable meaning to the former; and I 
suspect it has come in by a confusion of 
the two readings. Whereas mef@y seems 
to take up the wef@oua of ver. 26. The 


received reading has probably found its 
way in from first imagining that we.@- had 
to do with Paul’s persuading Agrippa, 
and then the mojoa: having no sense, 
became conformed to the yevéo@a in the 
Apostle’s speech below. And now, as to 
the sense of Agrippa’s saying. In deter- 
mining this, enough attention has not been 
paid to two points: (1) the present tense, 
melOy, thou art persuading thyself, art 
imagining; and (2) the use, in the mouth 
of a Jew, and that Jew a king, of the 
Gentile and offensive appellation xpic- 
través. To my mind, the first of these 
considerations decides that Agrippa is cha- 
racterizing no effect on himself, but what 
Paul was fancying in his mind, reckoning 
the mef@oua: which he had expressed 
above: the second, that he speaks of some- 
thing not that he is likely to become, but 
that contrasts strangely with his present 
worldly position and intentions. would 
therefore render the words thus: Lightly 
(with small trouble) art thou persuading 
thyself that thou canst make me a 
Christian: and understand them, in con- 
nexion with Paul’s having attempted to 
make Agrippa a witness on his side,—‘Z am 
not so easily to be made a Christian of, as 
thou supposest. Most of the ancient Com- 
mentators (especially as reading zef@e:s) 
take the words as implying some effect on 
Agrippa’s mind, and as spoken in earnest : 
but this I think is hardly possible, philo- 
logically or exegetically. I may add that 
the emphatic position of both év dAty@ 
and xptotiavév, before their respective 
verbs, strongly confirms the view taken 
above. I must again caution the reader 
against the mistake committed by Words- 
worth, in supposing the enclitic pe to 
be emphatic, which it cannot be, eué 
being required in such a case. Indeed, a 
more insignificant position than it here 
holds, next to the most emphatic word of 
the sentence, cannot be conceived. 


284 


x dat. and 
constr., here 
only. see 
Xen. Mem. 
ili. 14. 3. 
constr., w. 
mpos, 2 Cor. 
xiii. 7. (ch. 
XxvVil. 29 
reff.) 
= here only. 
Xen. Mem. 
iii. 5. 1. 
z 1 Cor. iii. 13. 
Gal. ii. 6. 
1 Thess. i. 9. 
James i. 24 
only +. 
a Matt. v. 32. 
2 Cor. xi. 28 
only +. Deut. 
i. 36 Aq. 5 , y 
beh. xxiii.29 ETTEKEKANTO Kaicapa. 
reff. 
ce ch. xxiii. 24, 
&c., reff. 
d Mark xiv. 54 
only. Exod, xxiii. 32 Ald. 


“< 


Ps. c. 6 only. 


g = Matt. xxvii. 15, &c. ch. ili. 13. iy, 21, 23, v. 40. xvi. 35, 36. xxviii. 18. 


xxv. 11 reff, 
15 only +. 


i= ch. xv. 19 reff, 


TIPAZET> ATIOZTOAON. 


k constr., ch. iii. 12 reff. 


XXVI. 29—382. 


29.6 6é Tladdos * Evéaiunv Yav te Oecd Kai Y ev orAlyo 
kal €v peyado ov povoyv cé adda Kal TavTas TOUS 
aKovovTas jou onuepov yevéoGar TotovTous * OTrotos 
Kayo eiul *apextos TOV ” deouav TOUTwD. 
Te 6 Bacire’s Kal 6 °Hyeuov % Te Bepvixn Kal ot “ovy- 
KaOnuevor avtois, *1 Kai © avaywpycavtes éhadovy TpOs 
GAXAjAouS A€yovTes OTL Ovdev *Oavarov ‘ dEvov 7 !decpov 
mpacce 6 avOpwiros ovTOS. 


30 avéotn 


32 "Aypirmas 6€ To Pyoto 


\ 
ébn §Arroredvcbar edivato 6 dvOpwiros obTOS, EL My 


XXVIII. 1 ‘Os 8€ ‘éxpiOn * rod 'amomdciv jpas els 


e ch. xxiii. 19 reff. 
Heb. xiii. 23. 


f ch. xxiii. 29 (reff.). 
2 Macc. xii. 25. h ch. 
l ch. xiii. 4. xiv. 26. xx. 


29. rec aft o Se mavAos ins extev, with HLP rel Chr, e¢7 56: om ABN p 13. 40. 137 


vulg syr. evtaunv LPR! c! (f) 1 p. 


rec (for weyadw) moAAw (see notes), with 


HLP rel 36 «th Chr Thi @c: txt ABN k m p 13. 40 vulg syr-mg-gr copt arm. 

30. rec ins kat Tava evrovtos avtou bef aveorn (addn for perspicuity), with HLP rel 
syr-w-ast Thl le: ca: ravta evrovtos 137 wxth-rom: om ABN c p 18 vulg Syr exth-pl 
arm.—rec om Te: txt as above, but ¢ 13. 40 syr copt Chr have de. 


81. atov bef @avarov A c copt: n decuwr bef afiov BR k m p13. 40 vulg. 


tt bef mpacoee AN k m p 18 vulg. 


ins 


32. emuxexdA. ALP 40 Thi: txt BH® p 18. 36 rel Chr Cc. 


Cuap. XXVII. 1. kat ovrws expwev o nyemov avamenar Katcapa 64: kat ovTws 


29.| I could wish to God, that whether 
with ease or with difficulty (on my part), 
not only thou, but all who hear me to- 


day, might become such as I am, except © 


only these bonds. He understands ev 
oAty@ just as Agrippa had used it, easily, 
‘with little trouble, ‘with slight exer- 
tion and contrasts with it ey peydA@ 
(7oAAG has been an alteration to suit the 
imagined supplement xpévq), with diffi- 
culty, ‘with great trouble, ‘with much 
labour” Those interpreters who under- 
stand xpévw above, render this ‘seu tempore 
exiguo opus fuerit, seu multo’ (Schétt.) ; 
those who take év 6A. for ‘almost, ‘non 
propemodum tantum, sed plane’ (Grot.) : 
‘not only almost, but altogether, EK. V. 
In evxeoGar Ged the dative implies the 
direction of the wish or request to God: 
so Asch. Agam. 852, @cota, mpara deki- 
dooua: Il. y. 318, Aevior 5& xetpas av- 
écxov, and freq. See examples in Bern- 
hardy, Syntax, p. 86. Seopov| He 
shews the chain, which being in ‘ custodia 
militaris, he bore on his arm, to connect 
him with the soldier who had charge of 
him. 31. mpdooet| generally, of his 
life and habits. No definite act was alleged 
against him: and his apologetic speech 
was in fact a sample of the acts of which he 


was accused. 32.] Agrippa in these 
words delivers his judgment as a Jew: ‘For 
aught I see, as regards our belief and prac- 
tices, he might have been set at liberty.’ 
But now he could not: ‘nam appellatione 
potestas judicis, a quo appellatum est, 
cessare incipit ad absolyendum non minus 
quam ad condemnandum, Crimina enim 
integra servanda sunt cognitioni superi- 
oris.’ Grot. 

Cuap. XXVII. 1— XXVIII. 81.] 
PAUL’S VOYAGE TO ROME AND SOJOURN 
THERE. I cannot but express the benefit 
I have derived in my commentary on this 
section, from Mr. Smith’s now well-known 
treatise on the voyage and shipwreck of St. 
Paul: as also from various letters which he 
has from time to time put into my hands, 
tending further to elucidate the subject. 
The substance of these will be found em- 
bodied in an excursus following the chro- 
nological table in the prolegomena. 

1.] tov (see reff.) contains the purpose of 
éxpi@n. The matter of the decision im- 
plied in éxp{@y is expressed in this form 
as if governed by the substantive xplois, 
as in ch. xx. 3, éeyéveto yvéuns Tov 
imoatpéepew. Meyer remarks that the ex- 
pressions KeAevew iva, eirety Wa, OéAew 
wa, &e. are analogous. jpas| Here 


«0. TQU- 
Aos E. 
ABH 
PRrabi 
dfghl 
lmop 
13 


XXVII. 1, 2. IIPAHEIS AIOZTOAON. 


285 


\ ’ L fal / es 
tThv “ItaXiav, ™mapedidovy tov te LlatAov Kat Twas m=ch.xii.4. 


xxviii. 16 v. r. 


Cet n , (2 U ak: , , , Sate: 
eTépous "decuwTas ExatovTapyy ovomaTe ‘louvdim ° oTrEtpNS ” Gen sous, 

n f+ 9 a L 20. (- v; 
PoeBaotis. 2 VémiBavtes S€ Trolm "ASpamutTnve mér- H.C: 
Aovts *wreiv [eis] Tos Kata THY ’Aciay TorToUS, * avnX- 


ch. v. 21, 23.) 
och. x. 1 reff. 

= here only. 

see ch, xxv. 


21, 25. q = ch. xxi. 2 (Matt. xxi. 5, from Zech. ix. 9. ch. xx. 18. xxi. 4. xxv. 1) only. dat., here 
only. r Luke viii. 23. ch. xxi. 3. vv. 6,24. Luke only, exc. Rey. xviii. 17. constr. (accus.) here 
only. Isa. xlii. 10. 7A. 7. QaAaooay, Sir xliii. 24. 1 Macc. xiii. 29. mA, Ta WEAGYN, PolyD. iii. 4. 10. 


s ch. xu. 13 reff. 


EkpwWev avToy o ny. avarmeuWar Karoapt 97: ws ovy ekpiwev o ny. Tov TeumeTOat avTOV 
Mpos Kaioapa TH ETLOVTN EKAAETEY EKATOYTAPXOV TVG OVOMATL LoVALaVOY oTELpnsS TEBacTNS 
Tapedidov avTw Toy mavAoy ou ETEpPOLS DETUWTALS SYY-MG: Kat EKPLVE TEPL aVTOV O PyTTOS 
TeuTeo Oat avTOY TpOs KaLoapa ELS THY ITAA. K.T.A. Syr. for nas, Tous TEpt TaVAOV 
(ws begins an ecel lection, see ch xxi. 8 rec) P m lectt: eum vulg. mapeddou 
A a 40 demid Syr copt Thl-sif. om etepous c p! 137 syr: deo. bef er. L. 

ins tovAiw bef as well as after ovowati &}. 

2. aft emi. ins ev c 137. adpaynvvtnve AB! (13 copt arm), al vary. 
rec meAAortes (corrn to suit emBaytes), with HLP rel vulg Chr: txt ABRabecdop 


13. 36. 40. 1387 am syrr copt eth-pl arm. 


we have again the first person, the nar- 
rator having, in all probability, remained 
in Palestine, and in the neighbourhood of 
Paul, during the interval since ch. xxi. 18. 
amapedidouv | Who ? perhaps the as- 
sessors with whom Festus took counsel on 
the appeal, ch. xxv. 12 : but more likely the 
plural is used indefinitely, the subject being 
‘they,’ = ‘on’ (Fr.), or ‘man’ (Germ.). 
étépous 8.] This expression, says 
Meyer, is purposely chosen, to intimate, 
that they were prisoners of another sort 
(not also Christians under arrest). But De 
W. shews this to be a mistake, by erepat 
moAAal, Luke viii. 3, = &AAat modAAal, 
Mark xv. 41, in both places meaning ‘many 
others of the same sort. Here also they 
are of the same class, as far as Seou@tar is 
concerned: further, nothing is implied in 
the narrative, one way or the other. 
onetpys oeBaotas| There is some diffi- 
culty in determining what this cohort was. 
We must not fall into the mistake of several 
of the Commentators, that of confounding 
this om. oeBaoty with an fAy inméwy 
kadoumevn SeBactyvev, mentioned by Jo- 
sephus, B. J. ii. 12. 5, and Antt. xx. 6. 1, 
this latter implying ‘ natives of Samaria’ 
(3¢8aorH),—whereas our word is the same 
adjective as that name itself, and cannot 
by any analogy have reference toit. More 
than one of the legions at different times 
bore the honorary title ‘ Augusta.’ Wetst. 
quotes from Claudian de Bell. Gild. ‘ Dic- 
taque ab Augusto legio :’ from inscriptions 
in Mauritania, Legio III. Aug., II. Aug., 
VIII. Aug.: from Ptolemy, ii. 3, Aeyeay 
devtépa seBaory (in Britain); iv. 3, Ae- 
yeov y. ceBaoth; but of a ‘cohors Au- 
gusta,’ or ‘ Augustana,’ we never hear. De 
Wette and Meyer suggest (but we have no 
historical proof of the supposition) that it 
was one among the five cohorts stationed 


rec om eis, with HLP rel Chr Thl-sif 


at Czesarea (see note, ch. xxv. 23) thus 
distinguished as the body-guard of the em- 
peror (?), and therefore chosen for any ser- 
vices immediately concerning him, as inthis 
case. Meyer thinks it may be the same 
(but then would the appellations be differ- 
ent ?) with the omefpa “IraAucy of ch. x. 1. 
It is remarkable that almost all the Com- 
mentators have assumed, without any rea- 
son, that this om. c¢Baor7 must have been 
stationed at Cesarea, whereas it may well 
have been a cohort, or body of men so 
called, at Rome. Wieseler is the only one 
that I have seen who has not fallen into 
this error. He controverts the other inter- 
pretations (Chron. d. Apost.-g. note, p. 
391), and infers that Julius belonged to the 
Augustani, mentioned Tacitus xiv. 15, and 
Suet. Nero, 20 and 25 (see also Dio Cass. 
Ixi. 20: jv pev ydp te kal YWrov avrg 
cvoTnua és TevTaKisxiAlous oTpaTidtas 
Tapeckevacuevoy: Avyovoteot Te wyvo- 
EaCovro Kal e&jpxov tay emalywy, and 
lxiii. 8), who appear to have been identical 
with the evocati (veterans specially sum- 
moned to service by the emperors), and to 
have formed Nero’s body-guard on his 
journey to Greece. The first levying of this 
band by Augustus, Dio relates, xlv. 12. To 
this Julius seems to have belonged,—to 
have been sent on some service into Asia, 
and now to have been returning to Rome. 

We read of a Julius Priscus, Prefect of 
the Praetorian guards under Vitellius, who 
killed himself ‘ pudore magis quam neces- 
sitate,’ after the military murder by Mu- 
cianus of Calpurnius Galerianus. This was 
ten years after the date of our narrative ; 
but the identity of the two must be only 
conjectural. 2. “ASpaputTtnve | Adra- 
myttium (Adpaudrtiov, -e1ov, cr “ATpa- 
purriov, and in Plin. v. 32, Adramytteos) 
was a seaport with a harbour in Mysia, an 


286 TIPAREI> ATOZTOAON. XXVII. 
ta ax15 Onwev, dvtos cdv tiv’ Apistrapyov Maxedovos @eccaro- 
Lal , , Lal 
secs views, > 7H Te ‘étépa “KaTHKXOnuev eis Lidava, * purav- 
ch, xxviii. 12 , Me b) s g a s w / x2 z 
only at Apwmraws Te 0 ‘lovdNLos TO IlavAw * xpnoapevos * emreTpeyrev 
vhereonlyt. pos TOUS Y Pirous TropevOEvTe 7 émripedeias *Tvyelv. * Ka- 
2 Mace. ix. F : 
vionly. —-xeQOev § avayOévtes » brreTAEVTapev THY Kumpov dia TO 
dia, bta- 


KetoOat mpos . . Polyb. i. 68.13. (-7ros, Wisd. i. 6. 
2 Cor. xiii. 10.) Gen. xxvi. 29. 
xxvi. 1 reff. y = 3 John 15. 


xy. 8. -Aeto@at, Luke x. 34.) 


(Ee: ins em c 36. 137 syr: ins ers ABN p 13. 40 Thl-fin. 

deooodovikewy, adding Se apistapx. k. ceK. 137 syr (see ch xx. 4). 
8. for Te, be LN? km p 40 vulg copt Chr. 

ins ABHLPN p 


Steph om rovs, with co: 


mopevdevta, with HLP rel Chr Thl-sif ic : 


Athenian colony. It is nowa village called 
Endramit. Grotius, Drusius, and others 
erroneously suppose Adrumetum to be 
meant, on the north coast of Africa (Winer, 
Realw.). mheiv letsi| emousuar- neu] 
The bracketed efs is in all probability an 
insertion to help off the harshness of the 
construction. But the accusative is indi- 
cative of the direction. We have #A@¢ 
TloAuvelxns xO@dva, Eur. Phoeniss. 110. 
See Winer, edn. 6, § 32.1, on the accus. 
after neuter verbs, and Bernhardy, Syn- 
tax, pp. 114 ff, and other instances in 
Wetstein. ’Aptotapx.] See ch. xix. 
29; xx. 4; Col. iv. 10; Philem. 24.’ In 
Col. iv. 10, Paul calls him his cuvarxpd- 
Awtos, but perhaps only figuratively: the 
same term is applied to Epaphras, Philem. 
23, where follows *Aplotapxos, Anuas, 
Aoukais, of ovvepyot pov. 3. S18dve | 
This celebrated city is generally joined in 
the N. T. with Tyre, from which it was 
distant 200 stadia (Strabo, xvi. 756 ff.), 
and of which it was probably the mother 
city. It was within the lot of the tribe of 
Asher (Josh. xix. 28), but never conquered 
by the Israelites (Judg.i. 31; ii.3). From 
the earliest times the Sidonians were re- 
nowned for their manufactures of glass 
(‘Sidon artifex vitri,’ Plin. v. 19), linen 
(wérAot mapmolkiAor Epya yuvaKav Xi- 
doviwy, Il. ¢. 290), silversmith’s work (Il. 
wy. 743, and Od. o. 115, &e.), and for 
the hewing of timber (1 Kings v. 6; Ezra 
iii. 7). In ancient times, Sidon seems to 
have been under Tyre, and to have fur- 
nished her with mariners (see Ezek. xxvii. 
8). It went over to Shalmaneser, king of 
Assyria (Jos. Antt. ix. 14. 2); but seems 
under him, and afterwards under the Chal- 
deans and Persians, to have had tributary 
kings of its own (Jer. xxv. 22; xxvii. 3; 
Herod. viii. 67). The Sidonians furnished 
the best ships in Xerxes’ navy, Herod. vii. 
96, 99. Under Artaxerxes Ochus Sidon 
freed itself, but was by him, after a severe 


-mria, ch. xxviii. 2. 
Xen. Mem. iv. 6. 5 (often). 

z here only. 
a= ch. xxiv. 2 reff. 


-metv, 2 Mace. xiii. 23.) w = (see 

x inf. aor., ch. xxi. 39 reff. pres., ch. 
Prov. iii.8. (-A7js, Prov. xi.2 Sym. -Aws, Luke 
b ver. 7 only t. 


apiotapxos XN}. 


tovAtavos A. 
rec 


coidova &}. 
13 rel Chr Thl Ge. 
txt ABN p 13. 36 Thl-fin. 


siege, taken and destroyed (Diod. Sic. xvi. 
43 ff.). It was rebuilt, and soon after went 
over to Alexander, keeping its own vassal 
kings. After his death it was alternately 
under Syrian and Egyptian rule, till it fell 
under the Romans. The present Saida is 
west of ancient Sidon, and is a port of some 
commerce, but insecure, from the sanding 
up of the harbour (Winer, Realw. See also 
Robinson, vol. iii. pp. 415 ff., who gives an 
account of the history of Sidon during the 
middle ages). tmopev0evtt| This dat. 
looks very like a grammatical correction : 
the mopev@evra of the rec. would be an 
instance of an acc. with inf. after a dat. 
preceding, as ch. xxvi. 20; xxii. 17. The 
ido here mentioned were probably Chris- 
tian brethren (see ch. xi. 19, where the Gos- 
pel is said to have been preached in Pheeni- 
cia; and ch. xxi. 3, where we find brethren 
at Tyre); but it is usual in that case for 
adeApot or padnral to be specified: ef. 
ch. xxi. 4, 7. The éwmedclas tuxeivy was 
perhaps to obtain from them that outfit for 
the voyage which, on account of the official 
precision of his custody at Czesarea, he 
could not there be provided with. 

4. tmerAcVoapev | sailed under, i. e. ‘in 
the lee of, Cyprus. ‘ Ubi navis vento 
contrario cogitur a recto cursu decedere, ita 
ut tunc insula sit interposita inter ventum 
et navem, dicitur ferri infra insulam.” 
Wetst., who also says, “ Si ventus favisset, 
alto se commisissent, et Cyprum ad dex- 
teram partem reliquissent, ut Act. xxi. 3, 
nunc autem coguntur legere littus Cilicie, 
inter Cyprum et Asiam.” With this ex- 


++ TUXEL 
H 


ABLP? 
abcd 
ghk- 
mopl 
{H is 
con- 
tinued 
in an 
uncial 
writing 
of abou 
the xit) 
cent.] 


planation Mr. Smith agrees ; and there can . 


hardly be a doubt that it is the right one. 
The kata rhv ’Aclay téro of ver. 2 being 
to the west of Pamphylia (which was not in 
Asia, ch. ii. 10), the direct course thither 
would have been S. of Cyprus; but having 
the wind contrary, i.e. from the W. or 
N.W. (“the very wind which might have 
been expected in this part of the Mediter- 


3—7. 


IIPASEIS ATOSTOAON. 


287 


b > , Ss c 3 / 5 , d L \ e A sf 
TOUS AVEMLOUS ELVAL ~ EVAVTLOUS, TO TE TENAYOS TO ~ KATQ c = Mark vi. 


Thy Kidsxiav Kai Lapwdvriav ' dvatrdevoartes & Katy Oomev 


els Muppa tis Avxias. 


lal e ¢e U 
6 KaKel eUp@v O ExaToVTAapYNS 


48 || Mt. (xv. 

39. ch. xxvi. 

9 reff.) only. 
d Matt. xviii. 6 

only +. 

2 Mace. v. 


Lal , lal . 
wAoiov ’AdeEavopivoy ™ahéov eis TH "Itanriav, ‘éveBi- , 2 om, 


Bacev 7mas eis avTo. 


g = ch. xxi. 3. (ch. viii. 5 reff.) 
ix. 23 reff. k here only +. 
5. om tyv a 137. 
syr-w-ast. ; 
118 lect-5 He: nA@ouey 25 vulg Syr Jer. 


7 év Jixavais 8€5 épacs * Bpadu- 
nr , , 
mroovvTes Kat !ports ™ryevouevor. 2 xaTtTa THY Kvidor, 


h ver. 2 reff. 
1 ch. xiv. 18 reff. 


mAevoaytTes Hr. 
KkaTnA@apyev AN: katnxOnuey b dh o 14. 38. 57. 66. 76. 93-7-8-marg 


= ver. 2. 
Luke x. 32. 
Matt. xxiv. 7. 
f here only +. 
Xen. Anab. 
vii. 8. 1. 
(Stee. 


ihere only. Prov, iv. 11 only. 


m = ch. xx. 16 al. 


add 6: nuepwyv Sexarevte c 137 


for puppa, Avotpa A vulg copt arm-m¢e 


Cassiod Bede: Avotpay N: woipwy HT: cuvpyay m Bede-gr: cuvpa arm: txt B, and 


pevpa LP 13 rel syrr Chr Th] He Jer. 


6. kaxceOeyv A 1 24: kaxecoe m 15. 25. 36. 40. 180. 


om thy Ht bchklo.” 


aft avto ins Tovto &1(N3 disapproving). 


ranean at this season (summer). Admiral 
de Saumarez writes, Aug. 19, 1798, ‘We 
have just gained sight of Cyprus, so invari- 
ably do the westerly winds prevail at this 
season.’”? Smith, p. 27), they kept under 
shelter of Cyprus, i. e. between Cyprus and 
Cilicia; and so SiamAevoayTes, having 
sailed the whole length of the sea off 
Cilicia and Pamphylia, they came to Myra. 
See the account of the reverse voyage, ch. 
xxi. 3, where, the wind being nearly in the 
same quarter (see ver. 1, ev@vdpounoaytes 
eis t. K@), the direct course was taken, 
and they left Cyprus at a distance (for so 
avap. seers to imply) on their left, in going 
to Tyre. On the damAetoartes, Ke., it 
may be well to quote (from Smith) the 
testimony of M. de Pagés, a French navi- 
gator, who, on his voyage from Syria to 
Marseilles, informs us that after making 
Cyprus, “the winds from the west, and 
consequently contrary, which prevail in 
these places during the summer, forced us 
to run to thenorth. We made for the coast 
of Caramania (Cilicia), in order to meet the 
northerly winds, which we found accord- 
ingly.” 5. Muppa] eita Mupa ev 
elkoot oradlois bwep Tis OadarTys emt 
petedpov Adhov, Strabo xiv. 3,—Aé€vtAos 
emumeupbets "Avdpidxn Mupéwy emwvely, 
Thy Te GAvow eppnke Tov Aimévos, kal eis 
Mupa ayer. The neighbourhood is full 
of magnificent ruins ; see Sir C. Fellows’s 
Lycia, ch. ix. The name still remains. 
The various readings merely shew that the 
copyists were unacquainted with the place. 
6.] The Alexandrian ship may have 
been laden with corn for Rome; but this 
cannot be inferred from ver. 38, for the 
ship had been lightened before, ver. 18. 
On her size, see below, ver. 37. Most 
probably this ship had been prevented 
taking the direct course to Italy, which was 
by the south of Crete, by the prevailing 


westerly winds. Under such circumstances, 
says Mr. Smith (p. 32), ‘ships, particularly 
those of the ancients, unprovided with a 
eompass, and ill calculated to work to wind- 
ward, would naturally stand to the N. till 
they made the land of Asia Minor, which 
is peculiarly favourable for such a mode of 
navigation, because the coast is bold and 
safe, and the elevation of the mountains 
makes it visible at a great distance; it 
abounds in harbours, while the sinuosities 
of its shores and the westerly current would 
enable them, if the wind was at all off the 
land, to work to windward, at least as far 
as Cnidus, where these advantages ceased. 
Myra lies due N. from Alexandria, and its 
bay is well calculated to shelter a wind- 
bound ship. The Alexandrian ship was 
not, therefore, out of her course at Myra, 
even if she had no call to touch there for 
the purposes of commerce.” a)héov, 
the present, should be rendered on her 
voyage. 7. BpadumA.] It is evident 
that the ship was encountering an adverse 
wind. The distance from Myra to Cnidus 
is only 130 geogr. miles, which, with a fair 
wind, would not take more than one day. 
Mr. Smith shews that the wind was N.W., 
or within a few points of it. ‘‘ We learn 
from the sailing directions for the Mediter- 
ranean, that, throughout the whole of that 
sea, but mostly in the eastern half, includ- 
ing the Adriatic and Archipelago, N.W. 
winds prevail in the summer months; .. . 
the summer Etesize come from the N.W. 
(p- 197) ; which agrees with Aristotle’s ac- 
count of these winds,—of érynala: A€cyd- 
evo. pltir ExovTes THY TE amd Tis 
&pktov pepouevwy x. Cepvpov, de Mundo, 
ch. iv. According to Pliny (ii. 47), they 
begin in August, and blow for forty days.” 

podus| with difficulty: not as 
E. V., ‘scarce,’ which being also an adv. 
of time, gives the erroneous idea to the 


288 TIPARETS AITOZTOAON. XXVITI. 


m here only Tt. 

n ver. 2 only ft. 

o ver. 13 only T. 
Died. Sic. 
xiii. 3. 


pn ™mposeavtos nuas Tod avé“ov, "’TeTAeVcapev THY ABLES 
. c 

Kpytnv cata Lardwovnv, § | woris Te ° Tapadeyopevor Le 

MAOomev eis TOTOV TWA Kadovpevov Kandovds 


3 \ Ss f 
eyyus mv ToXts 


“) \ 
auTnv 
p ch. viii. 11 

reff. 


Awpévas, @ Aacéa. 9% Pixavod 6é€ 
7. mposcewvtos X. | 
8. om twa A 133 Syr. moAts bef ny AN a? 13. for Aavea, aAacoa A 
40. 96. 109 syr-mg (Alasa): Thalassa vulg eth and mss mentd by Jer: Thessala al : 
Auooa N83: txt BH'LP p 13 rel syr copt «th-pl Chr Thl (ec Jer (of these, H™LP rel 


[exe m] Chr Thl Cc have [through common confusion of vowels | Aacaia), Kagoaa XR}. 


English reader that the ship had scarcely 
reached Cnidus when the wind became un- 
favourable. yev. kata | having come 
over against, as E. V. Kvidov | 
Cnidus is a peninsula at the entrance of 
the Aigean Sea, between the islands of Cos 
and Rhodes, having a lofty promontory and 
two harbours, Strabo, xiv. 2. “With N.W. 
winds the ship could work up from Myra 
to Cnidus; because, until she reached that 
point, she had the advantage of a weather 
shore, under the lee of which she would 
have smooth water, and, as formerly men- 
tioned, a westerly current ; but it would be 
slowly and with difficulty. At Cnidus that 
advantage ceased.’ Smith, p. 37. 

p32) mpose@vr.| The common idea has been 
that the prep. in composition implies that 
the wind would not sutier them to put i at 
Cnidus. But this would hardly be recon- 
cileable with the fact ; for when off Cnidus 
they would be in shelter under the high 
land, and there would be no difficulty in 
putting in. Ishould be rather inclined to 
regard this clause as explaining the wdars 
above, and the pds in composition as im- 
plying contribution, or direction: * with 
difficulty, the wind not permitting us by 
favouring our course.’ odmemk. T. Kp. 
k. Sadkpovnv] “ Unless she had put into 
that harbour (Cnidus), and waited for a fair 
wind, her only course was to run under the 
lee of Crete, in the direction of Salmone, 
which is the eastern extremity of that is- 
land.” Salmone (Capo Salomon) is de- 
scribed by Strabo (x. 4) as of) akpwthpioy 
7) Sapdviov, em thy Alyurrov veiov, kat 
ras ‘Podiwy vncous. Pliny (iv. 12) calls it 
Sammonium. 8. pddts map.| “ After 
passing this point (Salmone), the difficulty 
they experienced in navigating to the 
westward along the coasts of Asia, would 
recur; but as the south side of Crete is also 
a weather shore with N.W. winds, they 
would be able to work up as far as Cape 
Matala. Here the land trends suddenly to 
the N., and the advantages of a weather 
shore cease, and their only resource was to 
make for a harbour. Now Fair Havens is 
the harbour nearest to Cape Matala, the 
farthest point to which an ancient ship 


could have attained with N.W.-ly winds.” 
Smith, ib. amapadey. does not, as 
Servius on An. iii. 127 supposes, imply that 
the ship was towed (“ funem legendo, i. e. 
colligendo, aspera loca praetereunt”), but, 
as Meyer explains it, that, the places on the 
coast being touched (or perhaps, rather, ap- 
pearing) one after another, are, as it were, 
gathered up by the navigators. Mr. 
Smith (p. 42) exposes the mistake of Eus- 
tathius (adopted by Valpy, from Dr. Fal- 
coner), by which the ship taking the S. 
coast of Crete is attempted to be explained: 
viz. SusAlwevos % Kphtn mpos thy Bdppay: 
whereas there are, in fact, excellent har- 
bours on the N. side of Crete,—Souda and 
Spina Longa. Kadovs Atpévas } The 
situation of this anchorage was ascertained 
by Pococke, from the fact of the name still 
remaining. ‘In searching after Lebena 
farther to the west, I found out a place 
which I thought to be of greater conse- 
quence, because mentioned in Holy Serip- 
ture, and also honoured by the presence of 
St. Paul, that is, ‘the Fair Havens, near 
unto the city of Lasea;’ for there is an- 
other small bay about two leagues to the 
E. of Matala, which is now called by the 
Greeks good or fair havens (Aiméoves 
kadovs):” [Calolimounias of Mr. Brown’s 
letter : see excursus as above.] Travels 
in the East, ii. p. 250: cited by Mr. Smith, 
who adds: “ The most conclusive evidence 
that this is the Fair Havens of Scripture, 
is, that its position is precisely that where 
a ship circumstanced as St. Paul’s was, 
must have put in. I have already shewn 
that the wind must have been about 
N.W. ;—but with such a wind she could 
not pass Cape Matala: we must therefore 
look near, but to the E. of this promon- 
tory, for an anchorage well calculated to 
shelter a vessel in N.W. winds, but not 
from all winds, otherwise it would not 
have been, in the opinion of seamen (ver. 
12), an unsafe winter harbour. Now here 
we have a harbour which not only falfils 
every one of the conditions, but still retains 
the name given to it by St. Luke.” Smith, 
p. 45. He also gives an engraving of the 
place from a sketch by Signr. Schranz, the 


$—l11. 


P ypdvou * Staryevop.evou be dvTOS ON 
Sqdoos Sia TO Kal THY ‘ unorelay On “mapernrvbévar, 


TIIPAREIS, ATIOZTOAQN. 


289 


> rf lel 

q ch. xxy. 13. 
Temitparovs TOV Ich. xx. 13; 
only t+. 
2 Mace. xi. 
26 only. 


5h 0 Ilaivos 1 Aéywv adrois “Avdpes, © Beeps soni 


ote * peta ” UBpews Kal TOAAHS * Enuuias ov povoy Tod 
hare kat Tov tTdolov aha Kal TOV > spuxev HOV 


© wédrew © €cecOae Tov S TAoODdV. 


‘xuBepyntn Kal TO © vavKdp@ fie 


xiv. 15. 1Pet.iv.3. Jer. viii. 20, 
only. (-veots, Wisd. viii. 9.) 


Dan. ii. 9 Theod. 
w ch, xix. 26 reff. 


Wisd. ix. 14 
only. (-A@s, 
Wisd. iy. 4.) 
here bis. ch. 
xxi. 7 onlyt. 
§ 5 Wisd. xiv. 1 

only. 

(S CREE ONS TO t = here only. 

ip Cor. vi. 5 

reff.) 

u = Matt. 

v ver. 22 only +. 2 Mace. vii. 25, 26 
x = ch. v. 26. xxv. 23 al. fr. 1 Macc. 


fémeiOeTo 7) Tots 


ix. 37. y = ver. 21 (2 Cor. xii. 10) only. THhv amd TOV ou Bpwv UBptv, Jos. Antt. iii. 6. 4, 
end. (-tGeuv, ch. xiv. 5. -to7Hs, Rom. i. 30.) zver. 21. Phil. ili. 7,8 only. Ezra vii. 26. (-ovv, 
1 Cor. iii. 15.) a = here (Matt. xi. 30. xxiii.4. Luke xi. 46 bis. G al. vi. 5) only $. (Sir. 
xxi.16. -7(Geuv, Matt. xi. 28.) b = ch. xv. 26 reff. ce ch. xi. 28 reff. " d Rev. 


xviii. 17 only. Prov. xxiii. 34. Ezek. xxvii. 8, 27, 


e here only +. f = ch. v. 36, &c. reff. 


10. @copw XX). 
40. 187 Chr Thl-sif. 


artist who accompanied Mr. Pashley in his 
travels. There is no ground for iden- 
tifying this anchorage with Kady anh 
mentioned as a céfy in Crete by Steph. 
Byzant. For this is clearly not the name 
of a city, by the subjoined notice, 6 éeyyis 
jy Torts Aacéa. Nor is there any reason 
tosuppose, with Meyer, thatthe name kadot 
Au. was euphemistically given,—because 
the harbour was not one to winter in: this 
(see above) it may not have been, and yet 
may have been an excellent refuge at parti- 
cular times, as now, from prevailing westerly 
winds. Aacéa]| This place was, until 
recently, altogether unknown; and from 
the variety of readings, the very name was 
uncertain, Pliny (iv. 12) mentions Lasos 
among the cities of Crete, but does not 
indicate its situation. It is singular, and 
tends to support the identity of Lasos with 
our Lasea, that as here Alassa, so there 
Alos, is a various reading. The reading 
Thalassa appears to have been an error of a 
transcriber from -aAacoa forming so con- 
siderable a part of a word of such common 
occurrence. There is a Lisia named 
in Crete in the Peutinger Table, which may 
be the same. On the very interesting 
discovery of Zasea by the Rev. G. Brown 
in the beginning of the year 1856, see the 
excursus at the end of Prolegg. to Acts. 
The ruins are on the beach, about two 
hours eastward of Fair Havens. th 

ixavov xp.| Not ‘since the beginning of 
our voyage, as Meyer: :—the time was 
spent at the anchorage. TOU THods | 
Not ‘sailing, but the voyage, viz. to 
Rome,—whick henceforth was given up as 
hopeless for this autumn and winter. 
That this is the meaning of 6 mAovs, see 
ch. xxi. 7. And by observing this, we 

Vou. II. 


28 only. (-vq@v, Prov. xii. 5. -vyots, 1 Cor. xii. 28.) 


rec goptov, with b cl o Thl-fin Hc: txt ABH™LPX p 18 rel 36. 
vuwy L288 lect-12. 
11. rec emei@ero bef waddov, with H™LP rel syrr Thl-sif He: 


txt ABX k m p 13. 40 


avoid a difficulty which has been supposed 
to attend the words. Sailing was not 
unsafe so early as this (see below); but to 
undertake so long a voyage, was. 

Tv vnotetav| The fast, car’ etoxfy, is 
the solemn fast of the day of expiation, 
the 10th of Tisri, the seventh month of 
the Jewish ecclesiastical year, and the first 
of the civil year. See Levit. xvi. 29 ff.; 
xxiii. 26 ff. This would be about the time 
of the autumnal equinox. The sailing 
season did not close so early: ‘Ex die 
igitur tertio iduum Novembris, usque in 
diem sextum iduum Martiarum, maria 
clauduntur.’ Vegetius (Smith, p. 45, note) 
de Re Milit. iv. 39. 10.| From the 
use of @ewp® here, and from the saying 
itself, it seems clear to me that Paul was 
not uttering at present any prophetic inti- 
mation, but simply his own sound judg- 
ment on the difficult question at issue. It 
is otherwise at vv. 22—24. As Smith re- 
marks, “The event justified St. Paul’s 
advice. At the same time it may be ob- 
served, that a bay, open to nearly one half 
the compass, could not have been a good 
winter harbour.” (p. 47.) pera. 
UBpews is interpreted by Meyer as sub- 
jective—‘accompanied with presumption 
on our part ? but not to mention that this 
would be a very unusual sense, ver. 21, 
Kepdjoa Thy UBpw tavtT. x. T. (nulay, is 
decisive (De W.) against it. Ort. . 
péAAew] A mixing of two constructions, 
see Winer, edn. 6, § 44. 8, remark 2. 
This is most flagrant in later writers, as 
Pausanias and Arrian,—see Bernhardy, 
Syntax, p. 369; but is also found earlier, 
e.g. Plat. Charm., P- 165: ov« &y aio xny- 
Oeiny bri wy nae 6pbas pavar eipnkevas. 
Iszeus, rep) TOU piAokT. KAnp. BAT: éme10}] 


290 


g here only +. 
(evOeT0s, 
Luke ix. 62.) 

h here bis. ver. 
Sonly. Ps. 
evi. 30. 

i ch. ii. 30 reff. 

k here only +. 

Diod. Sic. 

xix. 68 (see 

below [r]). 

1 Cor. ix. 19 


m 


Kpyrns * BXérovta 


reff. mhere only. Judg. xix. 30. 
i. 10. xi. 14. Phil. iii, Ll only. w. opt. here only. 
xvi. 6. Tit. iii. 12 only +. (see above [ (ki. ) 


viii. 26, 36. Phil. iii. 14.) u here only. 
vulg arm Chr-comm Thl-fin. 


om ABN p. 


12. ree mAcovs, with H™LP 18. 36 rel Chr Thl ec: 
txt ABLX bchkop 13. 36. 40 vulg Syr arm 


kaxedey, with HTP rel syr Thl (ic: 
Chr. SuvavTa A. 


5& mposdiapeuaptipnkev ws viby elvat ywh- 
otov EdKthuovos TovTov . . . See other refer- 
ences in Winer, l.c. 11. +. vavk\ype | 
the owner of the ship. Wetst. cites from 
Plutarch, vairas Mey exA€yeTat KUBEpy7Tns, 
kal KkuBepyitny vateAnpos. So Hesych.: 
vavKAnpos, 6 Seomdrns T. aAotov,—and 
Xen. (con. viii. 12: dopriwy, doa vavKAn- 
pots Képdous eveka tyerat. (Kuin.) 
12.] See above on ver. 8. The anchorage 
was sheltered from the N.W., but not from 
nearly half the compass. Grotius and 
Heinsius’s rendering of mpos TOPAaX Elles 
‘ad vitandam tempestatem,’ is contrary 
to usage, besides being singularly incon- 
sistent with the fact in more ways than 
one. For this purpose the anchorage was 
e¥@eros, and in it they had (see next verse) 
actually ridden out the storm, before they 
left it. exetOev] The kaxetdev of the 
rec. would be thence also, as from their 
former stopping-places. Potvixa | 
Ptolemy (iii. 17) calls the haven @ouxkods, 
and the city (lying some way inland) 
boimé. Strabo (x. 4) says, 7d 5é evOev 
ig8uds éoT ws éxaToy aotadiwy, exwv 
Katolay mphs ev tH Bopele BadrdrTy 
’AudiudrdAay, mpds d¢ 7H votia Powikh Tov 
Aauréwv. This description, and the other 
data belonging to Pheenice, Smith (p. 48) 
has shewn to fit the modern Lutro, which, 
though not known now as an anchorage, 
probably from the silting up of the har- 
bour, is so marked in the French admiralty 
chart of 1738, and “if then able to shelter 
the smallest craft, must have been capable 
of receiving the largest ships seventeen 
centuries before.” See an inscription 
making it highly probable that Alexan- 
drian ships did winter at Lutro, in the 
excursus at the end of Prolegg. to Acts. 
BAérovra kara AiBa x. kata Xa- 
pov} looking (literally) down the 8.W. 
and N.W. winds; i.e. in the direction 
of these winds, viz. N.E. and S.E. For 
Aly and x@pos are not guarters of the 


TIPAZEIS ATIOSTOAON. 


vo [tov] Ilavrou Deryopuévors- 
 Xuwévos 'bmdpyovtos mpos * rapayetpaciav 
EBevro ™™ Boudry ° avayOnvar éxeiOev, el ® was SdvawTo 
‘xatavtnsavtes eis Poivixa * rapayemdoa *Aipéva Tis 
‘kata “riBa Kal 
n = ch. v. 38 reff. 


8s — here only. 
Gen. xiii. 14 al. 


XXVII. 


12 € QvevOérov 5€ Tov 
lot mXeloves 


‘kata % y@pov. 


o ch, xiii. 13 reff. p Rom. 
rch, xxvili. 11, 1 Cor. 


q ch. xvi. 1 reff. 
t see note. (ch. 


Ezek. xi. 1 al. 
v here only +. 


rec ins tov, with H™LP 13. 36 rel Chr Thi ic: 


txt ABN p 40. rec 


compass, but winds; and card, used with 
a wind, denotes the direction of its blow- 
ing,—down the wind. This interpretation, 
which I was long ago persuaded was the 
right one, I find now confirmed by the 
opinion of Mr. Smith, who cites Herod. 
iv. 110, epépovto kara Kiua kal avepor, 
and Arrian, Periplus Euxini, p. 3, &pve 
vepeady emavactaca ekeppayn Kar’ ecdpor. 
So also kara fdov, Herod. ii. 96. And in 
Jos. Antt. xv. 9. 6, the coasts near Caesarea 
are said to be Svsopua dia Tas Kata AlBa 
mposBoAds. See also Thucyd. vi. 104. 
In the reff., the substantive is not one of 
motion like Ai, x@pos, or pdos, but of 
fixed location, as weonuBpla oxdros. The 
direction then is towards the spot indi- 
cated, just as in the present case it is in 
that of the motion indicated. The harbour 
of Lutro satisfies these conditions; and is 
even more decisively pointed out as being 
the spot by a notice in the Synecdemus of 
Hierocles, Powlkn Fro * Apd5evat viocos 
KAaidos. Now Mr. Pashley found a vil- 
lage called Aradhena a short distance above 
Lutro, and another close by called Ano- 
polis, of which Steph. Byz. says, ’Apddny 
médts Kpntns' 7 5¢ "Avwrddis A€yerat, 
dia 7d elvar &yw. From these data it is 
almost demonstrated that the port of 
Pheenice is the present port of Lutro. 
Ptolemy’s longitude for port Phoenice also 
agrees. See Smith, pp.51 ff. Mr. Smith 
has kindly sent me the following extract 
from a letter containing additional con- 
firmation of the view: ‘ Loutro is an ex- 
cellent harbour; you open it unexpectedly, 
the rocks stand apart and the town appears 
within. During the Greek war, when cruis- 
ing with Lord Cochrane,..... .chaseda 
pirate schooner, as they thought, right 
upon the rocks ; suddenly he disappeared, 
and when rounding in after him,—like a 
change of scenery, the little basin, its ship- 
ping, and the town of Loutro, revealed 
themselves.’ See Prof. Hackett’s note, 


ABL 
abc: 

ghl 
mop 


12—14. 


IIPAB EIS ATLODTTOAQN. 


291 


Ri - / fol 

13 W jromvedaavtos Sé * votou SddFavtes Tis Y mMpo- where only +. 
, , b 3 , “18, Luke xii 
Bécews * KeKpaTnKevat, * apavtes » doooy © TAPENEYOVTO 55(xi-31) ME. 
\ , ; > \ \ ” > xill. 29. Rev. 
T 14 d xxi. 13) only. 

nv Kpnrnv. poet ov Toru oé éBarev KAT  xxi.13) only 
13. Sir. xliii. 16 al. y = Rom. viii. 28. ix. 11. Eph.i. 11. iii. 11. 2 Tim.i. 9}. 2 Mace. 
iii. 8. z = here only. (Heb. vi. 18.) Kp. ™S mpo8., Diod. Sic. xvi. 20. a = here 
only. So Thucyd. ii. 23 al. b here only. comparat., = ch. xxv. 10 reff. c ver. 8. 

d = here only. see note. 


18. vromvevoaytes(sic) X. 


impugning the above view and interpreta- 
tion; which however does not alter my 
opinion. Dean Howson gives his solution 
thus: “The difficulty is to be explained 
simply by remembering that sailors speak 
of every thing from their own point of 
view, and that the harbour (see chart in C. 
and H. ii. 897) does look—from the water 
towards the land which encloses it—in 
the direction of S.W. and N.W.” But 
I cannot believe, till experience can be 
shewn to confirm the idea, that even sailors 
could speak of a harbour as ‘looking’ in 
the direction in which ¢hey would look 
when entering it. 13. tromvetoavTos | 
as EK. V., softly blowing, compare t7o- 
petdidw. The S. wind was favourable for 
them in sailing from Fair Havens to 
Pheenice. S0&. +. mpod. Kekpar. | 
imagining that they had (as good as) 
accomplished their purpose; i.e. that 
it would now be a very easy matter to 
reach Phceenice. adpavtes “may be 
translated either ‘weighed,’ or ‘ set sail ;’ 
for ancient authors supply sometimes tas 
aykvpas, and sometimes Ta iorla..... 
Julius Pollux, however, like St. Luke, 
supplies neither, which is certainly the 
most nautical way of expressing it: he 
says, alpovtes amd tHS ys, lib. i. 103.” 
Smith, p. 55. aooov mwap.| They 
crept close along the land till they passed 
Cape Matala. ‘A ship which could not 
lie nearer to the wind than seven points, 
would just weather that point which bears 
W. by S. from the entrance of Fair Havens. 
We see therefore the propriety of the ex- 
pression aooov map., ‘they sailed close 
by Crete,’ which the author uses to de- 
scribe the first part of their passage.” 
Smith, p. 56. The Vulg. has : ‘quum 
sustulissent de Asson,’ connecting &paytes 
with “Acooy, and understanding the latter 
as the name of a Cretan town. There is an 
Asus mentioned by Pliny (iv. 12), but it is 
‘in Mediterraneo,’ not on the coast,—and 
the construction would be inadmissible. 
Erasmus, Luther, &c., have taken”Acoov as 
the accusative of direction, ‘ when they had 
weighed for Assus.’ But besides the local 
objection, this construction also would be 
most harsh, as épayres does not indicate 


the progress of their voyage, but only the 
setting out. Heinsius took épayres = ava- 
gavevtes, ch. xxi. 3,—‘postquam Asos 
attollere se visa est’ (Meyer). But there 
can be little doubt that all of these are 
mistakes, and that dooov is the adverb. 

14. €Badev kat avrys]| These dif- 
ficult words have been taken in three ways: 
(1) (The common interpretation) referring 
avTiis to thy Kpnrnv just mentioned. 
Thus they might mean, (a) ‘drove (us) 
against Crete, or (B) ‘struck (blew) 
against Crete,’ i.e. in the direction of 
Crete. Now of these, (a) is contrary to 
the expressed fact :—they were not driven 
against Crete. And (8) is as inconsistent 
with the implied fact. Had the wind blown 
in the direction of Crete at all, they, who 
gave themselves up to it, and were driven 
before it (émiddvres epepducba, ver. 15), 
must have been stranded on the Cretan 
coast, which they were not. (2) referring 
avTjs to the ship, understood. This is 
adopted by Dr. Bloomfield and Mr. Smith. 
(The latter, I find by a letter received since 
this note was written, now understands it 
as I have explained it below.) But not 
to mention the harshness occasioned by 
having to supply a subject for avrjs which 
has never yet been mentioned,—a Uecisive 
objection against this rendering is, that the 
ship throughout the narrative is 7b mAotoy, 
not 7 vads, in every place except ver. 41,— 
and 7d mA. occurs in the very next clause, 
which, had ¢his been meant of the ship, 
would certainly have been expressed ovvap- 
magbelons dé, or cvvapracbecions 5€ avrijs. 
(3) referring atts to mpodécews. In 
that case €Badev kat” avTjs must either 
(a) = karéBarev jas am avTis, as 
Plato, Euthyph. 15 &, am eAmidos we kara- 
Badrov peydAns amrépxet, which is harsh, 
and hardly allowable; or (8) be under- 
stood, taking the neuter sense of BadAAw 
(morauds eis GAa Badddwy, Il. A. 722), as 
meaning ‘ blew against it,’ so as to thwart 
their design. And so Luther: ‘erbhob fic) 
wider ihy Vornehmen.’ But this mixture 
of literal and figurative is also harsh, and 
hardly allowable. (4) A method has oc- 
curred to me of rendering the words, which 
seems to remove all harshness, whether of 


of 2 


292 


e here only +. 
(-ov, Isa. 
xiii. 21 Aq.) 

f here only +. 

ge ch, vi. 12 reff. 

h here only ft. 
Wisd. xi. 14 
only. i = here only. 

xxvi. 36. see ch. ii. 2.) 


auThns avEewos 


(ch. xy. 30 reff.) 
1 here only. 


14. for kar’ avtys, Kata TauTns &. 
P-corr). 
evpukavowy B? 40. 133 : 
Tup. 0 KaA.) eth: evtpaxndAwy copt: 


TIPASEIS ATOSTOAON. 


15 & svyaptracbévtos S€ Tod ToLov Kai wy SuVAapEvoU 
0 ° lal ’ / i > } 4 
opladpeivy TH avenm@ * ETLOOVTES 


XXVII. 


° rupwvixos 6 Kadovpevos * evpaxUoy. ! 


 ayt- 


16 1 pnoiov 
(Lev. 


K épepopucda. 


k = (nautical) here bis only. Diod. Sic. xx. 16. 


om o Kad, evp. and ovy of cuvapm. P(ins 


rec evpoxAvodwy, with H'™L P-corr p(evpo xAvdw) rel Syr Chr Thl Ce: 
evpakAvdwy syr-Mg-gr : 
evpaknAwy sah : 


evpakvkAwy arm: aquilo maris (omg 
evpaxodwy (itacism) 13: txt (see 


note) A B\(see table) &, confirmed by Huroaquilo vulg Cassiod, by 13 sah and in some 


measure (evpak.) by syr arm copt. 
15. duvomevov B!. 


reference in avtis, or of construction. 
There can be no question that the obvious 
reference of atvri#s is to Crete. What 
then is €Badev kat attas? eBarey ap- 
plied to wind may be understood as above, 
neuter, or reflective, ‘blew, ‘rushed’ 
Assuming this, and that there is no object 
to be supplied between €Badev and the 
preposition, kat’ adrjs may surely be ren- 
dered, as in BH 5€ kat? OvAdvuTo.o Kapt- 
vov,—kar “ldalwy opéwy,—KaTa mérTpns, 
&e., viz. down (from) Crete, ‘down the 
high lands forming the coast. It isa 
common expression in lake and coasting 
navigation, that ‘a gust came down the 
valleys.’ And this would be exactly the 
direction of the wind in question. When 
they had doubled, or perhaps were now 
doubling, Cape Matala, the wind suddenly 
changed, and the typhoon came down upon 
them from the high lands ;—at first, as 
long as they were sheltered, only by fits 
down the gullies, but as soon as they were 
in the open bay past the cape, with its full 
violence. This, the hurricane rushing down 
the high lands when first observed, and 
afterwards guvapra(wy rb mAotov, seems 
to me exactly to describe their changed cir- 
cumstances in passing the cape. A confirma- 
tion of this interpretation may be found by 
Luke himself using caréBn to express the 
descending of a squall from the hills on the 
lake of Gennesareth, Luke viii. 23, where 
Matt. and Mark have only éyéveto and 
ylverat. Mr. Smith also suggests card 
Tov Kpnuvov, Luke viii. 33, as confirma- 
tory. The above is also Dean Howson’s 
view. See, in the excursus appended to 
the Prolegg. to Acts, the confirmation of 
this view in what actually happened to the 
Rev. G. Brown’s party. Tupwvirds | 
«The sudden change from a south wind to 
a violent northerly wind, is a common oe- 
currence in these seas. (Captain J. Stewart, 
R.N., in his remarks on the Archipelago, 
_ observes, “‘It is always safe to anchor 
under the lee of an island with a northerly 


aft er:Sovres ins Tw mAcovTL K. TVTTELAGYTES Ta LoTLA © 137: 
TN MVEOVTN K. TUYAYOYTES Ta LoTLa SyY-w-ast. 


wind, as it dies gradually away; but it 
would be extremely dangerous with south- 
erly winds, as they almost invariably shift 
to a violent northerly wind.”) The term 
‘typhonic’ indicates that it was accom- 
panied by some of the pheenomena which 
might be expected in such a case, viz. the 
agitation and whirling motion of the clouds 
caused by the meeting of the opposite cur- 
rents of air when the change took place, 
and probably also of the sea, raising it in 
columns of spray. Pliny (ii. 48), speak- 
ing of ‘repentini flatus,’ says, ‘vorticem 
faciunt qui Typhon vocatur:’ Aul. Gell. 
xix. 1, ‘Turbines etiam crebriores . . . et 
figuree quedam nubium tremende quas 
tupavas vocabant.’” Smith, p. 60. 
evpaxvdwy | I have adopted the reading of 
ABR, according to my pr inciple of going, 
in all cases where there is no overpower- 
ing objection, by our most ancient MSS. 
It may be that edpaxtdAwy had become in 
common parlance corrupted into edpo- 
KAvd@y, an anomalous word, having no 
assignable derivation, but perhaps arising 
from the Greek sailors having changed 
the Latin termination into one having sig- 
nificance for themselves. Mr. Smith, in 
his appendix, ‘On the Wind Euroclydony’ 
has satisfactorily answered the objections 
of Bryant to the compound ceipaxtAwy,— 
by shewing that edpos properly, was not 
the S.E., but the E. wind; and that com- 
pounds of Greek and Latin in the names of 
winds are not unknown, e.g. Euro-Auster. 
The direction of the wind is established 
by Mr. S., from what follows, to have been 
about half a point N. of B.N.E.; and the 
subsequent narrative shews that the wind 
continued to blow from this point till they 
reached Malta. 15. cvvap7. | being 
hurried away, ‘borne along, by it: see 
reff. avropGahpetv| It is hardly 
likely that this term, which is used so 
naturally and constantly of men facing an 
enemy (Polyb. i. 17. 3, and eight times 
more), and also metaphorically of resisting 


bns 
Lp~ 

ES .00 
CLP 
bed 
hkl 
pls 


15—17. IIPAZEI> AITIOSTOAQN. 293 


te m ig la vA an n ’ 7 : 
d€ Te ™brrodpapovres Kadovpevov K[r adda, "ioytaoaper ™ ber only +. 


, Lal , Lal 
° ports P mrepixparets yevérOat THs YoKadns, 17 Hv dpavTes oth xiv, 18 
/ la) VA A reff, 
*BonPeiats *éypavrTo, ‘itrofwvvivTes TO Trotov, hoSov- p bers only. 


/ ‘ > \ ti I] / / ” 
Méevol TE fH Els THY “GUPTW ‘ ExTrETwWaoW “ yadaoaVTES TO Cr 33 152) 
nly, but 
not =. (-0s, 2 Mace. xii. 3, 6.) r Heb, iv. 16 only. Ps. vii. 10. Sir. xl. of al. (-Oety, 


ch. xxi. 28. -@0s, Heb. xiii. 6.) sver.3. 1 Cor. vii. 2lal. L.P. Wisd. ii. 6. t here 
only+. 2 Mace. iii.19 only. Polyb. xxvii. 3.3. Plat. Rep. x. 616.3, elvac yap tovTo To bas aiv- 
Seapov Tov ovpavod, olov Ta VTOGwHpaTa T. TpINPaY, oTwW Tacav ~vVexov THY Tepipopay, see 
Thucyd. i. 29. u here only +. Vv = vy. 26,29 only. Diod. Sic. ii. 60, €xmeoety Ets 
G@2mous, and al. w ch, ix. 25 reff. 


16. vrodpauourvres B! 93-5. rec kNav-, with AH™LP N(but a erased) p rel 13. 
36. 40. 187 syr syr-mg-gr Chr Thl ec: xav- B vulg eth Jer, Kyra or Keuda Syr, 
Gaudem Cassiod.—rec -dny, with H'LP rel: -day c 25 lect-12, -dam fuld: -8¢ BS p 
13. 40. 137 vulg syr syr-mg-gr copt «th. (A has only KAA, the remaining letters are 


gone at the end of a line.) 


rec modus bef trxuvoamer (corrn of order ?), with HtLP 


rel 36 syrr copt zth-pl Chr: txt ABN m p 13 (40) vulg. 


17. Bondeas H* c p 36. 96 lect-12: -@iay XN}. 


xara. P. om To §). 


temptation (uh dtvacOu Tots xXphuactw 
avtop0aduetvy, Polyb. xxviii. 17. 18), 
should have been originally a naval term, 
derived from the practice of painting eyes 
on either side of the beaks of ships. More 
probably the expression was transferred to 
a ship from its usage in common life. 
emdovtes | So Plutarch de Fortun. Rom. 
cited in note on ver. 26. Nither ‘the 
ship, or ‘ourselves, may be supplied: 
or better perhaps, nezther, but the word 
taken generally—giving up. edepo- 
peOa| passive: we were driven along. 
16. vrodpapovres ] running under 
theleeof. ‘St. Luke exhibits here as on 
every other occasion, the most perfect con- 
mand of nautical terms, and gives the ut- 
most precision to his language by selecting 
the most appropriate: they ran _ before 
the wind to leeward of Clauda, hence it 
is twodpaudvres : they sailed with a side 
wind to leeward of Cyprus and Crete: 
hence it is WremAcvoauey” (Smith, p. 61, 
note). Kiavda} Here again, there 
can be little doubt that the name of the 
island was Kaiéda, or Tavda, as we have 
in some MSS., or, as in Pliny and Mela, 
Gaudos: but Ptol. (iii. 7) has KAavdos, 
and the corruption was very obvious. The 
island is the modern Gozzo. ioxv- 
gop. pA. «.7.A.] “ Upon reaching Clauda, 
they availed themselves of the smooth 
water under its lee, to prepare the ship to 
resist the fury of the storm, Their first 
care was to secure the boat by hoisting it 
on board. This had not been done at first, 
because the weather was moderate, and the 
distance they had to go, short. Under 
such circumstances, it is not usual to hoist 
boats on board, but it had now become 
necessary. In running down upon Clauda, 
it could not be done, on account of the 


extAcowo. &), ins kau bef 


ship’s way through the water. To enable 
them to do it, the ship must have been 
rounded to, with her head to the wind,and 
her sails, if she had any set at the time, 
trimmed, so that she had no head-way, or 
progressive movement, In this position 
she would drift, broadside to leeward. I 
conclude they passed round the east end of 
the island: not only because it was nearest, 
but because ‘an extensive reef with nume- 
rous rocks extends from Gozzo to theN.W., 
which renders the passage between the two 
isles very dangerous’ (Sailing Directions, 
p- 207). In this case the ship would be 
brought to on the starboard tack, i. e, with 
the right side to windward.” ... . “St. 
Luke tells us they had much difficulty in 
securing the boat. He does not say why: 
but independently of the gale which was 
raging at the time, the boat had been towed 
between twenty and thirty miles after the 
gale had sprung up, and could scarcely fail 
to be filled with water.” Smith, pp. 64, 
65. 17.] dpavres, having taken 
on board. Bonetars] measures to 
strengthen the ship, strained and weak- 
ened by labouring in the gale. Pliny (ii. 
48) calls the typhoon ‘ pracipua navigan- 
tium pestis, non antennas modo, verum ipsa 
navigia contorta frangens.’? Grot., Hein- 
sius, &c,, are clearly wrong in interpret- 
ing Bondel., ‘the help of the passengers’ 

trolwvvivres +. wA.] undergird- 
ing, or frapping the ship. “To frap a 
ship (ceintrer un vaisseau) is to pass four or 
five turns of a large cable-laid rope round 
the hull or frame of a ship, to support her 
in a great storm, or otherwise, when it is 
apprehended that she is not strong enough 
to resist the violent efforts of the sea: this 
expedient, however, is rarely put in prac- 
tice.” Falconer’s Marine Dict. :—Smith, 


294 

x hare only. x OKEUOS OUTWS k epépovTo. 
Jonah i. 5. 
Xen. Gc. 


vill. 12. 
y here only. 


TIPAZEIS ATLOSTOAON. 


XXVII. 
18 ¥ ghodpas 5é * yewalopévev 


rn a a al a / 
nuav *7H *éEAs »éxBornY érrotobvTo, 19 Kal TH © TpiTH 


Gen. vii: 19. T@YToyerpEes THY °aKEvIY TOD TAoiov féppufav: 79 pajre 


Sir. xiii. 

13 (only ?). 
(pos, Exod. 
x. 19.) 

z here only. 
Proy. xxvi. 
10 only. ach. xxi. 1 reff. 

only. Exod. xxi. 29. w.7€pa, Matt. xvi. 21 al. fr. 
xxxi. 25 Ald. (Jonah i. 5?) only. 
ix. 36, xv. 30. xxvii.5. Luke iv. 35. xvii. 2 only. 

h Lukei.79. Tit. ii. 11. iii. 4 only. Deut. xxxiii. 2. 

k = ch. ii. 40 reff. 

m ch, xii. 18 reff. 

only. Job xix. 3. o = 2 Tim. iv, 8. 


18. for de, re A 25 spec Syr eth-pl. 


b here only. 


oKevynv éxatov Tpinpedt, Diod. Sic. xiv. 79. 
Gen. xxi. 15, (-m7etv, ch. xxii. 23.) 
(-veva, 2 Thess. ii. 8. -17)5, ch. ii. 20.) 
1 = Matt. xvi. 3 (xxiv. 20 || Mk. 
n = here (Luke v. 1. xxiii. 23. 


Sé HAlov pte & doTpeov » érrihatvovTan ' eri * eElovas Hue- 
pas, |yeuavos Te ™ovK ™OAMyou " émiKeyévou, ° NoLTrOV 


Jonah i, 5. 
d here only t. 


c alone, Luke xiii. 32 
e here only. Gen. 
fver. 29. Matt. 

g ch. vii. 43 reff. 
ich. xiii. 31 reff. 
John x. 22. 2 Tim. iy. 21) only. Job xxxvii. 6. 
John xi. 38. xxi. 9. 1 Cor. ix.16, Heb. ix. 10) 


19. ree eppupaper (corrn to first person to suit avtoxeipes: so Meyer, which is much 
more probable than that, as De W., -amev should have been altered to -av, to suit 
emotouyto : see note), with HLP rel syrr copt xth-pl Chr Thl Ge: txt AB?C a bop 13. 


36. 40 vulg spec, epenvay B}, epupay &. 
20. mAciovs N! e g 101. 


p- 60, who brings several instances of the 
practice, in our own times. See additional 
ones in C. and H. ii. 404, f. Horace 
seems to allude to it, Od. i. 14. 3, ‘ac sine 
funibus Vix durare carinz Possint impe- 
riosius Aquor.’ See reff. THY ovpTLy | 
The Syrtis, on the African coast ; there 
were two, the greater and the lesser (ai 
poBepat Kal tots akovovc: Svpreis, Jos. 
B. J. ii. 16. 4), of which the former was 
the nearer to them. éexmréowotv | See 
reff. and add mepduevor TE mvevmaTL... « 
efénimtoyv mpos Tas metpas, Herodot. viii. 
13. xad. tT. okedos] “It is not 
easy to imagine a more erroneous transla- 
tion than that of our authorized version : 
‘Fearing lest they should fall into the 
quicksands, they strake sail, and so were 
driven.’ It is in fact equivalent to saying 
that, fearing a certain danger, they de- 
prived themselves of the only possible 
means of avoiding it.”” Smith, p.67. He 
goes on to explain, that ¢f they had struck 
sail, they must have been driven directly 
towards the Syrtis. 'Yhey therefore set 
what sail the violence of the gale would 
permit them to carry, turning the ship’s 
head off shore, she having already been 
brought to on the starboard tack (right 
side*to the wind). The adoption of this 
course would enable them to run before 
the gale, and yet keep wide of the African 
coast, which we know they did. But what 
is xa. 70 oxetos? It is interpreted by 
Meyer, De W., and most Commentators, of 
striking sail(as E. V.): but this (see above) 
could not be: “In a storm with a contrary 
wind or on a lee-shore, a ship is obliged to 
lie-to under a very low sail: some sail is 
absolutely necessary to keep the ship steady, 
otherwise she would pitch about like a 
cork, and roll so deep as to strain and 


om Aotoy B. 


work herself to pieces.” Encycl. Brit. art. 
‘Seamanship: Smith, p. 72, who inter- 
prets the words, lowering the gear, i.e. 
sending down upon deck the gear connected 
with the fair-weather sails, such as the 
suppara, or top-sails. A modern ship sends 
down top-gallant masts and yards, a cutter 
strikes her topmast, when preparing for a 
gale. In this case it was perhaps the heavy 
yard which the ancient ships carried, with 
the sail attached to it, and the heavy ropes, 
which would by their top-weight produce 
uneasiness of motion as well as resistance to 
the wind. See a letter addressed to Mr. 
Smith by Capt. Spratt, R.N., quoted in C. 
and H. ii. p. 405, note 5. ovTws | i.e. 
“not only with the ship undergirded, and 
made snug, but with storm-sails set, and 
on the starboard tack, which was the only 
course by which she could avoid falling into 
the Syrtis.”’ Smith, ib. 18. éxBod. 
érrot.| “The technical terms for taking 
cargo out of a ship, given by Julius Pollux, 
are €x0éc0ai, aropopticacbat, kovploa tiv 
vadv, emeAdpuvat, ekBorArv toijoacbat TaV 
goptiwy. So that both here, and after- 
wards in ver. 38 (€xoviCov +. mAoiov), St. 
Luke uses appropriate technical phrases.” 
Smith, ib. Of what the freight con- 
sisted, we have no intimation. Perhaps 
not of wheat, on account of the separate 
statement of ver. 38. See ref. 19. 7. 
okevny T. wr. Epp.| 7 ckevy is the furni- 
ture of the ship—beds, moveables of all 
kinds, cooking utensils, and the spare rig- 
ging. avtoxetpes is used with &ppavav 
as shewing the urgency of the danger— 
when the seamen would with their own 
hands, cast away what otherwise was 
needful to the ship and themselves. This 
not being seen, adrdx. has been supposed 
to imply the first person, and éppivauerv 


ABCLP 
Nabcc 
fghkl 
mopli 


18—25. 


Parepunpeito eAris Taca TOD cwterOat Has. 


Te *aowTlas * umapxovons, TOTE 


TIPAEREIS ATOSTOAON. 


295 


2] a p = 2 Cor. iii. 
« TONANS 16. Heb. x. 
11 (ver. 40) 

only. Zech. 


tgrabeis 6 IlatXos ev 


Méow avtov eitev "Edee pév, @ avdpes, " mreBapxrjoavrds a consir., ch. 


iv. 9 reff, 


} 
fot pn YavayerOar amo THs Kpyrns, * xepdfoat te THy" here only 
e , WN : / ¢ \ \ a a 33. Tél 
*PBpw Tavtynv Kal THv * Cnjuiay. 22 Kal Y ta Y vv * Tapawve 1 Btaoe dl! 17 
¢ a a Wa) a aa -Tl, Job 
upas * evluperv" > amroBony yap SAPUNTTS ou epla éoTal ef xxiv.6.) 
< A \ s ch. il. a4 re 
vpav Sada Tov TroLov. 23 TapéoTn yap joe TAUTH TH teh: X13 relk 
\ a a ® TAY \ e \ / U y ch. xiii. 13 
vuKTt ToD Geod ob epi [éyo] @ Kai °aTpEVW ayyeENos, * vir” 
9A , \ a a / , a w = here only. 
“4 Neyov Mn good, Ilatre Kaiocapi ce det * rapa- (1 Cor, ix. 19 
a Nie AN D / c \ / \ 5 pene _ 
OTHVaAL Kab ioov §& KexyaploTal Gol oO Ocos Tavtas Tovs shee 
/ sh fa) Of X > an ” ‘fe “ 
aréovtas peta cov. ~ S10 *evOumette, avdpes' TicTEvw Xetpasicgp: 
’ 
Jos. Antt. ii. 3. 2 x ver. 10. y ch. iv. 29 reff. z ver. 9 only 
(reff, ae a here bis. James y. 13 only. Ps. Ixvii. 18 Ald. only. (see ver. 36 al.) b Rom. 
xi. 15 only+. (-BaAAeuv, Mark x. 50. Heb. x. 35.) c = ch. xy. 26 reff. d (John 
viii. 10.] ch. xy. 28. xx. 23. Deut. i. 36. e ch. vii. 7 reff. f = Rom. xiv. 10. Dan. 
vii. 10. g 2 Cor. ii. 10 reff. h ver. 2 reff. 


rec maoa bef eAms, with CHt L(z. » €A.) PX rel 36 syr Chr: txt AB k m p 13 vulg 


spec copt. 


21. rec de, with HtLP rel syr copt Chr: txt ABCN ¢ p 13. 40. 187 vulg spee Syr 


zth-pl Thl-fin. om Tote A 21. 
om ts Ht, (npnmrar(sic) P. 
22. amoBAn(sic) P. 
23. for tavtn, Tne N?. 


epueow A, 


for avtwy, nuwy c 137. 


ovdeuia bef puxns XN! 80. 
rec T7 vuKtt bef ravtn, with syr He: txt ABCHTLPN 
rel 40. 1387 vulg arm Chr Thl-sif (Thl-fin om tavr.). 


rec ayyeAos bef tov Oeov 


(corrn of order), with H™LP rel vulg spec; bef w x. Aatpevw 13: txt ABCN m 40. 


137. 
vulg copt eth arm. 


has crept in: see var. readd. 20. | 
The sun and stars were the only guides of 
the ancients when out of sight of Jand. 
The expression, all hope was taken away, 
seems, as Mr. Smith has noticed, to betoken 
that a greater evil than the mere force of 
the storm (which perhaps had some little 
abated :—x. odk dAlyov seems to imply 
that it still indeed raged, but not as before) 
was afflicting them, viz., the leaky state of 
the ship, which increased upon them, as is 
shewn by their successive lightenings of 
her. 21. doutias |] “ What caused the 
abstinence ? A ship with nearly 300 people 
on board, on a voyage of some length, must 
have had more than a fortnight’s provisions 
(and see ver. 38): and it is not enough 
to say with Kuinoel, ‘Continui labores et 
metus a periculis effecerant ut de cibo ca- 
piendo non cogitarent.’ ‘Much abstinence’ 
is one of the most frequent concomitants of 
heavy gales. The impossibility of cooking, 
or the destruction of provisions from leak- 
age, are the principal causes which produce 
it.” Smith, p. 75: who quotes instances. 
But doubtless anxiety and mental distress 
had a considerable share init. téte brings 
vividly before us the consequence of the 
ao.ria—when they were in that condition, 
languid and exhausted with fasting and 
fears. kepdqoat| < lucrifecisse, to 


rec om eyw, with BC!HTLP p 13 rel spec syrr Chr Thl Hc: 


ins AC?2X 40 


have gained, not = fo have incurred,— 
but to have turned to your own account, 
i. e. to have spared or avoided.’ So Jos. 
in ref. Aristotle, Magn. Mor. ii. 8,6 kara 
Adyov Cyulav tv AaBeiv, Ty ToLtodToy 
Kepddvavta evtTvxH pauev (‘if he escape 
it’). Plin. vii. 40, ‘quam quidem injuriam 
lucrifecit ille. Cicero, Verr. i. 12, ‘lu- 
cretur indicia veteris infamiz’ (‘may have 
them wiped out,’ and so make gain of 
them by getting rid of them). UBpvy | 
See on ver. 10. ‘The &8piy was to their 
persons, the (nulay to their property.” 
C. and H. ii. 410, note 4. 22.) The 
neglect of precision in a&moBoA} Wuxijs ov- 
deula . . . . mAnY TOU mAolov is common 
enough. So Rev. xxi. 27, od uh ciséAOn 
. +. Tay Kowdy kK. Tolay BdéAvyna . 
ei wy of yeypappévor ev TH B. T. Cwijs. 
See Winer, edn. 6, § 67. 1. e. 23. ] 
Paul characterizes himself as dedicated to 
and the servant of God, to give solemnity 
to and bespeak credit for his announce- 
ment. At such a time, the servants of 
God are highly esteemed. 24. Kexa- 
prorat | “ Etiam centurio, subserviens pro- 
videntiw divine, Paulo condonavit capti- 
VOstaeviers Aor. «+ Non erat tam periculoso 
alioqui tempore periculum, ne videretur 
Paulus, que necessario dicebat, gloriose 
dicere.” Bengel. peta ood] “ Paulus, 


296 


TIPAZEIS, ATOSTOAON. 


XXVII. 


. A a ” . : Py 

ichaav | yap T@ Oe@ Ott ovTws Eatat ‘xa ‘dv ‘tpoTrov AeXaANTAL ABCL 
ilireff. a a = ~ . Rabe 
Hom ii2, fol. 2 ets vpyoov € Twa et ras * éxreceiv. 77 ‘Os b€ fen k 

pate Moe 1 8 s \ 3 7 5 , Ean > mop! 
er. | reaoapesKaoekdTn VUE éyéveto ™ dvahepopéevav uav €Vv 

m ch. xiii. 49. 






n=ch.3 25. 


Heb. iii. 8, 


a? ‘ an / € an 
7@ Adpla, ™ Kata ° wécov THs ° vUKTOS ? UTrEvdouY of 4 VadTAaL 


! 5 hae s \ > ral / 9S \ , ® 
from Ps. xciv. ' rpogayElv TWA avTOis Kwpav, *> Kal * BoricavTes * ebpov 


o here only. 
see ch. xvi. 
25. Matt. 
xxv. 6, 

p ch. xiii. 25 
reff. q here bis. 

xvi. 20 reff.) Josh. iii. 9. 
xix. 19. 1 Chron. xx. 2. 
ii.7 (from Ps. viii. 5], 9. xiii. 22) only. 


26. nuas bef Se B. 


1 Kings vii. 10 al. fr. 


Isa. lvii. 17. 


27. emeyevero A p vulg: txt BCHTLPR® rel 36 Chr. 
mposaxew Bl: mposeyyiCew ¢ 137: mposayayew 40: mpoayaryew R?). 
opyvas (twice) b! p 13, so (once) H' o. 


B?: 
28. for Ist Kat, orrives NR}. 
for 2nd evpov, evpouey C}. 


in conspectu Dei, princeps navis, et con- 
siliis gubernator.” Ib. 26. Set] Spoken 
prophetically, as also ver. 31 : not perhaps 
from actual revelation imparted in the 
vision, but by a power imparted to Paul 
himself of penetrating the future at this 
crisis, and announcing the Divine counsel. 
Mr. Humphry compares and contrasts 
the speech of Caesar to the pilot under 
similar circumstances: rdéAua kK. 565104 
pndev, GAG emididov TH TUXH TA torla 
kal Séxou TO mWvedua, TH TWvéoTL TMLOTEVuY, 
bri Katoapa pépers kal thy Kaloapos tux ny, 
Plut. de Fortun. Rom. p. 518. 27. 
Stadep.| driven about, or up and down, 
as E. V., not ‘drifting through, as Dr. 
Bloomf., though this may have been the 
fact; see examples below. Plutarch 
speaking of the tumult during which 
Galba was murdered, rod gopelov «abarep 
év KAVSwrt Sevpo KaKel Stapepomevov (pro- 
bably from Tacitus, ‘Agebatur hue illue 
Galba, vario turbe fluctuantis impulsu,’ 
Hist. i. 40); Philo, de Migr. Abr. p. 454, 
eraupotepiatal mpos éExdrepoy Totxov, &s- 
mep okdos bm evaytiwy mvevudtwy dia- 
pepduevorv, amoxAlvoyvres. The reckoning 
of days counts from their leaving Fair 
Havens: see vv. 18, 19. év TO 
*ASpia| Adria, in the wider sense, em- 
braces not only the Venetian Gulf, but the 
sea to the south of Greece :—so Ptolemy 
(iii. 16), 7 5¢ MleAomdévynoos dpitera . . 
amb Sutuav Kal pernuBplas Te ’Adpiariuce 
meAdyet. So also (iii. 4) 7 5€ Sicedla 
Opierat . . . . amd 5& dvarodrAaGy ind Tod 
*Adplov meAdyous. In fact, he bounds 
Italy on the 8., Sicily on the E., Greece 
on the S. and W., and Crete on the W. by 
this sea, which notices sufficiently indicate 
its dimensions. So also Pausanias (v. 25), 
speaking of the straits of Messina, says that 
the sea there is @adAdoons xetmepiwrdrn 


u here bis only +. 


“6pyuias elxoot, ‘ Bpayv dé “ dvactHcavTes Kal Tadw 


> \ / ¢ / / 
‘ Borlcavtes ‘ebpov “dpyuias dexarrévte, 79 hoPovpevoi 
Rey. xviii. 17 only+. (-7tkds, 3 Kings ix. 27. Jonah i. 5.) 


r = here only. (ch. 
s here bis only+. (-A7, Luke xxii. 41.) t =ch. 
vy = Luke xxii. 58. ch. v. 34 (John vi. 7. Heb. 

w Luke xxii. 59. xxiv. 51 only. trans., Isa. lix. 2. 


for mposayeiv, mposavexew 


méons. of Te yap &veuot Tapdocovow 
avTiy auporépwhey Td Kiua émayortes, 
éx Tov ASptov, cal e& Erépov meAdyous d 
KaAdeirar Tuponver. trevéouv] What 
gave rise to this suspicion? Probably the 
sound (or even the apparent sight) of 
breakers. ‘If we assume that St. Paul’s 
Bay, in Malta, is the actual scene of the 
shipwreck, we can have no difficulty in ex- 
plaining what these indications must have 
been. No ship can enter it from the east 
without passing within a quarter of a mile 
of the point of Koura: but before reaching 
it, the land is too low and too far from the 
track ofa ship driven from the eastward, to 
be seen in a dark night. When she does 
come within this distance, it is impossible 
to avoid observing the breakers: for with 
north-easterly gales, the sea breaks upon it 
with such violence, that Capt. Smyth, in his 
view of the headland, has made the breakers 
its distinctive character.” Smith, p. 79. 
I recommend the reader to study the rea- 
sonings and calculations by which Mr. 
Smith (pp. 79—86) has established, I think 
satisfactorily, that this xépavy could be no 
other than the point of Koura, east of St. 
Paul’s Bay, in Malta. ™posayety | 
was approaching them. The opposite is 
avaxwpeiv, ‘recedere.’ ‘Lucas optice lo- 
quitur, nautarum more.’ Kuin. 28. 
Bodioavres] BodiCew, Hyour Babos baddo- 
ons metpetvy woAvBdlyn KabeT@, 2) ToLotT@ 
twi. Eustath. on Il. €. p. 427 (Wetst.). 
dpyuids | dpyuid onualver thy Exra- 
ow TOY XELpGY OY TE TAATEL TOD aTHOoUS 
(Etymol. Magn.) = therefore very nearly 
one fathom. Every particular here cor- 
responds with the actual state of things. 
At twenty-five fathoms depth (as given in 
evidence at the court-martial on the officers 
of the Lively, wrecked on this point in 
1810), the curl of the sea was seen on the 


26—3]. 


la Lal 
Te pn Tov * Kata Y tpayeis ToTous * éxrécwper, 
> ayKupas 
30 tap O€ I vavTav & EytovwT@V Mark iv. 9s 
only t. 


2 apuurns * piaytes 
@ juépav * yevéo Oat. 


IIPAEEIS ATIOSTOAQN. 


297 


I 
x vy. 5,7 reff. 
eK y Luke iii. 5 


, Y fr Isa. x1. 
técoapas ° evyovTo S\onys"™ 
z ver. 41. 


yt 
aver. 19 reff, 


guyety ex Tov Tol i fyaXaca nv & aKa 
vy tov kat yaXacavt@y Thy 8 oKadny birch ver, 


h 


40. Heb. vi. 


>? ¥ fa} / / sf e > k / 
els Tnv Garaccar, Tpopacel @S €K TP@pas _ 19 only +. 
« . 1 s © val ¢ ch. xxvi. 29. 
> ayxupas peddovToy | éxtewewv, %| eirev oO Tlatrog Rem %.3., 
a ‘ a , 5) 9. James 7. 
T® €kaTOVTapYn Kal TOls oTpatimTais "Kay pn ovTOL 16. "3 Jon 
2only. Num. 


d ch. xii. 18 reff. 


xi. 2. 
h Mark xii. 40|| L. John xy. 22. Phil. i. 18. 
reff. 
w. XE€Up, ch. xxvi. 1 al. 


29. for te, Se CN c p 18 vulg syr copt Thl-sif. 


e = ch, xiii. 8 reff. 
1 Thess. ii. 5 only. 
k ver. 41 only+. (-pevs, Ezek. xxvii. 29.) 


f ch. ix. 25 reff. 
Ps. ex. 4. 
1 = here only. 


g ver. 16. 
i= ch. xxiii. 15 
Ps. lix. 8 (10). elsw. 


rec untws (corrn to simpler 


word), with H™LP rel 36 copt Chr: unrw A: txt BCX c p13. 40 Thl-sif. (ov is 


written above the line by &?! or corrt.) 
Chr: txt ABCN c p 13. 40 Thl-sif. 


ABCHTLPR 13 rel 137 vulg syrr copt Chr. 
mpwpys Ad 13: mXwpys N?. 


80. exguyew A c 96. 137-42. 


rec (for kara) es, with HTLP rel 36 

rec exmecwow, with ec d f p sah: txt 
[evxovro, so BCH". ] 

rec meAAovTmy 


bef aykxupas (corrn of order for euphony), with Ht™LPX rel am Chr Thl @c: txt ABC 


m p 18. 40. 


rocks in the night, but no land. The 
twenty fathoms would occur somewhat past 
this: the fifteen fathoms, in a direction W. 
by N. from the former, after a time suffi- 
cient to prepare for the unusual measure of 
anchoring by the stern. And just so are 
the soundings (see Capt. Smyth’s chart, 
Smith, p. 88), and the shore is here full 
of tpaxets témo1, mural precipices, upon 
which the sea must have been breaking with 
great violence. 29. éx mevpvys | The 
usual way of anchoring in ancient, as well 
as in modern navigation, was by the bow: 
‘anchora de prora jacitur.’ But under cer- 
tain circumstances, they anchored by the 
stern ; and Mr. Smith has shewn from the 
figure of a ship which he has copied from 
the “ Antichit&é de Ercolano,” that their 
ships had hawse-holes aft, to fit them for 
anchoring by the stern. “That a vessel 
can anchor by the stern is sufficiently 
proved (if proof were needed) by the his- 
tory of some of our own naval engage- 
ments. So it was at the battle of the 
Nile. And when ships are about to attack 
batteries, it is customary for them to go 
into action prepared to anchor in this way. 
This was the case at Algiers. There is 
still greater interest in quoting the instance 
of the battle of Copenhagen, not only from 
the accounts we have of the precision 
with which each ship let go her anchors 
astern as she arrived nearly opposite her 
appointed station, but because-it is said 
that Nelson stated after the battle that 
he had that morning been reading Acts 
xxvii.” C. and H. ii. p. 414. The passage 
from Cesar, Bell. Civ. i. 25, ‘ has quaternis 
ancoris ex quatuor angulis distinebat, ne 
fluctibus moverentur,’ is not to the pur- 


pose, for it was in that case a platform 
composed of two vessels, and anchored 
by the four corners. ‘The anchorage 
in St. Paul’s Bay is thus described in the 
Sailing Directions: ‘The harbour of St. 
Paul is open to E. and N.E. winds. It is, 
notwithstanding, safe for small ships; the 
ground, generally, being very good: and 
while the cables hold, there is no danger, 
as the anchors will never start’ ” Smith, 
p- 92. evxovto | Uncertain, whether 
their ship might not go down at her an- 
chors ; and, even supposing her to ride 
out the night safely, uncertain whether the 
coast to leeward might not be iron-bound, 
affording no beach where they might land 
in safety. Hence also the ungenerous but 
natural attempt of the seamen to save their 
lives by taking to the boat. See Smith, 
p- 97. 80.] “ We hear of anchors 
being laid out from both ends of a ship 
(€xarépwOev), Appian, Bell. Civ. p. 723.” 
ib. éxtetvetv | because in this case 
they would carry out the anchors to the 
extent of the cable which was loosened. 

31. éav pi «.7.A.] “ Mirum est 
quod reliquos vectores salvos posse fieri 
negat, nisi retentis nautis: quasi vero Dei 
promissionem exinanire penes ipsos fuerit. 
Respondeo, Paulum hie de potentia Dei 
precise non disputare, ut eam a voluntate 
et mediis sejungat: et certe non ideo fide- 
libus virtutem suam Deus commendat, ut 
contemptis mediis torpori et socordiz indul- 
geant, vel temere se projiciant, ubi certa est 
cavendi ratio. .... Neque tamen propterea 
sequitur, mediis vel adminiculis alligatam 
esse Dei manum, sed quum Deus hune vel 
illum agendi modum ordinat, hominum 
sensus continet, ne preescriptas sibi metas 


298 TIIPAZEIS ATOZTOAON. XXVII. 


P ‘ a an lol 4 P, 
mMark ix. 13, welvaow €v TO TAOLD, Uueis cwOvaL ov Svvacbe, * TOTE 
vii ; 26. n a / 
Ce” “™amméxoav of otpati@atat Ta “axyowia THs * oxadns, 
ae Bead: \ oy Ee Pee) a 33 p 2 PSNR AT ry ae 
oath” Kal elacav adrnp ° éxrreceiv. aype Sé od 4 iépa * Hwe 


only. 2 Kings 


wate 88 Ney IylverOat, Smrapexadec 6 Liabdos azravtas ‘ weTada- 
Betv * rpodijs, Néyov * Teooapesxawexatny onpepov nuépav 
W mposooKa@VTeEs, *aoTot Y SuaTeneiTe wnOev *mposhaPopevot. 
34 816 Strapakare® buas 'weraraPeiv “ tpodpis: TodTo yap 
4apos THs tmetépas cwTnpias vmapye ovdevos yap 
ipov “OplE amd tis Kehadts taroneirar. *° elas Sé 
tabdta Kai NaBav aptov © evyaplotncey TH Oe@ * EvwTvov 
mTavTwv, Kat ®Kraoas jpEato écblew. 36" evOuuor dé 
ryevomevoe Tavtes Kal avtol *mposesaBovto “ tpodijs. 


p ch. vii. 18 
reff. 


reff 
s =and constr., 
ch. xxiv. 4. 
t ch. ii. 46 reff. 
u ch. ix. 19 reff. 
Vv ver. 27. 
Gen. xiv. 5. 
w absol., Matt. 
xxiv. 50. ch. 
(iii. 5. x. 24 
reff.) xxviii. 
6. 
x here only +. 


(-7la, ver. 

> 7 iW \ k e k lal ] \ 3 nr / / 
vinveomy. 2¢ I HpeOa Sé Sai *wacas 'Wuyai év TO TROtw dvakooat 

Deut. ix. 7. 3 

Tes. xx. 18. 2 Macc. v. 27 only. z = ver. 36 only. (ch. xxviii. 2 al.) a= here only. eme- 


b ch. viii. 16 reff. c Matt. 
f = Lukei. 19. Gen. 
(-sws, ch. xxiv. 10. -ety, 
j Matt. xxiii. 30 bis. Eph. ii. 3 only. 


oxewoueba édv Te Hutv mpos Adyov 7, Plato, Gorg. 459. : 5 

x. 30. 1 Kings xiv. 45. d Luke xxi. 18. e Rom. i. 21 reff. 

xxiv. 51. g ch. ii. 46 reff. h here only +. 2 Macc. xi. 26 only. 

VV. 22, 20.) igen., Rev. ii. 17. Winer, edn. 6, § 30. 7.c. 
k so ch. xix. 7. 1 = ch. ii. 41 reff. 

81. pewwow bef ev Tw TAoLw XN! ch. 

32. rec ot otpatiwrat bef arexoWay (corrn of order for perspicuity), with H™LP rel 
coptt Chr: txt ABCN ¢ m 138. 40. 187 vulg syrr eth Thl-sif. 

33. rec ewedAev bef nucpa, with H™LP rel syr eth Chr Thl Ge: txt ABCR p13 vulg. 

[MuedAev, so BCLP 1 p 13. 40 Thi-sif. ] rec pndev, with CH™LP rel 36 
Chr: txt ABN 40. mposdap.Bavouevor (corrn to suit mposdoxwyres) A 40 lect-12, 
-AapBou., but u marked for erasure, P. 

34. aft 510 ins ka B. mapaka(sic) &. rec mposAaBew (from mposa. above), 
with H'TLP rel Thl-sif Ee: txt ABCN bd hk o p 13. 36. 1387 Chr Thl-fin. add rx 
Nl: rivos c. for mpos, tpo B 101 sah. mywetepas ALPahsyr Thl-fin: txt BCH'S 
p 13 rel Chr Thl-sif. ouBevos A. rec (for amu) ex (corrn from Luke xxi. 18), 
with H™LPR rel Thl He: txt ABC p 13. 36. 40. 137. rec weve:tat (corrn to LXX, see 
3 Kings i. 52, 1 Kings xiv. 45, 2 Kings xiv.11. If, as Meyer supposes, amor. were a corrn 
Srom Inke xxi. 18, we should not have had the future, but as there, ov un awodnrat), 
with H™LP rel syr sah Chr: txt ABCX m p 13. 40 vulg Syr copt 2th arm Thi-fin. 

35. rec eimwv (corrn to more usual form), with H™LP p 13 rel 36: txt ABC 24. 

nuxap. AP p 137: evxapistnoas N: Kat evxapiotynoas 40. 

36. amavtes X}(but a erased). mposehaBov A 40: mposedAauBavoy Cc: meTeAau- 
Bavov 137: weradaBar(sic) &. 

37. rec nuev (corrn to more usual form), with CH™LP 13. 36 rel Chr: txt ABN p 40. 

rec ev Tw TAow bef at maca wp. (corrn of order to connect Yuxat and diak.), with 
H'LP rel syr Chr: txt (A) BCX (k m p) 13.40.137 vulg (Syr) copt arm (Chr-comm Thl-sif). 
—om a Akm p, taco bef a: Chr-comm Thl-sif. for diaxoota eBdounkovra e&, Cos 
p(so Seriv ; noting “oo¢ Tischendorf., vix recté”). for d:akooia, ws (mistake arising 
Srom w of trAuw and C of the numeral, so Tischdf) B sah. for ef, mevre A: omm. 


transiliant.” Calvin. 33.] This pre- 
caution on the part of Paul was another 
means taken of providing for their safety. 


literally that they had abstained entirely 
from food during the whole fortnight. 
apdés with a gen. (‘e salute vestra’) is only 


All would, on the approaching day, have 
their strength fully taxed: which therefore 
needed recruiting by food.  axpr...ov 
.... until it began to be day: i.e. in 
the interval between the last-mentioned 
oceurrence and daybreak, Paul employed 
the time, Xe. mposdoxavres | waiting 
the cessation of the storm. ‘The following 
expressions, &orr. diat., un). mposa., are 
spoken hyperbolically, and cannot mean 


found here in N. T.: compare ref., and 
éAmicas mpos éwuTod Tov xpnomoy elvat, 
Herodot. i. 75. 35.] “ Paul neither 
celebrates an ayarn (Olsh.), nor acts as 
the father of a family (Meyer), but simply 
as a pious Jew, who asks a blessing before 
he eats.” De Wette. 86.] When we 
reflect who were included in these wayres, 
—the soldiers and their centurion, the 
sailors, and passengers of various nations 


ABCLP 
Nabcd 
fghk] 
moplsé 


32—40. 


éBdounkovtae€. 


IIPAREIS AIOSTOAON. 


38 ™ kopeabévtes 5€ “tpodis ™ éxovpufov ™1 or. iv. 
TO TAotov °é€xBadropevor Tov aitov eis THY Oaddaccar. 
39 ied oe p id / p b] / \ fol > q b] / 

OTe O€ Prwépa Péyéveto, THY Yyhv ovK % érreyivwokor, 

, , , r e 
™xoXTrov Oé Twa ‘SKaTevoouy éxovTa *aiyadov, els dv” 
uéBoudevovto, ef SUvawTo, Y é&@oat TO motor. 

\ Ww > 4 x / y v > \ @ / iA 
Tas “ ayKUpas *qrepiedovTes Y ciwy eis THY Oddaccar, awa 


299 


only. Deut. 
Xxxi. 20 
only. 
n here only. 
Jonah i. 5. 

1 Kings vi. 5. 
here only. 
(Matt. viii. 12 

al.) 

40 Kal p vv. 29,33. 

q = and constr., 
Matt. xiv. 35. 
xvii. 12. see 


Be eh \ a / a bd 8 Yj Diy 2 kes of ch, xxviii. 1. 
AVEVTES TAS fevxtnptas TOV 71) aNiov, KQb ~ ETTAPQAVTES r = here (Luke 


22, 23 


22, 2 John i. 18, xiii. 23) only ¢. 
xxi. 5 reff. 
29, 30 reff. 

z= ch. xvi. 26 (reff.). 


u= ch. v. 33 reff. 


a here only t. 


38. ins rns bef rpopys H™LP d g 1 m Chr. 


89. for emey., eyivwoKov B 25. 


oat BIC copt eth. ampocdoyTes NX}. 


and dispositions, it shews remarkably the 
influence acquired by Paul over all who 
sailed with him. 87. | Explanatory of 
mavtes: q. d., ‘and this was no small 
number ; for we were, Xe. 38. 
éxovd. T. TAotov | See above on ver. 18. 
This wheat was either the remainder of the 
cargo, part of which had been disposed of 
in ver. 18—or was the store for their sus- 
tenance, the cargo having consisted of some 
other merchandise. And this latter is much 
the more likely, for two reasons: (1) that 
gtros is mentioned here and not in ver. 18, 
which it would have been in all probability, 
had the material cast out there been the 
same as here; and (2) that the fact is re- 
lated tmmediately after we are assured that 
they were satisfied with food: from whence 
we may infer almost with certainty that 
6 attos is the ship’s provision, of part of 
which they had been partaking. It is a 
sufficient answer to Mr. Smith’s objection 
to this (‘to suppose that they had remain- 
ing such a quantity as would lighten the 
ship is quite inconsistent with the previous 
abstinence,” p. 99), that the ship was pro- 
visioned for the voyage to Italy for 276 
persons, and that for the last fourteen days 
hardly any food had been touched. This 
would leave surely enough to be of conse- 
quence in a ship ready to sink from hour to 
hour. 39. | It may be and has been 
suggested, that some of the Alexandrian 
seamen must have known Malta ;—but we 
may answer with Mr. Smith that “St. 
Paul’s Bay is remote from the great har- 
bour, and possesses no marked features by 
which it might be recognized.” p. 100. 
KéAtrov .... €xovT. aiytaddy] a 
creek having a sandy beach. Some Com- 
mentators suppose that it should be aiyia- 
Adv €xovTa KéAmov, since every creek must 
have a beach: but what is meant is, a creek 
with a smooth, sandy beach, as distin- 


(Gen. xvi. 5.) 


x = here only. (ver. 20 reff.) 


for eis, mpos A. 
H'LP rel syr Chr Thl (ec: eBovaovto A p eth-pl: txt BCR 13(sic) 36. 40 vulg. 
duveuvto, Svvatov CH'LP rel 36 Syr eth Chr Ge: txt ABN p18 vulg Thl. 


vi, 38. xvi. 
“t ch. 
Ww YV. 
Exod. xxxii. 10, 
e—lehei5. 9: 


s Matt. vii. 3 || L. 


2 Mace. ix. 25. 
v = here (ch, yii. 45) only. 


Thucyd. ii. 90. 
y = Luke xxii. 51. 
b James iii. 4 only +. 


exBadouevar Li a. om Thy &}, 
rec eBovAcvoayTo, with 
for 


eKO- 


guished from a rocky inlet. efGorat | 
Not, ‘to thrust in” as E. V., but to 
strand, ‘to run a-ground:’ so Thucyd., 
ref., and more in Wetst. 40.] (1) 
They cut away all four anchors (the rept 
may allude to the cutting round each cable 
in order to sever it, or to the going round 
and cutting all four), and left them in the 
sea (eis T. O4A. ‘in the sea, into which they 
had been cast’). This they did to save 
time, and not to encumber the water-logged 
ship with their additional weight. (2) They 
let loose the ropes which tied up the rud- 
ders. ‘ Ancient ships were steered by two 
large paddles, one on each quarter. When 
anchored by the stern in a gale, it would be 
necessary to lift them out of the water, and 
secure them by lashings or rudder bands, 
and to loose these bands when the ship was 
again got under way.” Smith, p. 101. (3) 
They raised (erafpew, ‘to raise up,’ con- 
trary to Katéxewv, ‘to haul down, a sail) 
their apréuwy to the wind. It would be im- 
possible in the limits of a note to give any 
abstract of the long and careful reasoning 
by which Mr. Smith has made it appear 
that the ‘ artemon ’ was the foresail of the 
ancient ships. I will only notice from him, 
that the rendering ‘ mainsail’ in our E.V. 
was probably a mistaken translation from 
Baytius or De Baif,the earliest of themodern 
writers ‘ de re navali,’ and perhaps the only 
one extant when the translation was made: 
he says, “est autem artemon velum majus 
navis, ut in Actis Apost. xxvii. . . etenim 
etiam nunc nomen Veneti vulgo retinent et 
artemon vocant.” These words, ‘velum ma- 
jus, they rendered by mainsail ; whereas 
the largest sail of the Venetian ships at the 
time was the foresail. The French <arti- 
mon,’ even now in use, means the sail at the 
stern (mizen). But this is no clue to the 
ancient meaning, any more than is our word 
mizento the meaning of the French misaine, 


300 TIPAREIZ AITOZTOAON. XXVII. 41—44. 


d here only +. 

e constr., here 
only. 

f = here only. 
Polyb, i. 25. 
7. Thucyd. 
Vili. 23. 

g Luke x. 30. 
James 1. 2 
only. 2 Kings 
i. 6. 

h here only t. 

> 2 
OUK €LKOS 
§8adrar- 
: 
Tov elvat TO 
méAayos TO 


‘ d > / lal e Y f lal f > ~ t > / 

Tov “aptéuwva TH © rveovon * Katetyov ‘eis Tov * alyradov. 

41 &qrepurrecovtes O€ els TomTov 'd:Oddaccov, ‘ éréxeNay 
‘ k lal \ ¢ \ ] / m &, / ” n > / 

Thy Kvabv: Kai 7) ev 'rpwpa ™ épeicaca Epervev ® aoddev- 
ra . 0 , p2 , \ a. q , n r ’ 

Tos, 7 dé °mpUuva ? EdUETO LTO THS 4 Blas [Tay * kUpaTov]. 

"2 t@v 5€ otpatwwtav * Bours) éyéveto iva Tods * decuo- 

Tas aToKTEelWwow, pnts “exxohuuBicas Y dvadiyn * 6 
la Lal fa) 

dé Exatovtapyns, PBovAropmevos * diacw@oar Tov IladxAor, 


, ae > \ A , Hey, , 
ea éx@Avoev avTovs Tov Y BouAnmatos, exéNevcéev TE TODS 
Strabo, 

i. pil: i here only t+. Hom. Od, t. 148. k here only. 3 Kings ix. 26. 1 ver. 30. 
m here only. Prov. y.5. Polyb. iii. 46. 1. n Heb. xii. 28 only. Exod. xiii. 16. Deut. vi. 8. xi. 18 only. 
o ver. 29 reff. p = Rey. vy. 2. Esdr. i. 55 (52). q ch. v. 26 reff. Acts only. r Matt. 

viii. 24 || Mk. xiv. 24. Jude 13 only. Ps. evi. 25. s = ch. y. 38 reff. w. tva, here only. t ver. 
lonly. Gen. xxxix. 20, u here only +. Diod. Sic. xx. 88. (xoAup§., ver. 43.) v here 
only. Josh. viii. 22. w see ch, xxiil, 24 reff. x ch. x. 47 reff. constr., here only. Mic. 


ii. fd. Xen. Cyr. ii. 4.23. Polyb. ii. 8. 8. y Rom. ix. 19. 1 Pet. iv. 3 only+. 2 Macc. xv. 5 


only. O7mep hv TovTots BovAnMa, Demosth. 1109. 15. 

40. rec apreyova, with LP 13 rel: txt AB?CH™R a b? ¢ d f g 1 m? p syr-mg-gr, apro- 
pova B}, 

41. rec erwxe:Aay, with B?H"(eroxiAav) LP rel 36: txt AB!CN p 13. 40. for 
Tpwpa, mpwrn A. mpruva Bt, exvevey AH™ ch vulg: txt BCLPN 13 rel copt 
Chr Th] ce. dieAvero L m 137 lect-12: eAuto 8. amo Xk. om Tey 
Kupatwy (possibly because the transeriber’s eye passed from twv to twv in ver 42) 
ABN! : ins CHtTLPN? 13. 36 rel Chr: @ vt maris vulg: a fluctibus maris eth. 

42. om de C}. ins wa bef untis R38. exkoAuBnoas(sic) N: eyKoAuyB. g. 
rec diadvyou (grammatical emendation, see note), with k m: txt ABCH™LPN p 13 rel 


36. 137 Chr Thl. 
43. cxatoytapxos P. 
Bnuatos &': BovAeuparos af. 


which is the foresail. The usual techni- 
cal name of the foresail was déAwyv, that of 
the mizen, érfSpouos. See on the whole 
question, Smith’s Dissertation on the Ships 
of the Ancients, appended to his Voyageand 
Shipwreck of St. Paul. Mr. Pusey informs 
me that Syr. translates apréuwva by ‘ arm- 
non parvum’ (armnon being its word for 
oKevos, ver. 17), and syr. in a note says 
that adpréuwy is “a small armnon at the 
ship’s head.” TH Tveovoy | scil. avpa. 
Dat. commodi;—for the wind (to fill) ;— 
or (according to Meyer and De Wette) 
of direction, —to the wind. (4) They 
made for the beach. The expression, 
Kar éxew [ vabv or vnt] eis... for “to steer 
to land,” is not uncommon in the classics : 
cf. examples in Wetst. It seems to get this 
meaning by a pregnant construction, ‘ to 
keep the ship [ or, to keep one’s course in the 
ship } in hand | and direct it} towards... .” 

41. tétrov 8\8adaccoy | At the west 
end of St. Paul’s Bay is an island, Selmoon 
or Salmonetta, which they could not have 
known to be such from their place of an- 
chorage. This island is separated from the 
mainland by a channel of about 100 yards 
wide, communicating with the outer sea. 
Just within this island, in all probability, 
was the place where the ship struck, in a 
place where two seas met. ér- 
éxethav| émédAAew is used by Homer 


tov mavadov bef diacwoa A 13. 68. 8-pe. 
for te, 5 Cc p 13. 40. 137 syr copt. 


for BovAnuatos, 


(ref.) in the sense of ‘adpellere navem.’ 
Its commoner use is intransitive: see 
Hom. ib. ver. 138, and Apollon. Rhod. ii. 
352, 382; iil. 575. In Od. e. 114, it is 
said of the ship itself, #melpw éméexeAce. The 
éoxéAAe Of the rec. is used several times 
by Thucydides, and has the same twofold 
usage: ef. Thucyd. iii. 12 ; iv. 28; viii. 102 : 
they ran the ship a-ground. « The 
circumstance which follows, would, but for 
the peculiar nature of the bottom of St. 
Paul’s Bay, be difficult to account for. 
The rocks of Malta disintegrate into very 
minute particles of sand and clay, which 
when acted on by the currents, or by sur- 
face agitation, form a deposit of tenacious 
clay : but in still water, where these causes 
do not act, mud is found; butit is only in 
the creeks where there are no éurrents, and 
at such a depth as to be undisturbed by the 
waves, that mud occurs. .. . A ship there- 
fore, impelled by the force of the gale intoa 
creek with a bottom such as that laid down 
in the chart, would strike a bottom of mud, 
graduating into tenacious clay, into which 
the fore part would fix itself and be held 
fast, while the stern was exposed to the 
force of the waves.” Smith, p. 103. 

42.] iva gives not only the purpose, but 
the substance of the BovAy. Their counsel 
was,—to kill, &c.: this it was, and fo this 
it tended. diaptyor has probably been 


ABCLP 
Rabc 
fghk 

mopl 


XXVIII. 1—3. IIPASEIS ATOZTOAON. 


Svvapévous 


Igavicw ois 6€ eri 


XN e i 
Kab OUTWS 


Meritn 1%) vijcos KanetTac. 


7 xo\upBav * atroppiyavtas 
n , \ ‘ \ 
Tv yhv » é&tévat, 4 Kai tods Rowtrod’s © ods pmev eml 


301 


Sie 

ETL % here only +. 
Isa. xxv. 11 
Symm. 
(-Bn9pa, 


John y. 2.) 


T™ p@OTOUS 


TWoV TOV °aTO TOD TMAOLOV, a=andeonstr., 
eyévero wavtas * SvacwOhvar ert THY YH. 
XXVIII. 1 Kai  dtacwbévtes Tote 8 erréyv@pev STL 
9 ivé h / i r 

2 ot te * BapBapos ' rapetyav 


here only. 
Lucian, Ver. 
Hist. i. 30, 
aroppipav= 
TES EVNXO- 
peOa. pass., 
ae vii. 19 


ov THY * tvyovocav 'ditavOpworiav jyivy ™ arpavytes yap »ch.xiii. 42 


reff. 


a \ \ ; aay 
"qupav °mposerdBovto mavtas nuas Sia Tov  veToy °1 Ger x7 


Tov LépeoT@ta Kai Sia TO *Wodyos. 


(not AB). Cant. viii. 9. Ezek. xxvii. 5 only. 

reff. i 

bis. Rom. i. 14. 

2. 1 Tim. vi. 17. 

ch. xxvii. 3.) 

bis only +. Judith vii. 5 al. 
p ch. xiv. 17 reff. 
r John xyiili. 18. 


1 Cor. xiv. 11 (bis). 


2 Cor. xi. 27 only. Gen. viii. 22. 


g constr., Luke vii. 37. ch. xix. 34. xxii. 29. 
Col. iii. 1l only. Ezek. xxi. 31. 
k = ch, xix. 11 reff. 

m = Luke viii. 16. xi. 33. xv. 8 [xxii. 55 vy. r.] only. 
o = Rom. xiv. 1, 

q =here only. 0 éfeatm@s Godos, Polyb. xviii. 3.7. see 2 Tim. iy. 6. 


reff. 
d here only. 

4 Kings xii. 

9 Ed-vat. F 
f constr., ch. iv. 5 
Ezek. xvi. 62. see ch. xxvii. 39. h here 
i= ch. xvi. 16 reff. xxii. 

2 Mace. vi. 22. (-7Tws, 
Judith xiii. 13. n here 
Philem. 17. Ps. xxvi. 10. Ixxii. 24. 


3S gvatpéravtos O€ 


e see ch. xii. 1. xv. 5. 


1 Tit. ili. 4 only +. 
3. xv. 7. 


s here (Matt. xvii. 22 y. r.) only. Judg. 


xi.3B. 2 Mace. xiy. 30. (svotpody, ch. xix. 40.) 


exkoAuuBay B. amopwavtas CR. 


Ts yns XN} c. 


Cuap. XXVIII. 1. aft d:a8wcavres ins o1 wept (Tov) tavAoy ex Tov TAOOS (beginning of an 
ecclesiastical portion) C3-marg Lb gk mo Thl-sif: tov is omd by C8: alii aliter: o1 reps 


T. 7. BapBapo: 1-marg. 


rec emeyvwoay (corrn to suit ch xxvii. 39 ?), with C3-marg 
H'LP rel 36 Chr: txt ABC!8 c! p 13. 187 vulg syrr copt eth. 


BeAiTnvy B!. 


2. rec de (altern of characteristic re), with H™LPR rel 36 copt Chr: txt ABC c p 


18. 40 syrr eth Thl-sif. 


Bavoy &' c¢. 


neas 40. vpectwra L 138. 


a correction to suit éyévero. But the sub- 
junctive after the past is merely a mixture 
of construction of the historic past with the 
historic present, and is used where the 
scene is intended to be vividly set before 
the reader. 43.] amoppivavtas is 
reflective, sc. éavtovs. TOUS 
Aourrovs | scil. ex) thy yijv étvevar. 

TWwev Tov ard T. 7.| probably, as E. V., 
broken pieces of the ship:—some of the 
parts of the ship: the cavides being whole 
planks, perhaps of the decks. dia- 
ow0. eri | may be = diac. x. apixcoOau eri, 
—a constructio pregnans, but this need 
not be, as SiacwO7jvou is to get safe through, 
and érf is simply the direction in which the 
act is carried out. XXVIII. 1. Me- 
ity] The whole course of the narrative 
has gone to shew that this can be no other 
than Maura. The idea that it is not 
Matta, but Meleda, an island off the 
Illyrian coast in the Gulf of Venice, seems 
to be first found in Constantine Porphy- 
rogenitus, de Adminiculis Imperii, p. 36— 
voos meyadAn Ta MéAeta ror TO Mado- 
Ceara, hy ev tats mpateot tT. amoor. 6 
&ywos Aoveads péuvntat, MeAlirny tadrny 
mposayopevwy. It has been adopted by 
our own countrymen, Bryant and Dr. Fal- 
coner, and abroad by Giorgi, Rhoer, and 
more recently Paulus. It rests principally 
on three mistakes :—1. the meaning of the 


[waperxav, so ABN. | 
precise word), with H™LP rel 36 Chr, Thl Qc: txt ABCN p 13. 40. 


rec avawavtes (corrn to more 
TposaveAap- 


om maytas A copt eth Chr-ms: nuas bef ravras 13 lect-12 vss: om 
om 2nd dia XR}. 


name Adria (see above on ch. xxvii. 27),— 
2. the fancy that there are no poisonous 
serpents in Malta (ver. 3),—3. the notion 
that the Maltese would not havebeen called 
BapBapou.  Theidea itself, when compared 
with the facts, is preposterous enough. Its 
supporters are obliged to place Fair Havens 
on the north side of Crete,—and to sup- 
pose the wind to have been the hot Scirocco 
(compare ver.2). Further notices of this 
question, and of the state of Malta at the 
time, will be found in the notes on the fol- 
lowing verses. Observe, their previous state 
of ignorance of the island is expressed by 
the imperf. éreyivwoxor ;—the act of re- 
cognition by the aor. éemréyvwpev. 

2. BapBapo.| A term implying very much 
what our word natives does, when speaking 
of any little-known or new place. They 
were not Greek colonists, therefore they 
were barbarians (Rom. i. 14). If it be 
necessary strictly to vindicate the term, 
the two following citations will do so: 
gore 5& H vijoos attn (Malta) Powikov 
&moos, Diod. Sic. v. 12.—éyv S€ SikeAla 
€0vn BapBapa Tade eoriv, Edvvol, Sixavol, 
Zucedol, Poivixes, TpGes, Scylax, Periplus, 
p. 4. amposeAaB. | received us, not 
to their fire (Meyer), but as in reff. 

tetdv | ‘ Post ingentes ventos solent imbres 
sequi.’ Grot. Tov épeot.| not, ‘which 
came on suddenly’ (Meyer), but which was 


TIPAZEI= ATIOZTOAON. 


302 XxXViE 
thereenly. coy ILaviouv thpuyavwy te “mAnOos Kal éeribévtos emt 
7. Isa. xl. \ n \ v » w 2 \ rn x , a 
th aa, TY Tupay éxyuova “aro Ths * Oépuns ¥ dueEeNOodca 
John xxi. 6. 


“xaOirpev THs yerpos avTod. * ws 6€ eidov oi " BapBapot 
“xpeuduevov TO Onpliov éx THs xKEpos avTOD, Tmpos aNd}- 


v Matt. iii.7 |) L. 
xii. 34. xxiil. 
33 only t. 


Isa. lix. 5 Aq. “0 ¥ é 
w = Matti, Noug EXeyov ?Ilavtws ° hoveds éotw 6 avOpwrros ovTOS, 
dal. Si a ~ ’ ~ 

ae i ov *diacwbévta éx THs Oaracaons 1) © dikn Chv ov«K elacev. 
x here only. e <i; zd 

Jobvilt. 5 9 ev odv tamotiwatas TO Onpiov eis TO Tip Emabev 


(-matveoOar, 

Mark xiv. 54.) » + -. yhere only. Job xx. 25. zhere only+. trans., Polyb. viii. 8. 3, Tas mpwpas 
TOV opyavwv eis akivynTov Ka@ynmTe. So Xen. Cyneg. vi. 9. a ch. vy. 30 reff. 1 Macc. i. 61. b ch. 
xxi. 22 reff. c ch, vii. 52 reff. d see ch. xxiii. 24 reff. e = here (2 Thess. i. 9. Jude 
7) only. Demosth. 422, 11 ; 722, 25. f Luke ix.5only. Judg.xvi.20A. 1 Kings x.2. Lam. 
ii. 7 only. (-aypa, Isa. i. 31, Symm.) 


3. oppuyavwr (but o marked for erasure) XR}. rec om tT (as unnecessary), with 
H'LP rel 36 syr Chr: ins ABCN(perhaps prima manu : in small letters) 13. 40 vulg(not 
am) Thl-fin, re p. emOevTes(sic) X. rec (for amo) ex (see note), with rel Chr 
Thi-sif @e: txt ABCH™LPN b c k 0 p 13. 36. 40. 137 Thl-fin, a calore vulg. rec 
efeA@ovca (corrn, the compound diet. not being elsw found in N T, and its force not 
being seen, vide note), with BCX p 13.36 rel Chr-comm Thl-fin Gc: txt AH*LP ad fg 
k1lo Thl-sif. Kkadnvato C bh o 36. 40. 1387 Chr Phot Niceph. 

4. cidav B. rec edeyov bef mpos aAAnaous (corrn of order for perspicuity), with 
H'LP rel copt Chr (ic: om mpos adAndous Syr: txt ABCN c m p 13. 40. 137 vulg syr 
Thl. om 2nd 77s &?. 

5. arotivatapevos (corrn from ch xiii. 51, xviii. 6? so De W.) AH'L p rel 13. 36. 40. 
137 Chr Thl-fin: txt BPX ac fm Thl-sif He. for kakoy, movnpoy c: om Nt. 


on us:—another instance of overlooking 
the present sense of €o7yka. Woxos | 
This is decisive against the Scirocco, which 
is a hot and sultry wind even so late as the 
month of November, and moreover (Smith, 
p- 109) seldom lasts more than three days. 

3. cvotpéavros | “ vincti officium 
faciebat submisse, aliis quoque inserviens.” 
Bengel. dpvyavev| From the cireum- 
stance of the concealed viper, these were 
probably heaps of neglected wood gathered 
in the forest. émBevtos «.T.A.] The 
difficulty here is, that there are now no 
venomous serpents in Malta. But as Mr. 
Smith observes, “no person who has studied 
the changes which the operations of man 
have produced on the animals of any coun- 
try, will be surprised that a particular 
species of reptiles should have disappeared 
from Malta. My friend, the Rey. Mr. Lands- 
borough, in his interesting excursions in 
Arran, has repeatedly noticed the gradual 
disappearance of the viper from the island 
since it has become more frequented. Per- 
haps there is no where a surface of equal 
extent in so artificial a state as that of 
Malta is at the present day,—and no where 
has the aboriginal forest been more com- 
pletely cleared. We need not therefore be 
surprised that, with the disappearance of 
the woods, the noxious reptiles which in- 
fested them should also have disappeared.” 
pp- 111, 112. The reading é« 7. 0épu. 
has been an explanation of ad, which here 
signifies from /ocally, not ‘ on account of’ 


To suppose the converse (“the amé was 
adopted by those who thought the sense was 
‘on account of the fire,’ Dr. Bloomf.),— 
is simply absurd; for 1) no man eyer could 
suppose the sense of é« in such a connexion 
to be this: and 2) even if any one did, he 
would not have substituted another ambi- 
guous preposition, a7é. Paul had placed 
the faggot on the fire, and was settling 
or arranging it in its place, when the 
viper glided out of the heat and fixed 
on his hand. . Se~eXO. gives the more 
precise sense, and is a less usual word than 
e&eAO. The serpent glided out through the 
sticks. Ka0yWev | attached itself: a 
usage unexampled in earlier Greek. The 
narrative leaves no doubt that the bite did 
veritably take place. 4.| The natives, 
who were sure to know, here positively de- 
clared it to have been a venomous serpent. 
I make these remarks to guard against the 
disingenuous shifts of rationalists and semi- 
rationalists, who will have us believe either 
that the viper did not bite, or that if it did, 
it was not venomous. TavTws ov. 
éot.] ‘vincula videbant,’ Beng. The 
idea of his being a murderer is not to be ac- 
counted for (as Elsner, Wolf, Kuin.) by the 
member which was bitten (for this would 
fit any crime which the hand could commit), 
—nor by supposing (Heinsius) the bite of 
a serpent to have been the Maltese punish- 
ment for murder; it is accounted for by the 
obviousness of the crime as belonging to 
the most notorious delinquents, and the 


ABCLI 
Rabe 

fghk 
mopl 


«esOUK 
evacev ( 
ABLP\ 
abed 
ghk) 
mop! 


4—7. 


> \ , 
ovdev KAKO. 


Oeov. 


lch. ii. 2. xvi. 26 only. Josh. x. 9. 
€Tl TOAD avTéxet, Thuc. 1i. 64. 
p Luke xxiii. 41. ch. xxv. 5. 2 Thess. ii. 2 only. 


IIPAZEI> AMOSTOAQON. 


n absol., ch. xxvii. 33 reff. 
Job iv. 8. 


303 


Sot S€ & mposeddcwov adtov © wédew gob. ii. vot 
‘qriwmpacbar i) * katatinrew | ddvw vexpov. ™ ét ™ ron 
5€ adtav ™ rposdoxovtwv Kai °Oewpovytwv pundéev ? &rorov 
els avToV yivomevov, 4 weTaBadopevoe Edeyov avrov Eivat 


- Xxi. 27 
reff. 

i here only +. 
eVOvs dtorder 
KQL TL- 
TpaTat TO 
Twa, Diod. 
Sic. ii. 12. 


> \ c lal = fl 
T°Ev 6€ ' trois *arept tov Tomov éxelvov § bmApyev take viiis. 
/ fal tA a / e 
‘yopia TO “mpoTw THs vycov, dvowate Tomi, Os 


ch. xxvi. 14 
only. Ps. 
exliy. 14. 
here only. (see ch. xx. 9,11.) 2 Kings iii. 1. pLtcos OvK 
o w. particip., ch. xvii. 16. 
q here only. Josh. viii. 21. Jos. 


B. J. v. 9.3, KaAOY TPO avnKEgTOUV GUMpopas meTaBadr€oGac: and freq. act. inter., Job x. 8. 2 Mace. 


vi. 29 Ed-vat. F(not AB). 
i. 50. see ch. xiii. 13. 
xiii. 50 reff. 


6. mposedoxovy HTL 13. 40 Thi-sif. 
A: -xovtov Lfk p. 


r=here only. npfaTo Tarevvovcba Ta wept Tas OxBas, Diod. Sic. 
s ch. iii. 6 reff. 


t ch. i. 18 reff. u and constr., ch. 


mmpacda Ao! 1. 3. 4. 68 (Ec-ed: metpacbat 
lect-12 : eumympacba 27-9: eumimpacba N! 40. 662. 98-marg 105. 
Oewpovtav N!: Oewpnoayvtay c: Oewpuevwy |. 


rec petaBaddouevor, with H'LN 13 rel: txt ABP bc p 40. 


TposdoKovyTwy 
unBey B. 
eAcyav B. 


rec @eoy bef avrov evo, with H™LP rel Chr Ce: evar avtov Oeov A: avroy Oeov ewan 


ackm 13 Thl-sif: txt BX p vulg Thl-fin. 


aptness of the assumed punishment,—death 
for death. 7 Sixy | Justice, or Nemesis. 
What the Pheenician islanders called her, 
does not appear; but the 7dea is common to 
all religions. 5. | “ Luke does not so 
much as hint, that any divine intervention 
took place.” De Wette. True enough: 
but why? Because Luke believed that the 
very dullest of his readers would understand 
it without any such hint. According, to 
these rationalists, a fortunate concurrence 
of accidents must have happened to the 
Apostles, totally unprecedented in history 
or probability. Besides, did not the natives 
themselves in this case testify to the fact ? 
None were so well qualified to judge of the 
virulence of the serpent,—none so capable 
of knowing that the hanging on Paul’s 
hand implied the communication of the 
venom :—yet they change him from a mur- 
derer into a god, on seeing what took place. 
Need we further evidence, that the divine 
power which they mistakenly attributed to 
Paul himself, was really exerted on his be- 
half, by Him who had said dpets apotou ? 
See below on ver. 8. The fact that St. Luke 
understood what the natives said, is ad- 
duced by Wordsworth as another proof 
(see his and my note on ch. xiv. 11) that 
the Apostles and Evangelists commonly 
understood unknown tongues. But such 
an inference here has absolutely nothing 
to rest on. Are we to suppose that these 
BepBapo. had no means of intercourse 
with Greek sailors ? 6.] Both these, 
the inflammation of the body, and the fall- 
ing down dead suddenly, are recorded as 
results of the bite of the African serpents. 
Mr. Humphry quotes from Lucan, ix. 790, 
‘Nasidium Marsi cultorem torridus agri 


Percussit Prester (an African serpent 
named from this very verb miumpac@a) : illi 
rubor igneus ora Succendit, tenditque cu- 
tem, pereunte figura :’ and, of the bite of 
the asp, ix.815: ‘At tibi, Leve miser, fixus 
precordia pressit Niliaca serpente cruor : 
nulloque dolore Testatus morsus, subita 
caligine mortem Accipis, et somno Stygias 
descendis ad umbras.’ 1 posdokwv- 
tov | not, as K. V., ‘when they had looked,’ 
—but when they were long looking. 
petoBad.| There is no need to 
supply 7. yyéunv, though it is sometimes 
expressed :—so of mAciotot TaY avOpdrwy 
metaBddAAovTa mpos TH mapdytTa, K. Tals 
TtUxais efxovat, Lysias, pro Nicia fratre 
(West.): metaBdArAccOat Soke? kad ovdév 
éxew motov 7 wéAts, Demosth. pro Me- 
galop. (id.),—in neither of which places 
can T. yvéunv well be understood. 
Qeov] “Comparabant vel Herculi qui in 
ulnis adhue jacens angues superavit: vel 
Msculapio, qui cum serpente pingitur.” 
Wetst. and so also Grot. But so muchas 
this can hardly be inferred: nor are we 
sure of the theogony of these Pheenician 
barbarians. 7.| mp@tos Meditalwy 
was probably an official title: the more so, 
as Publius can hardly have borne the appel- 
lation from his estates, during his father’s 
lifetime. Two inscriptions have been found 
in Malta, at Citta Vecchia, which seem to 
establish this view: a Greek one, contain- 
ing the words a(vAos) k(aorpi)Kios Kup. 
MPOvows iWTEVS PW TPWTOS MEALTALwY Kal 
TaTpwy apkas kat aupimoAeus a o (Avyotcte 
ocBaoT@) ew ...- , and a Latin one, 
with the same title, ‘Mel. primus.’ If so 
(and his Roman name further confirms it), 
Publius was legatus of the Pretor of 


304 TIPAHREIS AILOZTOAON. XXVIII. 
vHeb.xi17  Y dyadeEdpevos 1uas Huépas Tpels “ piroppovas * éEévicev. 
io wucas SY éyévero 6€ tov matépa tod Tlowdiov *auperois Kal 
" Here only + 4 dusevtepiw =” cuvexopevoy ° KataxeicBar. mpos ov oO 
xa," TladdNos 4 elsehOwv, Kal © mposevEapevos, ' émueis tas 
eet 8 yeipas av’T@, idcato avtov. % TovTov Sé yevouévou Kat 
5 ae of NouTrot of ev TH vijtw ExovTes § dobevelas TposynpyovTO 
x ch. x. 28 ref. cat  @beparrevovto, '9 of kat mrodXais 3 Tywais J ériwnoav 
o Mat nuas, Kat * avaryopévots | érrébevto ™ Ta ™ mrpos Tas ™ ypelas. 


‘ 
K avnyOnuev ev TOlw © Tapa- 
Luke iv. 38. viii. 37, 45 
Prov. vi. 9. 


iv. 52 only. 


11 + 3) aes 
Deut. xxviii. Mera o€ Tpels ByVas 


22 only. (-é€o@ev, Matt. viii. 14.) , ahere only +t. 
al. Job iii. 24. see 2 Cor. vy. 14 reff. (-ox7, 2 Cor. ii. 4.) 


b = Matt. iv. 24. 
c = Marki. 30. John vy. 3, 6. 


dw. ™pos, ch. xi. 3 reff. e absol., ch. x. 9 reff. f ch. viii. 17 reff. g = Matt. viii. 17. Luke 
v. 15 al. fr. 2 Macc. ix. 21, 22. h ch. viii. 7 reff. i = Rom. xiii. 7 (see note). j Sir. 
Xxxviii. 1. k ch. xiii. 13 reff. 1= here only. Xen. Cyr. viii. 2. 4. m Luke xiy. 32. xix. 
42. 2 Pet.i. 3. n ch. xx. 34 reff. o ch. xxvii. 12 reff. 


7. rec tpets bef nuepas, with AHTLPN p (13) rel 36 Chr Thl @c: om a 69: txt Be 

k m 40. 137. 
8. rec dusevrepia, with p rel 36 Chr: -repiois 13: -ais 25. 40: txt ABH'LPN m. 
arposcAdwy P. aft mposevé., evtauevos is repeated by B', but marked for 


erasure. 
9. ree for de, ovy (seemingly more natural copula), with H™LP rel 36 Thl Ge: txt 


ABIN ¢ gk p 18. 40. 187 syr copt Chr. aft yevou. ins vy.ovs Hr, om 1st 
ka B. ree exovtes acbeveras bef ev Ty vnow, with H™LP rel 36 Syr Chr: txt 
ABIX km p 13. 40 vulg Syr copt Thl-fin. mponpxov Bb. 

10. om o P 73 lect-13. for ta, tas A137: om XN}. rec THY xpetav (Meyer 
thinks tas xpewas a gloss for ta xpos Thy xpetav,—De W., that the plur has crept in 
Srom ch xx. 34. But Bornemann rightly objects (1) that the tas preceding in A 137 
shews the transcriber’s eye to have passed on to tas of tas xpeias in earlier copies, (2) 
that the use of the plur is much rarer than of the singular : see also note), with H'LP 


p rel 36 Chr: txt ABIX 18. 40. 137 vulg syr. 


11. nxOnuev HX a db! k 1 m 0. 
p? 43. 


Sicily, to whose province Malta belonged; 
see Cic. in Ver. ii. 4. 18. 7pas | 
Hardly perhaps more than Paul and 
his companions, and, it may be, Julius. 
At ver. 10, a special reason had occurred 
for his honouring Paul and his company : 
at present, his hospitality must have been 
prompted by the courtesy of Julius, who 
could hardly fail himself to be included in 
it. The three days were probably till they 
could find a suitable lodging. 8. 1v- 
petots] Hippocrates also uses the plural. 
It probably indicates the recurrence of 
fever fits. Susevtepiw | Susevrepla, Ar- 
TiK@s* -piov, “EAAnves. Moeris ;—dysen- 
tery. Dr. Falconer makes this an argument 
against ‘Melita Africana’ being meant. 
“Such a place, dry and rocky, and remark- 
ably healthy, was not likely to produce a 
disease which is almost peculiar to moist 
situations.” But Mr. Smith answers, that 
the changed circumstances of the island 
might produce this change also: and be- 
sides, that he is informed by a physician of 
Valetta, that the disease is by no means 
uncommon in Malta. érBeis Tt. 
xetpas ai’t@] It is remarkable, that so 


dioskopois Pl(corrd appy eadem manu) b 


soon after the ‘taking up of serpents,’ we 
should read of Paul having ‘ laid his hands 
on the sick and they recovered.’ See the 
two in close connexion, Mark xvi. 18. 

10. tyzats| The ordinary interpretation 
of this as rewards, gifts, may be right, 
but is not necessary. In all the passages 
quoted to support it, ref. Sir., Cicero, ad 
Diversos, xvi. 9 (‘Curio misi ut medico 
honos haberetur ’), the expression Tim is 
general, and the context renders an in- 
ference probable as to what sort of riwh is 
meant. See especially 1 Tim. v. 3,17 and 
notes. Here there is no such unavoidable 
indication, whereas the other meaning 
is rendered probable by the form of the 
sentence, which opposes to these rimal, 
bestowed on them during their whole stay, 
7a mpds T. xpeias, with which they were 
loaded at their departure. Render it there- 
fore honoured us with many honours 
(or ‘ distinctions,’ or ‘ attentions’). Thy 
xpelay has perhaps been an alteration after 
St. Paul’s Grat x. dis eis thy xpelay por 
éréuare, Phil. iv. 16. 11.] They 
probably set sail (see on ch. xxvii. 9) not 
earlier than the sixth of the ides of March 


I em- 
Gets... 
ABIL 
Nabe 
fgh} 
mop 


8—15. IIPAR EIS AIITOSTOAQON. 305 
KexeyaxoTe év TH viow, “AreEavdpivw, » Tapacnpe Prete onlys, | 
vs : , 
Avosxovpois. 1? Kai Ixataybévtes eis Yupaxovoas * em q =o xxvii. 
ES = : ; 3 (xxiii. 15 
emeivapev ryuépas pets: 13 bOev § repreh@ovtes * KaTHvTI | FH). 
capev els “Pryioy Kat peta pilav nuépay “ éruyevopévov * Tex Mis, 
ya ee w a ” b) , 14) 2 ro iy Heb. xi. 37. 
votou “ deutepator 7jOopev eis Llotiddous, | ob ebpdvTes only. “iovi. 


aden hors 


e / \ A > \ ¢ / ” 
emMTa Kal YouTas eis THV Paopnv jOapev. 


t ch. xvi. 1 reff. 


x 10 ’ > ad r2 lal ¢ / 
*qTapekAnUnpmevy Tap autos * eTripetvar nwepas ii* oni 


En. Jer. 47 
only, but not 
=. mvev- 


1b KaKxetOev 


e 5) 5) , \ \ e 
OL aodedpol aKovoavTes *TA *TeEpl Hudv AAOaY Els patos ém- 
evo.evou, 
Thucyd. iv. 30. v ch. xxvii. 13 reff. w here only. see John xi. 39. 1 Kings 
ix. 20. Xen. Cyr. v. 2. 2, beg. x constr., ch. xiii. 42, but pass. here only. y = Rom. 
y. 12 reff. Zz eed xxiv. 10 reff. 


12. cupaxovceas B(Tischdf). 


Thl-fin. 
(sic) A. 


nuepats Tpiow B. 
14. rec (for wap) ew, with H™LP rel Chr Thl-sif Qe: 
emmevavtes Ht ¢ 137 syr(adding apud eos with ast) Thl: 
rec nA@ouer, with HIP p rel 36: 


18. mepicAovres BN}. 
txt ABIX d m! p 13. 36. 40 
eTLMLeLvaL 


essnAOouey Li: txt ABN.—nAO. bef 


ets (THv) pwuny AI p 13. 40 vulg arm.—om ryv AL ab cho 18. 40. 137 Thl-fin. 


15. om a: B 96. 


Ge. Mar. 10). Tapacyp@ Atos- 
Kovpots | with the sign (of) the Dioscuri, 
as dvéuatt TlomwAlw, ver.7; not, ‘with the 
Dioscuri as a sign. So in the inscription 
found by the Rev. G. Brown at Lutro 
(Pheenice) in Crete, given at length in the 
excursus at the end of the prolegg. to Acts, 
we have “ gubernator navis parasemo Iso- 
pharia.” The ancient sbips carried at their 
prow a painted or carved representation of 
the sign which furnished their name, and 
at the stern a similar one of their tutelar 
deity. Sometimes these were one and the 
same, as appears to have been the case 
with this ship. Cyril, in Cat., says, @os 
Gel mws ev tats “AActavdpéwy pddiora 
vaio. mpds ye TH mpadpyn Seki Te Kal eis 
evovuna ypapas elvat To.av’tas. See Virg. 
fin. x. 209; Ovid, Trist. i. 9. 1; Pers. 
Sat. vi. 30. Castor and Pollux, sons of 
Jupiter and Leda, were considered the 
tutelar deities of sailors. See Hor. Od. 
1.3.2; 12.28. 12. ] Syracuse is about 
eighty miles, a day’s sail, from Malta. 
18.]| meptehOdvres apparently denotes the 
roundabout course of a vessel tacking with 
an adverse wind. That the wind was 
not favourable, follows from émyevouévou 
below. Mr. Lewin’s account is, ‘‘as the 
wind was westerly, and they were under 
shelter of the high mountainous range of 
Etna on their left, they were obliged to 
stand out to sea in order to fill their sails, 
and so came to Rhegium by a circuitous 
sweep.” And he cites a case of a passage 
from Syracuse to Rhegium, in which a 
similar circuit was taken for a similar 
reason, p. 736. The day at Rhegium, as 
perhaps the three at Syracuse before, was 
spent probably in waiting for the wind. 
emvy. vor. | the South wind having 
sprung up,—succeeded the one which blew 
Vou. II. 


rec e€)A0ov, with H™LP rel 36 syrr xth-pl Chr : 


txt ABIX 


before. Sevtepator | viz. after leaving 
Rhegium: a distance of about 180 nautical 
miles. IIotidAovs | Puteoli (anciently 


Dicearchia, Strab. v. 4, now Puzzuoli) 
was the most sheltered part of the bay 
of Naples. It was the principal port of 
Southern Italy, and, in particular, formed 
the great emporium for the Alexandrian 
wheat ships. Strabo, xvii. 1. Seneca (Ep. 
77) gives a graphic account (cited by Smith, 
p- 117) of the arrival of the Alexandrine 
fleet at Puteoli: “Subito nobis hodie Alex- 
andring naves apparuerunt, que preemitti 
solent et nuntiare secuture classis adyen- 
tum; tabellarias vocant. Gratus illarum 
adspectus Campaniz est. Omnis in pilis 
Puteolorum turba constitit, et ex ipso 
genere velorum, Alexandrinas quamvis in 
magna turba navium intelligit, solis enim 
licet supparum (the topsaz/) intendere quod 
in alto omnes habent naves. Nulla enim 
res eeque adjuvat cursum, quam summa 
pars veli; illinc maxime navis urgetur. 
Itaque quoties ventus increbuit majorque 
est quam expedit, antenna submittitur, 
minus habet virium flatus ex humili: cum 
intrare capreas et promontorium ex quo 
‘ Alta procellos speculatur vertice Pallas,’ 
cetera velo jubentur esse contente, sup- 
parum Alexandrinarum insigne est.” 
14.] These Christians were perhaps Alex- 
andrines, as the commerce was so con- 
siderable between the two places. 
ovtas! after this stay with them: imply- 
ing that the request was complied with. 
15.|] The brethren at Rome had 
heard probably by special message sent by 
some of their fellow-voyagers. See a de- 
tailed account of the stages of the journey 
not here mentioned, in C. and H. ii., pp. 
438 ff. 7G Tept Hav | the news con- 


cerning us, i.e. that we were coming. 
x 


306 IIPAZEITS ATOZTOAON. XXVIII. 
a(aN.Tal aaravTnow Hiv »ayps ’“Anmlov Popov xai Tpiav Ta- 
Mies. Bépvaev, ods idwv 6 Iladdos ° ebyapiotijcas TH Od EhaBev 
'kingsix. 4 Odpgos. 
Matt sn 16’Ore O€ eisnprAOowev eis ‘Pounv, *” éretparn TO 
© Rom. sre. LlavA@ pevew ixa® éavtov ov te * duddooovte 
ere only. 


avad. @., Job xvii. 9. (-wetv, ch. xxiii. 11.) 
g here only +. 

xiv. 22, 
p 40 copt wth. [-@av, so BIX.] (13 def.) 
nuoyvledgkop 13. 36. 40 Thi-sif: vaw X}. rec axpis, with HtILP rel 36: 
txt ABX p 13. aft axp1, m was written by 8}, but marked and erased. 

16. rec jA@ouer (the force of the compound not being regarded), with LP rel 36 vulg 
syr Chr Thl He: 7AGov H': txt ABIN d m p 13. 40 Syr copt eth. (-@auey A, but not 
BIN rel.) ins Tv bef pwuny LX?}(N3 disapproving) ¢ 137 lect-12 3-pe. 

*ree aft pwyny ins 0 éxaTovTapyos © TapédwKe Tovs ! decpious TO 
& otpatoTeddpyy(-yo HLP g! [k?]1m), going on T@ O€ LLavAw érretparn, 
with H'LP rel 36 syr-w-ast Thl Gc: om ABIX p 40 vulg (Syr) arm Chr. (13 def, but 


e = ch. xxvii. 1 reff. 
i James ii. 17 only. 


f ch. xvi. 25, 27 reff. 
h = and constr., ch. xxvi. 1 reff. Gen. xliii. 32. see Rom. 


k = ch, xii. 4 reff. 


vravrnow &!: cuvavtnow g. 


*Anntov Popov x. T. TaBepvav} Drusus, says, “ipsum quippe asperrimo 


Luke writes as one of the travellers to 
Rome, who would come on Appii Forum 
(forty-three miles from Rome) first. It 
was on the Via Appia (“ Censura clara eo 
anno (U.c. 442) Appii Claudii, et C. Plautii 
fuit : memorize tamen felicioris ad posteros 
nomen Appii, quod viam munivit et aquam 
in urbem duxit, eaque unus_perfecit.” 
Liv. ix. 29), which leaving Rome by the 
Porta Capena, passed through the Pontine 
marshes, as far as Capua. Being not far 
from the coast (Strabo, v. 233), it was the 
resort of sailors (‘ Forum Appi differtum 
nautis, cauponibus atque malignis.? Hor. 
Sat. 1.5.3. It has been suggested to me, 
that these may have been sailors belonging 
to the canal boats, as Appii Forum is too 
far inland to have been resorted to by 
sailors from the coast), and an unpleasant 
halting-place for travellers, having, besides, 
‘aqua deterrima’ (ib. ver. 7). The 
‘Tres Taberne’ was a ‘taberna deversoria,’ 
or way-side inn, ten miles nearer Rome. 
Cicero mentions both in the letters to 
Atticus, ii. 10, ‘Ab Appii Foro hora 
quarta: dederam aliam paullo ante Tribus 
Tabernis.’ The brethren were in two 
parties: some had come the longer, others 
the shorter distance, to meet the Apostle. 
We have in Jos. Antt. xvii. 12. 1, an ac- 
count of the pretended Alexander, on his 
way to Rome, landing at Dicwarchia (Pu- 
teoli, see above), and it is added, ™poseA- 
Odvtos eis thy ‘Péuny Adyou Tov sep) 
avrov, may Td THe “lovdalwy mAOos 
bravrid(ovres ebijerav. Suet. relates, on 
Caligula’s return from Germany, “populi R. 
sexum, wtatem, ordinem omnem usque ad 
vicesimum lapidem effudisse se.” Cal. ce. 4. 
And Tacit. Ann. iii. 5, speaking of the 
honours paid by Augustus to the body of 


hiemis Ticinum usque progressum, neque 
abscedentem a corpore simul urbem intra- 
visse.”” @épcos | Both encouragement 
as to his own arriva/, as a prisoner, in the 
vast metropolis,—in seeing such affection, 
to which he was of all men most sensible ; 
and encouragement as to his great work so 
long contemplated, and now about to com- 
mence in Rome,—in seeing so promising a 
beginning for him to build on. 16. | 
[ The omission of the words 6 éxat.... . to 
oTpatomeddpxw(-xn) may have been origi- 
nally caused by the transcriber’s eye pass- 
ing from -apxos to -apxw, as in Syr. (* per- 
misit centurio Paulo’): this done, the 
emendation of the text so as to construe by 
ejecting 6 éxatdévrapxos was obvious. 

It does not follow, from the singular being 
used, that there was but one preefectus pre- 
torio at this time, and that one Burrus ;— 
though it may have been so. The prefect 
mentioned might be one of the two who 
preceded Burrus, or one of the two who 
followed him—so that no chronological 
datum is here contained (against Wieseler, 
who builds upon it: Chron. der Apostg. 
p- 86). He attempts to meet the above 
argument by accounting it improbable that 
the prisoners would be consigned to either 
of the prefects ; this may have been so,— 
but they certainly would be delivered to 
one, not to both; and the fact might well 
be thus related. Luke is not so precise in 
Roman civil and military matters, as that 
he necessarily should in this case have 
written év) Trav orpatoreddpxav. The 
‘prefectus pretorio’ was the person offi- 
cially put in charge with the prisoners sent 
from the provinces: so Plin. Epp. x. 65, 
“ Vinctus mitti ad preefectos preetorii mei 
debet.” The praetorian camp was out- 


ABI] 
Rab 
fgh 
mop 


oT 
13 


16—21. 


> \ / VY l 5] , 
QUTOY OTPATLWTN. EYEVETO 


™guyKkanécac0at avtov todvs dvtas TaV “lovdalwy 


TIPABRIS AIOZTOAON. 


307 


\ \ Che a 
1 constr., ch. iv. 
5é peta Huepas TpEls i constr 
m mid., ch. x. 
24 reff, 
n ch, xiii. 50 


” Tp@- 


Tous’ °auvedOdvtwy dé avtav éEXeyev Tpos avTovs "Kya, — eit 


aivdpes pc ae ovdev Pévavtiov Toujcas TA NA® 1) ToIS 
o- Lébeaw Tois 'TatTp@ols, * déop.os €& ‘Tepooodtuav ' Twap- 
i 7 e008 els Tas xetpas TOV ‘Pwpuaiwv, 18 oftwes * avaxpl- 
vavtés pe €BovAovTO Y aTroNDaat Sia TO pendeuiay * aitiav 


w 6 , x £ ‘ ? > / 
avatov *tmapyew ev émol. 

’ / , Z > / fal 

lovdaiwy * nvayxdoOnv 


19 ¥ ayTineyovT@Y O€ TOV 
* érixarésac0ar Kaloapa, ovy *: 


o = ch. i. 6 reff. 
p = ch. xxvi. 9 
rs 


reff. 

q ch. vi. 14 reff. 

rch. xxii. 3 
reff. 

s ch, xvi. 25, 

27 reff. 

t ch. xxi. 11. 
Matt. xvii. 22 
al, Job xvi. 
12. 


u ch, iv. 9 reff. 


>@s Tov EOvovs pou °éywv Te IxaTnyopety. 29 dia TadTyp | rf 


9S \ ee e / c la) 
ovv THY aiTiay ° TapEeKdrETa UULaS 
évexev yap THs 
 trepixerpmat. 


ll. Gal. ii. 3,14. 1 Mace. ii. 25. 
e constr., ch. xxi. 13. xxiii. 17, 18. 


f (Seiv Kal ® Tposhadjoat 
hé\midos Tod “lopanr tiv ddvow tavTny 
91 ei \ \ SLs. 3 ¢ lal ” 

21 oi S€ mpos avTov eimav “Hyeis ove 


Luke vii. 40. xii. 50. Winer, $ 44. 3. 


x ch, vill. 16 
reff, 

y Luke xx. 27. 
ch. xiii. 45, 
Rom. x. 21. 
L.P., exc. 
John xix. 12. 
Hos. iy. 4, 

z= ch. xxvi. 

= ch, xxiii. 15 reff. 
d ch. xxiv. 2 reff. 


ach. xxv. 11 reff. 


e = here ‘only. Xen. Cyr. i. 5. 7, buds Tapexadera, f =ch. xvi. 40, Luke viii. 20al. 4 Kings 
Vili. 29. g ch. xiii. 43 only. Exod. iy. 16 AB2,. Wisd. xiii. 17 only. h constr. w. gen. 
of pers., 2 Cor. i. 6. Phil. i. 20. Ps. Ixiv. 6. ich xii. 6 reff. k Luke xvii. 
2\|Mk. Heb. vy. 2. xii. lonly+. 4 Macc. xii. 3. 


has not space enough for the addition.) 
mapeuBoAns 137 demid syr-w-ast. 


for eavt., avtov B. add efw tys 


17. rec for avtov, tov mavdoy, with H'LP rel Syr eth: txt ABIN k p 13. 36. 40. 137 


vulg syr copt Chr,. 
copt arm Thl-fin.—for eyw, Aevyev 


we X'(N3 disapproving). 


19. aft sovdaiwy ins Kat emixpaCovTwy ape Tov exOpov nuwy c 137 syr-w-ast. 


wou ins ov (but marked and erased) X?! 
txt ABN p 13. 40. 
syr-w-ast. 

20. mapexarAceoay (but v erased) N?. 
so &, but ¢ erased. 


de aft cuveA@. is written twice by Nl. 
abdeApo: bef eyw, with H™LP rel 36 Syr Chr: 
(but corrd). 
18. ins woAAa bef avakpivaytes c 137 syr-w-ast. 


rec avdpes 
txt ABI(N) ¢ p 13. 40.137 vulg syr 
add 


avaxpworTes X}. 


aft 
rec katnyopygat, with H'LP rel 36 Chr: 


add aAA wa AvTpwowmat THY WuxnY mou ek Bavatov c 137 


for mposd., AaAnoa H". ewexey A, 


21. The greater part of this ver is def in P, and smaller portions of vv 22 and 23. 


[eurav, so ABH'R p. | 


side the Porta Viminalis, where it had been 
fixed and fortified by Sejanus: see Tacit. 
Ann. iv. 2.] ewetpary TO II.] This 
permission probably resulted from the let- 
ters of Festus, expressing that no crime 
was laid to the charge of Paul; perhaps 
also partly from the favour of Julius, and 
his report of the character and bearing of 
Paul on the journey. oTpaTisTy | a 
Pretorian, to whom he was chained; see 
below, ver. 20; and note on ch. xxiv. 23. 

17.| The banishment of Jews from Rome 
(ch. xviii. 2) had either tacitly or openly 
been abrogated some time before this. Pris- 
cilla and Aquila had returned when the 
Epistle to the Romans was written, Rom. 
xvi. 3. Paul was naturally anxious to 
set himself right with the Jews at Rome— 
to explain the cause of his being sent there, 
in case no message had been received by 
them concerning him from Judza,—and to 
do away if possible with the unfavourable 


4 


prejudice which such letters, if received, 
would have created respecting his character. 
The fact of his sending for them, and 
their coming to him, seems to shew (as in 
the gloss on ver. 16: see digest) that he 
was not imprisoned in the Praetorian camp, 
but was already in a private lodging. 
18. €Bovd. Aroktoar] This may have been 
at ch.xxv.8. The possibility of such a re- 
lease is asserted by Agrippa, ch. xxvi. 32. 
19.] ‘My appeal was a defensive 
and necessary step—not an offensive one, 
to complain of my nation.’ The inf. 
aor. of the rec. would point to some one de- 
Jinite charge: katnyopetv means ‘to play 
the accuser against my nation in any 
thing:’ indicating the habit. 20. | 
mapexddera is here in its primary mean- 
ing, I shave called you to me. 
$14 Tavr. T. air., for the reason just stated : 
because I have no hostile feeling to my 
nation. Then évexev yap... adds another 


X 2 


308 


1 = here only. 
(Luke xvi. 6, 
7. Gal. vi. 


m absol., ch. 
xvii. 10 reff. 
n = ch. xxii. 5. 
Deut. xv. 3. 


aS 


xiv. 26. 
q ch. v. 17 reff. 


IIPABEI> AITOSTOAON. 


XXVIEE 


| ypdupata Tept gov édeEducOa ao THs ‘Tovdalas, ouUTE ABLP: 
2c. ™ mrapayevopevos TUS TOV » aBeNPav amrnyyethev mn énd- 
Ancev TL TEPL Tod ToVNpOV. 
akodcar & ? dpoveiss mepl pev yap Ths Yaipécews Tav- 
TyvwoTov auiv eat OTL 
23° raEamevor O€ avT@ Hucpav * AOov mpos adbTov Eis TV 


22 °aEoducv S€ Tapa cov 


Stravtaxov * avTideyeTat. 


Da esis! ¥ / Ww / eS) r , \ 

rch. xiii Eeviav mAreloves, ois * éEeTiOeTo Y SiawapTupopevos THY 
. xvii. 30 a) a /, b) \ \ an? fa 

a “ Bacirelav tov * Oeod, *meiOwy TE avTovs Trept ToD Inaod 

t ver. 19. 

uch. xv. 2. Matt. xxviii. 6. constr., here only. Job xiv. 13. Tovs ddpous Tots "EAAnot Tatas, Blian, Var. 
Hist. xi. 9 y Philem. 22 only+. lian, Var. Hist. iii. 37. w ch. ii. 40 reff. ~ ch. 
xi. 4 reff. y ch, viii. 25 reff. constr., ch. xxiii. 11 reff. z ch. xix. 8 reff. aw. TEpt, 
here only. 


edetaueda bef rept cov AP 13 vulg wth-pl Thl-fin: txt BH'LX p rel 36 syrr Chr Thl- 


sif (ie.—for mrepi, kata &. 


22. axovoa bef mapa cov LX b d o 40 wth: 


om akovea 13.—for mapa, wept Hr’. 


rec eotiv bef nu, with H™LP rel vulg spec syr copt Chr Thl-sif Ge: txt ABN 


kmp 1s. 40 Thl-fin.—vuiy p. 


23. * rec 7Kov, with H™LP rel Chr Thl Ec: Aéov ABN k p 13. 36. 40. (nA9ay A.) 


diaaprupovuevos p 36 Thl-fin: 


vos A. om Ist Te R!: Kae wreOwy A. 


Siauaptupamevor X!: 
rec ins Ta bef wep: (as rec in ch viii. 12, and™ 


-pawevos 3: mapareWeue- 


tat in ch xix. 8), with L rel Chr Th] @e: om ABH" ac p 13. 36. 40. 137 vulg spec. 


motive; for not only so, but I may well 
wish to see and speak with you, being a 
prisoner for the hope of Israel (see ch. 
xxvi. 6, and notes). 21.] It may 
seem strange that they had received no 
tidings concerning him. But, as Meyer 
well remarks, (1) before his appeal, the 
Jews in Judea had no definite reason to 
communicate with the Jews in Rome re- 
specting him, having no expectation that 
Paul, then a prisoner in Juda, and the 
object of their conspiracies there, would 
ever go to Rome, or come into connexion 
with their brethren there. And (2) since 
his appeal, it would have been hardly pos- 
sible for them to have sent messengers who 
should have arrived before him. For his 
voyage followed soon after his appeal (ch. 
xxv. 13; xxvii. 1), and was so late in the 
year, that for the former reason it is as 
unlikely that any deputation from them 
should have left before him, as for the 
latter, after him. Had any left within a 
few days, the same storm would have in all 
probability detained them over the winter, 
and they could not certainly have made a 
much quicker voyage than Paul’s ship to 
Puteoli. Still, as casual, non-official tidings 
might have reached them, Paul shewed this 
anxiety. It appears, however, that none 
had come. Olshausen’s view, that the 
banishment of the Jews from Rome under 
Claudius had interrupted the relations 
between the Roman and Judwxan Jews, is 
hardly probable : see on ver. 17. 22. | 
The 6€ and wey are inverted : “uy si 
dicitur non sequente 6, aut intelligi potest 
d¢, aut omittitur illa pars orationis in qua 


sequi debebat dé, quee aliquando precedit.” 
Herm. ad Viger., p. 839. It precedes, be- 
cause it connects with the foregoing. 
a&. mapa cov, we beg of thee: see reff. 
Tis aip. tavt. | To which they perhaps 
inferred that Paul belonged, from ver. 20: 
or they might have heard thus much gene- 
rally respecting him by rumour, though 
they had received no special message. 
Their short notice of Christianity is perhaps 
the result of caution, seeing as they did the 
favour shewn by the authorities towards 
Paul (see Hackett, p. 392): or perhaps of 
dissimulation. Many Commentators 
have noticed the omission of all mention 
of the Christian Church at Rome, and of 
Paul’s connexion with or work amongthem. 
And some recently in Germany (e.g. Bauer) 
have called in question the credibility of 
the Acts on this account. But without any 
reason: for the work of the Apostle among 
churches already founded is not the sub- 
ject of our history, and is seldom related 
by Luke, without a special reason. Of 
the three years at Ephesus (ch. xx. 31),— 
the year and a half (ch. xviii. 11), and 
three months (ch. xx. 3) at Corinth, we 
know from the narrative nothing that 
took place among the Christians them- 
selves. Besides, one great object of this 
history is to shew forth Paul as working 
out the Lord’s implied command (ch.i. 8), 
to preach the Gospel ‘to the Jew first, and 
also to the Gentile,’ and, having every 
where done this, it is but natural that he 
should open his commission in Rome by 
assembling and speaking to the Jews. 
28. 7. Eeviav] Probably the ple@wpa of 


ed 


-op- 
NT Lave 
}ELP 
bed 
hkl 
»pls 


22—28. 


b 


de d 


T pat 


idoopat avtous. 


” / la) fal fal 
eOverw “amteotadyn TodTo TO “X owTHpiov Tod Ocov" avTot 


Kat Y akovoovtTat™. 


n ch. iii. 21 reff. 
vi. 9, 10. 


0 ch, iii. 25 reff. 


IIPAREIS ATIOSTOAON. 


98 Vv \ i e lal y+ ef a 
oo YV@OTOV OVVY UMLVY EDOTM OTL TOLS 


r = Matt. xiii. 15 (from 1. c.) only. 
l. c.) only. Gen. xxxi. 35. 2 Mace. xi. 1. xiv. 27 only. 


309 


> , a , a a 
amo Te TOU °vowov Movaéws kai TdY ° TpodnTay, 4 amd >>. xvi. « 


ech, xiii. 15 


7 € , 94, \ e Ne fal ff. 

éws “féamépas. % cal oi peév § érre(Oovto TOIS NE- a5'‘Kings xxii, 

lA e be bp. / 95 i > 7 Ni 86 \ 35. c 

YOMEVOLS, OL OE “NTICGTOVY. ~ acvppavot O€ dvTES 7 OG) © Mavs aa) 

> A - iA Ud a n © 

aXAnrous ‘atredvovto eirovtos tod Ilavdov | pa |} & 

av Lal X Lal \ / 

OTe ™Kahas TO TvEdMa TO dytov " éXarnoev Sia “Hoaiov 
Lal t 2 ‘\ nw 

TOU TpopyTtov Tpos Tos ° TaTépas ° Huav 26 P Aéywv 4 LLopev- 

\ \ an \ fal , 

Ont mpos Tov adv TodTOV Kal eiov’AKon aKovceTE Kal “16. 
? \ n , \ 

ov pa) ovvyte Kal Brérrovtes BrEWeTe Kal ov pr SnTe. 

9 / \ ' Lal Lal an 

“i *érrayvvOn yap » Kapoia TOD aod ToUTOV, Kal Tots 

>’ \ s , BA \ \ >? \ > fa) 

aol * Bapews Kovoav, Kat Tors dhOarpors adTav 
’ / , n > fal fal 

‘éxappvoay pntote lowaly Tots obOarmois Kal Tols woly 

4 \ a fal , 
aKkovowow Kal TH Kapdia cvvecw Kai “ émioTpéoow Kal 


xx.lal. Gen. 
Xxxii. 24, 

y f Luke xxiv. 29, 
ch. iy. 3 only. 
Lev. xi. 24. 

g = Luke xvi. 
31. ch. xvii. 


h Mark xvi. 11, 

Luke 
xxiv. 11, 41. 
Rom. iii. 3. 
2 Tim, ii. 13 
only+. Wisd. 
Kaideale 

i here only +. 
Wisd. xviii. 
10 only. 
ao. 7p. 
adAyAous, 
aed Sic. iv. 


k = ch. xiii. 3 
reff, 

1 Matt. xxvii. 
14. see Matt. 
xxi. 24. 

m = Matt. xv. 
Tal. Jer.i. 

2. 


p constr., Rev. iv. 7,8 al, see ch. xxi. 23. q Isa, 
Deut. xxxii. 15. s Matt. xiii. 15 (from 
t Matt. xiii. 15 only. , Isa. 1. c. xxix.10. Lam, 


ili. 44 only. u = ch. ili. 19 reff. v ch. xiii. 38 reff. w see ch. xiii. 26. 
x = Luke ii, 30. iii. 6. Eph. vi. 17 only. Ps. xevii. 2, Isa. Ix. 6. y fut. mid., John y. 25, 28. other - 
wise, Acts (ch. iii. 22, 23. xvii. 32) only. Num. ix. 8. z ch. xy. 7 (reff.) only +. 


24. aft wey ins ovy N}. 
25. for Ist de, re N?. 


for dia, wept RX}. 


wT, T. TaTEpas vnwy bef dia yo. T. 


mpop. A.—rec quwy (most prob altered to conform it to Paul’s being a Jew, and to the 
tone of his other speeches: not as Meyer and Bornemann, altered to vm. to distinguish 
him from the Jews, or because the speech was solely addressed to Jews. The vu. here 
has an important and characteristic meaning), with H'LP rel 36 vulg spee copt Chr 
Thl Gic Ambr Jer: om syr: txt ABN k p 13. 40 Syr Ath Cyr-jer Bas Did Vig Quest. 

26. rec Aeyov, with AH? rel 36 Chr Gc: txt BLP f13 Thl, rec ee (com- 
moner form), with ec Thl Gc: txt ABEH™LPX p 13 rel Chr. akovonre and 
Breyqte AE p 13 Thi-sif: -cere and -/yre H™X® Bas: txt BLPN! rel 36 Chr Thl-fin 
Me. ouveite Lp Thi-fin: cumere 13. 

27. <Bapuyéy XR}. aft 1st wow ins avrey AX b do 13 tol (Syr) «th-pl arm 
Thl-fin Jer,(om,) Vig. om Ka Ty Kapdia cuywow Nl}. emLoTpeWouow 
AE p Thl-fin. rec tac@ua (so in Matt xiii. 15), with E p 13 Chr Ge: txt 
ABHTLPR g! 1 137 Sev Thl. 

28. rec eotw bef vu, with AEHTLPR rel: txt B m p. ree om Tovto (as wnneces - 
sary ?), with EHtLPN? tol eth Th] dic: ins ABN! ¢ p 13.36. 40 vulg E-lat syrr copt Chr. 


A A , cr) a 
[29. *ree ins Kal TadTa avTod eitrovTos aTHAOov ot lovdator, moNArjV 


éyovtes év EauvTots * cuontTnow, with HtLP rel 36 syr-w-ast «th Chr Thi Ec: 
om ABEN c p 13.40 am(with demid fuld &c) spec Syr copt. (Ju the paucity of uncial 


ver. 30: hardly, as Olsh., the house of 
Aquila. ae(8wv | persuading: not 
‘ teaching, as Kuin., nor ‘ trying to per- 
suade.’ Meyer well remarks,— Paul, on his 
part, subjectively, performed that indicated 
by wef@ew; that this did not produce its 
objective effect in ali his hearers, does not 
alter the meaning of the word. 25. 
eirdvtos | they departed, but not before 
Paul had said one saying. It is very 
remarkable, that the same prophetic quota- 
tion with which our Lord opened his teach- 
ing by parables, should form the solemn 
close of the historic Scriptures. 26. | 


the mopedd. k. eimdy is referred to himself 
in his application of the prophecy. These 
words are not cited by our Lord (Matt. xiii. 
14). 28.] TrovrTo was probably omitted 
as superfluous, and perhaps to suit Luke 
iii. 6. It adds greatly to the force: this, 
the message of God’s salvation, q. d. 
‘ there is no other for those who reject this.’ 

aitot Kat ax.| They will also 
(besides having it sent to them) hear it. 
“Quod expertus erat Paulus in multis 
Asize et Europe urbibus, ut apud gentes 
sermonis felicior esset seges, idem et nunc 


futurum prospiciebat.” Grot. [29. | 


310 TIPABEIS AIITOSTOAQN. XXVIII. 30, 31. 


ach. xiv. 22 
ff. 


50 a’ Rvpéuewev d€ » dvetiav Gdyv ev idiw ° wicO@maTt, Kal ABELI 


Pensa a 3 L , Jeemare , : + 7. Nabe 
ni. Uris, TATEOEVETO TAaVTAS TOUS © ElsTTOpEVOmEevOUS TpPOS aUTOV,f gh x 
Matt. ii. 16. / A a , mop 
eMace. x.3.) 81 f enpvaowy TH 8 Bacidelav Tod ® Oeod Kai dvdacKwv » Ta 
see ch. Xx. \ ~ , 3 aA ~~} \ . / 

che ontys, WEpt TOD Kupiov Incod ypiotov ' peta Taons | rappyotas 


(Deut. xxiii. 
18.) (-ov- 
o@at, Matt. 
Bx Ls) 
d ch. ii. 41 reff. 
ew. ™pos, 
here only. 
xix. 30. 


AKWMNUTOS. 


Esth. ii. 14. 
i ch. ii. 29 reff. 


f ch. xx. 25 (reff.). 


TIPABEIS AIOZTOAON. 


g ch. xix. 8 reff. h ch. xxiii. 11. Sir. 


k here only t+. Job xxxiy. 31 Symm. (-70s, Wisd. vii. 22.) 


mss, and seeing that there are no considerable varr in the omitted passage, I have 


treated it as doubtful. 


It is perhaps one of those many additions which D alone of 


the first class MSS would have contained, had it been preserved to us, and was inserted 
on acct of the abrupt transition from ver 28 to ver 30: but see notes.)] 
30. rec (for even.) evewer, with AEH'LPN? rel 36 Chr: erevewev c 137-56: txt BOS!) 


e 
p 13.—eveuivar(sic) X?. 


rec aft Se ins o mavAos, with H™LP rel 36 tol Syr syr-w-ast 
zth Chr Thl Gc: om ABEN ¢ p 13. 40 vulg copt arm. 


aft avrov ins tovdaious 


137: sovdaiovs Te Kat eAAnVas ¢ tol syr-w-ast. 
81. aft didacKkwr, add quoniam hic est Christus filius Det, per quem omnis mundus 
judicabitur tol: aft akwAutws, Aeywy oT oUTOS EGTLY XpLTTOS iNGOUS O vLOS TOU Oeou Oe 


ov KoopMos oAvs peAAet KpiveoOat syr demid. 


om inoou N! c. at end add 


aunv c 15-8. 36. 40-3. 96 am fuld harl syr Chr-ms. 


SUBSCRIPTION. 


mpaters Twy ayiwy anooroAwy AKHTL: omdglm: exAnpwOncay 


amp. T. ay. am. P: TeAos Twy Tpakiov bo: TEA. guy Dew Twy Tp. T. am. 137: TEAOS T. 
mpat. T. ayiwv amoot. f: mpaters Twy amooToAwy p: txt BN. 


This verse has not the usual characteristic 
of spurious passages,—the variety of read- 
ings in those manuscripts which contain it. 
It may perhaps, after all, have been omitted 
as appearing superfluous after ver. 25.] 

30, 31.] It is evident that Paul was not 
released from custody, but continued with 
the soldier who kept him,—(1) from the 
expressions here; he received all who came 
in to him, but we do not hear of his preach- 
ing in the synagogues or elsewhere: he 
preached and taught with all boldness and 
unhindered, both being mentioned as re- 


markable circumstances, and implying that 
there were reasons why this could hardly 
have been expected: and (2) from his con- 
stantly speaking of himself in the Epistles 
written during this period, as a prisoner, see 
Eph. vi. 19, 20; Col. iv. 3, 4; Philem. 9; 
Philipp. passim. On the whole question 
regarding the chronology of his imprison- 
ment,—and the reason of this abrupt end- 
ing of the history, see Prolegg. to Acts, § iv. 
4—7 :—and on its probable termination 
and the close of St. Paul’s life, see the Pro- 
lege. to the Pastoral Epistles, § ii. 17 ff. 


rO~ 
0S 


SEK 
ibe 
rhk 


POS PQMAIOYS. 


I. 1 Ilatdros * b00Xos 


bi = vv. 6, 7. 


TITLE.—rec mavAov Tov amrooToAov 7 Tpos pwmatous eTLaTOAN: 


*Incod: xptotod, 


a Phil. i. 1. 
James i. 1. 
2 Pet. ind. 


2 Kings xy. 11. 


‘\ , 
>KANTOS aTro- 
1 Cori. [1] 2,24. Jude Lal. 


em. Tav. Tp. pw. |: 


nO Tov aylov Kat Taveupyuov anooT. Tav. em. Tpos pw. Li 14, 44. 80: mavAov em. mp. pw. Mm: 


pow. mav. er. k: 


Gas pl. -Ja[.]us is legible in C.) 


Crar. 1.1. xpiorov bef inoov B(sic: 
Ambr Ambrst Bede. 


Crap. I. 1—7.] ADDRESS OF THE EPIs- 
TLE, WITH AN ANNOUNCEMENT OF PAUL’S 
CALLING, TO BE AN APOSTLE OF THE GOs- 
PEL OF THE SON OF Gop. “ Epistola tota 
sic methodica est, ut ipsum quoque exor- 
dium ad rationem artis compositum sit. 
Artificium quum in multis apparet, que 
suis locis observabantur, tum in eo maxime, 
quod inde argumentum principale deduci- 
tur. Nam Apostolatus sui approbationem 
exorsus, ex ea in Evangelii commendatio- 
nem incidit : quae quum necessario secum 
trahat disputationem de fide, ad eam, quasi 
verborum contextu manu ducente, delabi- 
tur. Atque itaingreditur principalem totius 
Epistole queestionem, fide nos justificari: 
in qua tractanda versatur usque ad finem 
quinti capitis.”” Calvin. Paul in the 
addresses of his Epistles never uses the 
common Greek formula xafpew (James i. 
1), but always a prayer for blessing on 
those to whom he is writing. In all his 
Epistles (as in both those of Peter, and in 
the Apocaly pse) this prayer is for xapis and 
ciphyn, except i in 1 and 2 Tim., where it is 
for xdpis, €Acos, and ciphyn, as in 2 2 John. 
In Jude only we find éAcos, eiphyn, and 
aydrn. The address here differs from 
those of most of Paul’s Epistles, in having 
dogmatic clauses parenthetically inserted : 
—such are found also in the Epistle to 
Titus, and (in much less degree) in that 
to the Galatians. These dogmatic clauses 
vegard, 1. the fore-annowncement of the 


mau. ew. Tp. pw. 17: 


txt ABCN n o and D at head of pages. 


see table) am(with fuld tol &e) Orig, Aug 


Gospel through the prophets: 2. the de- 
scription and dignity of Him who was the 
subject of that Gospel: 3. the nature and 
aim of the apostolic office to which Paul 
had been called,-—including the persons 
addressed in the objects of its ministration. 
1. Soto I. x.] so also Phil. i. 1, 
and Tit. i. 1 (S00A0s cod, ardor. 5é x. I), 
—but usually az. x. 71. (2 Cor. Eph. Col. 
1 Tim. 2 Tim.) : [kAnrds ] aa. x.’1. (1 Cor.), 
—simply aréatodos (Gal.),—Séopmios x. 71. 
(Philem.), but in almost all these places 
the reading varies between xpioTod *Incod 
and *Incov xpictod. The expression an- 
swers to the Hebr. mim Jay, the especial 
O. T. title of Israel, and of individuals, as 
Moses, Joshua, David, Daniel, Job, and 
others, who as prophets, kings, &e., were 
raised up for the express work of God. See 
Umbreit’s note, Der Brief an die Rémer 
auf dem Grunde des alten Testaments 
ausgelegt, p. 153 f. It must not be ren- 
dered slave with Schrader, nor pius cultor 
with Fritzsche: because, as Mehring re- 
marks, the former excludes the clement of 
freewill, while the latter does not express 
the entire dedication to Christ. 
KAnTOs aréer.| In naming himself a@ 
servant of Jesus Christ, he bespeaks their 
attention as a Christian speaking to Chris- 
tians : he now further specifies the place 
which he held by the special calling of 
God ; called, and that to the very highest 
office, of an apostle; and even more— 


312 IPOS POMAIOTS. Li 
cActsxili.2. gTodos, “apwpiopévos els Tevaryyéduov “Oeov, * 0 * mpo- 
ansie” emnyyetkato Sia ToY TpodynTov aditod év ®% ypadais 

e 2 Cor, ix. 5 8 dylats 3 qept TOD Viod avTov, ToD » yevopwévouv EK ' oTrEp- C zov 
friw dt patos } Aaveid * cata * cdpxa, * Tod! dpiaévtos viod Beobd BCE! 
g here only. LNab 


h = Gal. iv. 4. 
Jer. xxii. 30. 
2 Cor. xi. 18. 


see ch. xvi. 26. 2 Tim. iii. 16. 
vii. 42. (Acts xiii. 23.) 2 Tim. ii. 8. 
29al. Paulonly. see John viii. 15. 


Phil. ii. 7. Acts xix. 26. iLukei.55. John df gh 
k = ch.iv.1 ix.3,5. 1Cor.x.18. Gal. iv. 23, lmn 
1 Acts xvii. 26 reff. 17 


among the Apostles, not one by original se- 
lection, but one speciaily called. ‘‘Ceteri 
quidem apostoli per diutinam cum Jesu 
consuetudinem educati fuerunt, et primo 
ad sequelam et disciplinam vocati, deinde 
ad apostolatum producti. Paulus, perse- 
cutor antehac, de subito apostolus per voca- 
tionem factus est. Ita Judzi erant sancti 
ex promissione: Greci, sancti ex mera 
vocatione, ver. 6. Praecipuam ergo vocatus 
apostolus cum vocatis sanctis similitudi- 
nem et conjunctionem hahebat.” Bengel. 
a@mootoXos must not be taken here in the 
wider sense, of a missionary, as in ch. Xvi. 
7, but in its higher and peculiar meaning, 
in which the Twelve bore the title (ovs kat 
amootéAous wvéuacev, Luke vi. 13), and 
Paul (and perhaps Barnabas), and James 
the Lord’s brother. This title was not con- 
ferred on Paul by the agopicate 69 wor of 
the Holy Spirit, Acts xiii. 2, but in virtue 
of his speciat call by the Lord in person ; 
compare orevos éxAoyijs, Acts ix. 15, with 
eteActdunv, John vi. 70; xiii. 18; xv. 16; 
Acts i. 2. “ Neque enim iis assentior, qui 
eam de qua loquitur vocationem ad eter- 
nam Dei electionem referant.” Calvin. 
a&pwpicpevos | not in Acts xiii. 2, merely, 
though that was a particular application 
of the general truth :—but (as in Gal, i. 
15, 6 apoploas me ek KoiAtas wntpds mov) 
JSrom his birth. “Idem Pharisei etymon 
fuerat: hoc autem loco Paulus se non 
solum ex hominibus, ex Judzis, ex disci- 
pulis, sed etiam ex doctoribus segregatum 
a Deo significat.” Bengel. eis| for 
the purpose of announcing. evay- 
yéAtov Veod = 7d ebay. Tv 8., which (see 
reff.) is the usual form. Bp. Middleton 
(on ver. 17) remarks on the anarthrousness 
of Paul’s style, and cites from Dion. 
Hal. de Comp. Verb. c. 22, as a character 
of the avornpa apyovia, that it is éAryo- 
atvdecuos, GvapOpos. See the passage 
cited at length in the Prolegomena, § v. 2, 
—the good.tidings sent by (not concern- 
ing) God. The genitive is not, as in 7d 
ebayyéeAtov THs Bactreclas, Matt. iv. 23, 
one of apposition, but of possession or 
origin; God’s Gospel. And so, whenever 
the expression ‘ the Gospel of Christ’ oc- 
curs, it is not ‘the Gospel about Christ,’ 
but Christ’s Gospel; that Gospel which 


flows out of His grace, and is His gift to 
men. Thus in the very beginning of the 
Epistle, these two short words announce 
that the Gospel is of God,—in other 
words, that salvation is of grace only. 
2.] This good tidings is no new inven- 
tion, no after-thought,—but was long ago 
announced in what God’s prophets wrote 
concerning His Son:—and announced by 
way of promise, so that God stood pledged 
to its realization. émedy 6€ Kal Katvoro- 
play évexddovy TQ mpayuati, Selxvvow 
avtd mpecBuTepov “EAATvwy bv, Kal ev 
Tols Tpopitais mpodiaypapduevoy. Chrys. 
Hom. ii. p. 431. ypad. ay.| not, ‘in 
sacred writings,—nor ‘in passages of 
Holy Writ ?—but in the Holy Serip- 
tures. The expression used is defined 
enough by the adjective, to be well under- 
stood without the article;—so mvetdua 
ayiwo. below,—my. Gyiov passim. See 
Winer, edn. 6, § 19. 2 (and for nouns in 
government, Middleton, ch. iii. § 6). But 
one set of writings being holy, it was not 
necessary to designate them more particu- 
larly. See also above on evayy. Geo. This 
expression (evayy. 6 mpoemyyy.) is used 
in the strictest sense. Moses gave the 
Law: the prophets proclaimed the Gos- 
pel. See Umbreit’s note, p. 159. 
3. wept Tov viod avtod}| belongs to 6 
mpoem. above,—which he promised be- 
forehand, &c., concerning His Son, i.e. 
‘which (good tidings) He promised before- 
hand, &c., and indicated that it should be 
concerning His Son.’ This is more natural 
than to bind these words to evdayy. Gcod 
which went before. Either meaning will 
suit ver. 9 equally well. Christ, the Son of 
God, is the great subject of the good news: 
yevonévov) not dvtos, see John i. 
1—3, and notes. kata odpka] On 
the side of His humanity, our Lord éyévero; 
that nature of His begins only then, when 
He was yevduevos ex yuvaucds, Gal. iv. 4. 
odpé is here used exactly as in 
John i. 14, 6 Adyos capt éyévero, to sig- 
nify that whole nature, body and soul, 
of which the outward visible tabernacle 
of the FLESH is the concrete representa- 
tion to our senses. The words é« 
oréppatos Aaveid cast a hint back at the 
promise just spoken of. At the same time, 


2—5. 


ITPOS POMAIOTS. 


313 


méy ™ Supaper "Kata arvedua Payrwoovrnys 1éE *avacTdaews ™ Mark ix, 1. 


r rn | a a a / € n 5 8 ’ e 2r, 4 
VEKPOY, OOuU toTOV TOU KUPLOU WV & OU €AQG=- 
NOV, 


n Gal. iv. 29. 
vii. 1. 1 Thess. iii. 13 only. 
ii. 18 (bis). Rev. viii. 11 al. 


in so solemn an enunciation of the dignity 
of the Son of God, they serve to shew that 
even according to the human side, His 
descent had been fixed in the line of him 
who was Israel’s anointed and greatest 
king. 4.| The simple antithesis would 
have been, Tod wév yevouevov ... bvTos 5& 
viod Ocod kata mvcdua, see 1 Tim. ili. 16. 
But (1) wonderful solemnity is given by 
dropping the particles, and taking up sepa- 
rately the human and divine nature of 
Christ, keeping 6 vids adrod as the great 
subject of both clauses, and thus making 
them, not contrasts to one another, but 
correlative parts of the same great whole. 
And (2) the Apostle, dwelling here on 
patent facts,—the announcements of pro- 
phecy,—the history of the Lord’s Hu- 
manity,—does not deal with the essential 
subsistent Godhead of Christ, but with 
that manifestation of it which the great 
‘fact of the Resurrection had made to men. 
Also (8) by amplifying mvedua into my. 
a&ytwovvys, he characterizes the Spirit of 
Christ as one of absolute holiness, i. e. as 
divine and partaking of the Godhead: 
see below. 6pto8€vTos | “ Multo plus 
dicit quam adpwpicuevos, ver. 1: nam 
apopt(erat unus e pluribus, dpiCera unicus 
quispiam.” Bengel. See reff. Nor does 
it = mpoopicbertos, as vulg. predestina- 
tus, and as Irenzeus (iii. 22. 1, p. 219) and 
Augustine de Praedest. Sanctorum, c. 15, 
vol. x. p. 982 :—“ Preedestinatus est ergo 
Jesus, uf qui futurus erat secundum car- 
nem filius David, esset tamen in virtute 
Filius Dei secundum Spiritum Sanctifica- 
tionis: quia natus est de Spiritu Sancto et 
Virgine Maria.” But this is one of the 
places where Augustine has been misled 
by the Latin :—the text speaks, not of the 
JSact of Christ’s being the Son of God barely, 
but of the proof of that fact by His Re- 
surrection. Chrysostom has given the 
right meaning: 1! ody éorw dpicbevTos ; 
Tod Serxdevtos, amopavbdvtos, KpiOévTos, 
GmodoynOevTos Tapa THs amdvTwy yvauns 
kal Whpov.... Hom. ii. p. 432. That an 
example is wanting of this exact use of the 
word, is, as Olsh. has shewn, no objection to 
such use; the dpi¢ew here spoken of is not 
the objective ‘fixing,’ ‘appointing’ of 
Christ to be the Son of God, but the sub- 
jective manifestation in men’s minds that 
He is so. VYhus the objective words rotetv 
(Acts ii. 36), yervév (Acts xiii. 33) are used 


o here only. see John xiv. 17. 2 Tim. i. 7. 
Ps. xcy. 6. xevi. 12. cxliv. 5. 
r1 Cor. xy. 12 reff. L.P.H. 


1 John iy, 6. 


p2 Cor. 
2 Mace, ili. 12 only, 


q = James 


of the same proof or manifestation of 
Christ’s Sonship by His Resurrection. So 
again €d.cai0y, 1 Tim. iii. 16. év 
Suvdpet belongs to 6p1c0évt0s,—not to viod 
Gcov,—nor again is it a parallel clause to 
kat. wv. wy. and ef avaor. vex. (as Chrys., 
who interprets it amd t&v Oavudtwv &rep 
érparre, Theophyl. &c.) manifested with 
power (to be) the Son of God. See reff. 

KaTG Tvedpa aywwourys] ayiwo. is 
not = &yov; this epithet would be inap- 
plicable here, for it would point out the 
Third Person in the Blessed Trinity, 
whereas it is the Spirit of Christ Himself, 
in distinction from His Flesh, which is 
spoken of. And this Spirit is designated 
by the gen. of quality, dy:wovvns, to shew 
that it is not a human, but a divine Spirit 
which is attributed here to Christ,—a 
Spirit to which holiness belongs as its 
essence. The other interpretations cer- 
tainly miss the mark, by overlooking the 
kat& odpka and Kkatd mvedua, the two sides 
of the Person of Christ here intended to 
be brought out.» Such are that of Theo- 
doret (51a tis bd Tod mavaylov mvebmaros 
evepyoumevns duvduews),—Chrys. (ard Tob 
mvevmatos, 5” ov Tov aytacudy edwxer), 
&e. Calvin and Olshausen seem to wish 
to include the notion of sanctifying 
(aytacuds) in ayiwodvn,—which however 
true, is more than strictly belongs to the 
words. See by all means, on the whole, 
Umnbreit’s important note, pp. 164—172. 

e& | not ‘from and after’ (as Theo- 
doret, Luther, Grotius, al.), nor = dd, 
which could not be used here, but by, as 
indicating the source, oué of which the 
demonstration proceeds. avacTacews 
vexpov | not = dvaor. é« vexpav,—which, 
besides the force done to the words, would 
be a weakening of the strong expression of 
the Apostle, who takes here summarily and 
by anticipation the Resurrection of Jesus 
as being, including, involving (éyé eipe 7 
dvdoraots, John xi. 25) the (whole) Resur- 
rection of the dead. So that we must not 
render as E. V. ‘ the resurrection from the 
dead,’ but the resurrection of the dead, 
regarded as accomplished in that of Christ. 
It was the full accomplishment of this, 
which more than any thing declared Him 
to be the Son of God: see John v. 25—29. 
Thus in these words lies wrapped up the 
argument of ch. vi. 4 ff. "Ino. Xp- T- 
kup. Hp. | Having given this description of 


314 TIPO, POMAIOTS. Kf 


s = ch. xii. 3. 


Bopev * yap Kat t amootoAny * eis Y bTraKkonv “* TloTEws 


ii, i Gal > ta a EO y e \ wT, b lal 6 > Z 
ii.9. Eph. €V TAGW TOLS EUVEOLY UTrEp TOU OVOLLATOS AUTOU, €V OLS Gev 
iii, 2. \ a \ >? a n a a TAC. 
t Acts i. 25., €oTe Kai vets *KAnTOL ‘Incod ypiotod, 1 Tadow Tois 
or. me 
No <. A i ec r fal r e 
Gal-u-Senly- oigw ev “Paun * ayamntois Oeod, * KAnTois ” arylots. D warr- 
h. xvi. 26. TOS s+ 
: Sun 17, 1 Pet. i. 22. weh.v. 19. 2 Cor. vii. 15. Heb. v.8. 1 Pet.i.2al. 2 Kings xxii. 36 only. constr.,. ABCDG 
¢h. xvi. 26. 2Cor.x.5. 1 Pet. i. 22. x objective, = Acts vi. 7. y Acts ix. 16 reff. KLNat 


(see note.) 


CH aw. gen., Matt. xii. 18. Acts xv. 25 (of Paul). ch. xvi. 5,8,9. 1 Cor. cdfgl 


z ver. 1. w. gen., here only. 
b = Acts ix. 13 reff. 
kimn 


x. 14, Phil. ii. 12 only. 


7. om ev pwun G schol-in-47(to ev pwun, ovre ev TH ebnynoEl, OVTE EV TW pNTw (On ee 


pyneovevet). for ayarnt. Ocov, ev ayarn Ocov Gam fuld! D!-lat Ambrst-ms: om omission 

E 82. : of E, see 
prole- 
gomena, 


the Person and dignity of the Son of God, 
very Man and very God, he now identifies 
this divine Person with Jesus Curist, the 
Lord and Master of Christians,—the his- 
torical object of their faith, and (see words 
following) the Appointer of himself to the 
apostolic office. 5. 8V ob | as in Gal. 
i. 1; 1 Cor. i. 9, designating the Lord 
Himself as the Agent in conferring the 
grace and Apostleship. eda Boner | 
not ‘ all Christians, —but we, the Apostle 
himself, as he not unfrequently speaks. 
No others need be here included in the 
word. Zhose to whom he is writing cannot 
be thus included, for they are specially 
contrasted with the subject of €AdBowey by 
the following bmuets. Nor can the aor. 
é\dBopev refer to any general bestowal of 
this kind, indicating, as it must, a definite 
past event, viz. the reception of the Apos- 
tleship by himself. To maintain (as Dr. 
Peile, Annotations on the Epistles, vol. i. 
Appendix) that the subject of éAdBouey 
must be the same as the ju» which has 
preceded, is to overlook, not only the con- 
trast just noticed, and the habit of Paul to 
use indiscriminately the singular or plural, 
when speaking of himself,;—but also the 
formulary character of the expression, 
«Jesus Christ our Lord,’ in which the ‘we’ 
alluded to in ‘our’ is too faintly indicated 
to become the subject of a following verb. 

xapw]| Hardly, as Augustine, 
« gratiam cum omnibus fidelibus, aposto- 
latum autem non cum omnibus communem 
habet ” (Olsh.): for he is surely speaking 
of that peculiar xdpis, by which he 
wrought in his apostleship more than they 
all; see reff. atooroAyy] Strictly, 
apostleship, ‘the office of an Apostle,’ see 
reff.: not any mission, or power of sending 
ministers, resident in the whole church, 
which would be contrary to the usage of 
the word. The ewistence of such a power 
is not hereby denied, but this place refers 
solely to the office of Paul as an Apostle. 
Keep the xdp. x. amor. separate, and 
strictly consecutive, avoiding all nonsensical 


figures of Hendiadys, Hypallage, and the 


like. It was the general bestowal of grace, 
which conditioned and introduced the 
special bestowal (kat, as so often, coupling 
a specific portion to a whole) of apostle- 
ship: ef. 1 Cor. xv. 10. eis] with a 
view to,—‘in order to bring about.’ 
trakonv miotews| The anarthrous cha- 
racter above remarked (on evayy. Qeov, 
ver. 1) must be here borne in mind, or we 
shall fall into the mistake of supposing 
b. m. to mean ‘obedience produced by 
faith. The key to the words is found in 
ref. Acts, moAvs te bxAos TeY lepéwy 
tm7yjKovov TH TlaTeL, compared with Paul’s 
own usage of joining an objective genitive - 
with taxon, see 2 Cor. x. 5, eis Thy 
bmakohy tov xpiotov. So that wlorews 
is the faith; not = ‘the gospel which 
is to be believed’ (as Fritzsche, citing 
ch. x. 16), but the state of salvation, in 
which men stand by faith. And so these 
words form an introduction to the great 
subject of the Epistle.  év waow T. e0v. | 
in order to bring about obedience to the 
faith among all (the) nations. The Jews 
do not here come into account. There is 
no inclusion, and at the same time no ex- 
press exclusion of them: but Paul was com- 
missioned as the Apostle of the Gentiles, 
and he here magnifies the great office en- 
trusted to him. trép T, dv. avr.] on 
behalf of His name, i.e. ‘for His glory 
see reff. ‘In the name of Christ is summed 
up what He had done and was, what the 
Christian ever bore in mind, the zeal which 
marked him, the name wherewith he was 
named.” Jowett. See also Umbreit’s note. 
The words are best taken as belonging to 
the whole, from 8? od to €0vecw. 

6. év ots ....| The whole to xpiorov 
should be taken together: among whom 
ye also are called of Jesus Christ; other- 
wise, with a comma at dues, the assertion, 
‘among whom are ye, is flat and un- 
meaning. De Wette and Calvin would 
take *Incod xp. as a gen. of possession, 
because the call of believers is generally 
referred to the FATHER: but sometimes the 
Son is said to call likewise, see John v. 25; 


6—8. 


IIPOS POMAIOTS. 


315 


c i 1 \ c > / bl] \ a \ e a \ 5 
Kapls viv Kal Seipnvn ato Oeod TrAaTpOS MOV KAL c see introduc- 


Kupiov “Incod xpictod. 


8 lal \ d > Lal A e a e \ ? nr 
II parov Mev SedxapioTd 7H Ged pou dia “Inood 

an he ¢ nr ov ¢ / lal 
XPLOTOU TEPL TAVT@VY ULV, OTL 1) TLOTLS ULOV f KaTary- rie 


vili. 25. (Wisd. xviii. 2.) 2 Mace. i. 11 only. 
Seolizes 1 Corin.) 2 Cor. 21, 
only. Psalms and Prophets passim. 


8. om dia ino. xp. N1(ins corr’) e. 


Phil. i. 3. iv. 19. 
f Acts xiii. 5 reff. 


tory note. 

d w. dat., Luke 
xvii. 11. 
John xi. 41, 
Acts xxvii. 
35, xxviii. 

1 Cor. i. 

4al. Judith 

e Matt. xxvii. 46 bis || Mk. (from Ps. xxi. 1.) John 

Philem. 4. Rey. ii. 7. iii. 12 (four times) 


rec (for wept) umep (see note), with D3GL 


rel Chr Thdrt Thl Ge: txt ABCD!KN& 017 Damasce. 


1 Tim. i. 12:—and with a@yarnrol bc0d 
following so close upon it, the expression 
can I think hardly be taken otherwise than 
as called by Jesus Christ. éxAextod ad- 
tov, Matt. xxiv. 31, cited by De W. is 
hardly parallel. 7. | This verse follows, 
in the sense, close on ver. 1. ay. 0., 
KAyT. Gy. | Both these clauses refer to all 
the Christians addressed: not (as Bengel) 
the first to Jewish, the second to Gentile 
believers. No such distinction would be 
in place in an exordium which anticipates 
the result of the Epistle—that Jew and 
Gentile are one in guilt, and one in Christ. 
am. 0. wat. Hy. K. Kup. I. x.] Not, 
as Erasmus, ‘from God, the Father of us 
and of our Lord Jesus Christ, —but from 
_-G@od our Father, and from the Lord Jesus 
Christ. God is the Giver of Grace and 
Peace,—Christ the Imparter. 

8—17.] Oprnine oF THE EPISTLE. 
His thankfulness for the faith of the 
Romans: remembrance of them in his 
prayers: wish to visit them: hindrances 
hitherto, but still earnest intention of 
doing so, that he may further ground them 
in that Gospel, of which he is not ashamed, 
inasmuch as it is THE POWER OF GOD 
TO ALL WHO BELIEVE. This leads to the 
announcement (in a citation from the 
Scripture) of one great subject of the 
Epistle,—viz.: JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH. 

8.] This placing himself in intimate 
connexion with his readers by mention of 
and thankfulness for their faith or Chris- 
tian graces, is the constant habit of Paul. 
The three Epistles, Gal., 1 Tim., and Titus, 
are the only exceptions: Olsh. adds 2 Cor., 
but in ch. i. 3—22 we have an equivalent : 
see especially vv. 6, 7, 11, 14. pv | 
The corresponding 6¢ follows, ver. 18. ‘ 
indeed are prospering in the faith: but I 
still am anxious further to advance that 
fruitfulness.? There is no ére:ta to follow 
to mp@tor. TG Oe pov] bpa pel? 
bons diabécews evxapioTel. ov yap «ire, 
TG OegG, GAAG TH VEG prov’ O kal of mpo- 
ota mowodor, To Kowdy idioToovpmevot. 
kad tl Oavuaoroy et of mpodpirar; avtds 
yap aitd cuvexas 6 Beds palverar moey 


em) Tay SovAwy, 9ebv "ABpadu Kal "load 
kal lake tdiaGdyvTws Aéywv éavtov. Chrys. 
Hom. iii. p. 436. Sia. “1. x. ] “ Velut 
per Pontificem magnum: oportet enim 
scire eum qui vult offerre sacrificium Deo, 
quod per manus Pontificis debet offerre.’”” 
Origen. So also Calvin, ‘ Hic habemus 


exemplum, quomodo per Christum agendee 


sunt gratiz, secundum Apostoli praecep- 
tum ad Heb. xiii. 15.” Olshausen says, 
«This is no mere phrase, but a true ex- 
pression of the deepest conviction. For 
only by the Spirit of Christ dwelling in 
men’s hearts are thanksgivings and prayer 
acceptable to God.” But perhaps here it 
is better to take the words as expressing 
an acknowledgment that the faith of the 
Romans, for which thanks were given, 
was due to, and rested on the Lord Jesus 
Christ: see ch. vii. 25, and rendering 
there. mept| This prep. and irép 
both occur in this connexion, see 1 Cor, i. 
4; Col. i. 3; 1 Thess. i. 2; 2 Thess. 1. 3; 
Eph. i. 16; Phil. i. 4:—and it is impos- 
sible to say, in cases of their confusion 
by the mss., which may have been sub- 
stituted for the other. The internal cri- 
ticism which would adopt s7ép as being 
the less usual, may be answered by the pro- 
bability that irép, being known to be some- 
times used by Paul, may have been substi- 
tuted as more in his manner for the more 
usual wep. So that manuscript authority 
in such cases must be our guide; and 
this authority is here decisive. The differ- 
ence in meaning would be, that drép would 
give more the idea that thanks were given 
by Paul on their behalf, as if he were aid- 
ing them in giving thanks, for such great 
mercies: whereas mep{ would imply only 
that they were the subject of his thanks,— 
that he gave thanks concerning them. 

4 mlotis tp.| “In ejusmodi gra- 
tulationibus Paulus vel totum Christianis- 
mum describit, Col. i. 3, sqq.,—vel partem 
aliquam, 1 Cor.i.5. Itaque hoc loco fidem 
commemorat, suo conyenienter instituto, 
vv.12,17.” Bengel. katayyéAderat] De 
Wette notices the other side of the report, 
as given by the Jews at Rome, Acts xxviii. 


316 


IIPOX POMAIOTS. 


£ 


2Cor.i.23. ryéAX ?y OW THO KO 98 ua i v é€oTlW oO 
B2Cori23. yéAeTaAl EV OAW TO KOTHY. paptus yap jou éo 


hil. i. 8. 


oss. ii. 5, , 2 / a j , / 43 > / 
to eea Beds, © "Natpevw ev TO i mvevpati pov Jéev TH ebayyedio 
xxxi. 50. = ein ’ ~ ke 12 , mn , c ~ m nA 
constr. Acts TOU VLOU QUTOU, ~ WS GAOLANELT TOS pvetav UL@V ™ TrOLoU- 
Vv. on. 
ets 1 yf 4 A “ r / bd 
hacs"7 wat qavtTote °éml TaY °Tposevyav pov 1 dSedpevos, P et 
i Acts xvii. 16 \ ’ , , a 
re TMS FON * woTe § evodwWOnTopar ‘ev TH * OedXnpate Tov 
j 2 Cor. viii. 
18. x. l4 al. k = Acts x. 28. Phil. i. 8. 11 Thess. i. 2. ii. 13. v.17 only +. 2 Macc. xv. 7 al. (-tos, 
ch. ix. 2. 2 Tim. i. 3.) m Eph. i. 16. 1 Thess.i.2. Philem.4. Ps. cx. 4. n as above (m). Phil. 
i. 3. 1 Thess. iii.6. 2 Tim. i. 3 only. o Eph. i. 16. 1 Thess.i,2. Philem.4 only. ext 7ov detrvwy, 
Diod. Sic. iv. 3. p ch. xi. 14. Phil. iii. 11. Acts xxvii. 12 (w. opt.) only. q ch. xiii. 11. r Phil. 


iv. 10 only. Thuc. viii. 69. s 1 Cor. xvi. 2. 
Num. xiv. 41. -dws, Prov. xxx. (see xxiv.] 29.) 


9. uaptup D}. 
ws, Tws qguomodo G. 


for 1st pov, wor D!G b! o vulg syrr arm Thdrt, lat-ff, 


3 John 2 bis, only. Gen. xxxix. 3,23. 2 Chron. xiii. 12. (-d0s, 


t Heb. x. 10. (Col. iv. 12.) 


for 


10. for et ws, orws Lo 5. 71-7. 93 lect-12. - 


22, to Paul himself. This praise was in 
the Christian churches, and brought by 
Christian brethren. év 6L@ TO Koo pe | 
A popular hyperbole, common every where, 
and especially when speaking of general 
diffusion through the Roman empire, the 
‘orbis terrarum.’ The praise would be 
heard in every city where there was a 
Christian church,—intercourse with the 
metropolis of the world being common to 
all. 9.] ‘“ Asseveratio pia, de re ne- 
cessaria, et hominibus, remotis presertim 
et ignotis, occulta.” Bengel. There could 
be no other witness to his practice in his 
secret prayers, but God: and as the as- 
sertion of a habit of incessantly praying 
for the Roman Christians, whom he had 
never seen, might seem to savour of an 
exaggerated expression of affection, he so- 
lemnly appeals to this only possible testi- 
mony. ‘To the Eph., Phil. (see however 
Phil. i. 8), Col., Thess., he gives the same 
assurance, but without the asseveration. 
The thus calling God to witness is no un- 
common practice with Paul: see reff. in 
HAN © Aatp.| The serving God in 
his spirit was a guarantee that his profes- 
sion was sincere, and that the oath just 
taken was no mere form, but a solemn and 
earnest appeal of his spirit. See also Phil. 
iii. 3 (present text), and Johniv. 24. “ The 
LXX use Aatpedw generally (not so, but 
only in a few places, e. g. Num. xvi. 9, 
Ezek. xx. 32; it is mostly rendered by 
Aerroupyeiv ; Aatpevew for the most part 
rendering 722) for the Heb. ny, which 
mostly implies the service of the priests in 
the temple: e.g. Num. iii. 31; iv. 12; 
xviii. 2, &e. The Apostle means then, 
that he is an intelligent, true priest of 
his God, not in the temple, but in his 
spirit,—not at the altar, but at the gos- 
pel of His Son.” Umbreit. év TO 
evay.] 7 Tot ebayyeAlov mposb4Kn Td cldos 
Sndot THs Staxovlas, Chrys. Hom. iii. p. 


438. His peculiar method of Aatpefa was 
concerned with the gospel of the Son of 
God. ‘Quidam accipiunt hane particu- 
lam, quasi voluerit Paulus cultum illum, 
quo se prosequi Deum dixerat, ex eo com- 
mendare, quod Evangelii prascripto re- 
spondeat : certum est autem, spiritualem 
Dei cultum in Evangelio nobis precipi. 
Sed prior interpretatio longe melius quad- 
rat, nempe quod suum Deo obsequium 
addicat in Evangelii predicatione.” Cal- 
vin. See evayyéAwov, Phil. iv. 15. ds | 
Not to be taken with ad:aAciarws, but (see 
reff.) depends on pdprus: my witness, 
Sais ouere amav7ote belongs to 
the following, not to the preceding words. 
This latter construction would not be 
without example,—éy mwav7) kaipé Gdiadel- 
a7ws, 1 Mace. xii. 11, but this very exam- 
ple shews that if so, its natural place would 
be close to a5:aAeimrws. The whole phrase 
is a favourite one with Paul, see reff. 
‘‘mdvtTote vice nominis accipio, ac si dic- 
tum foret, ‘In omnibus meis orationibus, 
seu quoties precibus Deum appello, adjungo 
vestri mentionem.’” Calvin. at mpos- 
evxat pov must be understood of his ordi- 
nary stated prayers, just in our sense of 
my prayers: “quoties ex professo et 
quasi meditatus Deum orabat, illorum quo- 
que habebat rationem inter alios.” Cally. 

10. et wws} if by any means. 
No subject of deduevos is expressed, but it 
is left to be gathered from this clause, as 
in Simon’s entreaty, Acts viii. 24, 5ef@nre 
tjueis bwep Cuod . . . . Srws pndev ererOn 
én’ ue dv eiphxare, where 87s k.T.A. is 
not the contents of the prayer, but the end 
aimed at by it. 75 twoté} before 
long :—lit., ‘at last, some day or other? 

evodwOycopat} I shall be al- 
lowed, prospered: see reff., and Deut. 
xxviii. 29: and cf. Umbreit’s note. The 
rendering, ‘I might have a prosperous 


journey’ (Vulg.and E.YV.), is etymologically 


ABCD: 
KLNa 
edfg 

kim: 
o1l7 


9—13. 


IIPO> POMAIOTS. 


317 


“oh éNOeiy mpds twas: 11 4 éruroba yep (oecy buds, (Va ©. int.,2 Cor. 


VY weTada “ yapiopa bpiv * 


mvevupatiKoy Yeis TO *oTH- * i.” (Ps, 
o e rn ¢ n rat 
Beads vuads, 12 tovTo 6é éotw “ouvtrapaxrnOjvae év 


2. Thess. 
2 Tim. 


see 2 Cor. ix. 
14 reff. 
y ch. xii. 8 reff. 


© Tal A an , al n 
viv dua THs év adXdjAOLS TiaTEews TOV TE Kab EMD. * Conair, 


»] , lal lal , 
13 ov »Aédw Sé duds  ayvociv, aderpoi, °dtt modAdKIS 
/ lal \ e wn 7 “ 
“mpocOeunv edMeiv mpds buds, Kat © éxwrvOnv faype Tod 
ed A vA a a 
Sdedpo, va Twa KapTov cY@ Kal év duiv Kabws Kat év 


i.7 al. Paul only, exc. 1 Pet. iv. 10+. 
19. ver. 20 al. 
Bich. xi. 25. 1 -Cor.x. 1. xii. i. 2'Cor. i. 8: 
d = Eph. i. 9 (ch. iii. 25) only$. Exod. xl. 4. 
xx. 6 reff. — 
22. Phil. i. 22. iv. 17. 


12. rout eorw, omg de, A latt(but G-lat has id est aut hoc enim est). 
mapardnOnvar, with BY(sic : see table) L: txt AB!CDGR. 


aft miorews ins Tns G. 

13. for ov @cAw, ovK o1ovat D'G Ambrst. 
rec kaprov bef tia: 
lat-ff.—for tiva, tt D?}. 
eth. 


incorrect ; the passive of 63éw, ‘to shew 
the way, ‘to bring into the way,’ must be 
‘to be shewn the way,’ or ‘brought into the 
way. So Herod. vi. 73, as TG KAcouevet 
eVwd40n Td es THY Anucpyntoy mpiyua. 

év TO eh. TOD Oeov |] In the course of, — 
by, the will of God. éd@eiv belongs to 
evudwIncouat, not to deduevos. he 
émimo0a] not ‘I vehemently desire: ént 
does not intensify, but merely expresses 
the direction of the 7600s, see Herod. v. 93, 
and compare such expressions as «7 mpos- 
e@yTos NMaS TOU dveuov, Acts xxvii. 7. 

iva TL peTada xapiopa mv.| That the 
xdpicua here spoken of was no mere super- 
natural power of working in the Spirit, 
the whole context shews, as well as the 
meaning of the word itself in reff. And 
even if xdpioua, barely taken, could ever 
(1 Cor. xii. 4, 9 are no examples, see 
there) mean technically a supernatural 
endowment of the Spirit, yet the epithet 
mvevpatikov, and the object of imparting 
this xdpirua, confirmation in the faith, 
would here preclude that meaning. Be- 
sides, Paul did not value the mere bestowal 
of these ‘ gifts’ so highly, as to make it the 
subject of his earnest prayers incessantly. 
The gift alluded to was wapdkAnots, as De 
Wette observes. amveup., Spiritual :— 
springing from the Spirit of God, and im- 
parted to the spirit of man. eis TO 
oTnp. vp.| Knowing the trials to which 
they were exposed, and being conscious of 
the fulness of spiritual power for edifica- 
tion (2 Cor. xiii. 10) given to him, he 
longed to impart some of it to them, that 
they might be confirmed. “The Apostle 
does not say eis 7d ornpiCew du., for this 


z = Luke xxii. 32. ch. xvi. 25 al. 
1 Thess. iv, 13. 


and w. art., here only. 
James ili. 18. Jer. xvii. 10, 


om tiva L. 42. 115 Syr copt: 
for cxw, exw G 77. 


1 Thess. ii. 8. 
2 Mace. viii. 
12. Xen. 

Anab. iy. 5. 


5. 
w= ch. y. 15, 
16. vi. 23. 
xii. 6. 1 Cor. 
y Acts iii. 19. vii. 
a here only t+. 
Wisd, xii. 10. 
f Acts 
h = John iy. 36. ch. vi. 21, 


x = Eph. 1.3. Coll. iii. 16. 
Ps, 1. 12 (14). 
cch. ii, 4. vi. 3. 

e Acts xvi. 6 reff. see Acts xxviii. 31. 
(Acts vii. 3 reff.) 


rec cup- 
om 2nd ev G. 


for de, yap C 73 fuld: om k}. 
txt ABC(D)GKX rel vulg gr-ff 
om 2nd ka: G b 048. 109-78 


belongs to God; see ch. xvi. 25. He is 
only the instrument: hence the passive.” 
Philippi. 12.] cita eed) Kal TodTo 
opddpa oprikdy iv, bpa mHs avTd Trapa- 
pvOetra 51a THs eTaywyis. wa yap my 
A€ywo, Th yap : oarevdueba kad Tept- 
pepsucba, Kal Tis mapa cov deducba YAOT- 
Ts «ls Td oT ivan BcBalws, mpohaBay 
avaipet THY TOLaUT HY ar ippnow oUT@ Acyav 
(ver. 12). as dy ef eAeye, By bromrevonte 
oT KaTnyopav DMO@V elroy, ov Tavry ™H 
youn epbeyicuny Td pia GAAG TL more 
esti, Omep BovdAnOny ecimeiy; ToAAds 
bromevere OAtWets 1d THY DiwKdvTwY TeEpt- 
avTAovmevor emebvunoa Tolyuy buas idetv, 
iva mapakadéow, maAAoY O& OX va Tapa- 
Kadéow pdvov, GAN iva kal avtds mapd- 
KAnow d€fwmuat. Chrys. Hom. ii. p. 440. 
The inf. cuprapakaAnOjvat is parallel with 
o7rnptxOivat, ewe being understood: that 
is, that I with you may be comforted 
among you, each by the faith which is in 
the other. That the gift he wished to 
impart to them was mapaAnats, is implied 
in the ouvmapaxA. See the same wish 
expressed in different words ch. xv. 32, and 
the partial realization of it, Acts xxviii. 15. 

év &4dAnAots, which might otherwise 
be ambiguous, is explained by buay Te Kab 
éuov to mean which we recognize in one 
another: or as above and in A. V. R. 
The expression “mutual faith,’ of the 
E. V. should properly mean, faith which 
each has in the other. ators is used in 
the most general sense—faith as the neces- 
sary condition and working instrument of 
all Christian exhortation, comfort, and con- 
firmation ; producing’ these, ¢ and evidenced 
by them. 18. od O€dw Se tp. ay. | A 


318 


i Acts xxviii. 
2, 4 reff. 

k Luke xxiv. 
25. Gal. iii. 


Tols Nowtois EOvecwy. 
cools TE Kal 


3 only, L.P. 
Proy. xvii. 
28. 

1 ch. viii. 12. 


TIPO, POMAIOTS. 


L 


14"EAnolv te kal | BapBapors, 

Kk avontots }operérns eu: 1 ™ottws ™ TO 
*, m n > > \ ° / \ ry fal cal ’ c , > 

vio. Tint "KAT €“e °mpoOvpov Kal buiv trois év “Poépn ? evayyedt- 

cacba. 16 ob yap Léraicyvvopat TO evaryyédov: * Svvapts 


m = Rey. iii. 16. 


xv. 27. Matt. vi. 12. xviii. 24, Luke xiii. 4. Gal.v.3only+. Soph. Aj. 590. 

nch.ix.5. Eph. vi. 21. Polyb. x. 44. 1. see ch. xii. 18. o Matt. xxvi. 41 || Mk. only. 2 Chron. xxix. 31. (-pws, 
1 Pet. v.2. -Mta, Acts xvii. 11.) p constr., Gal. iv. 13. pass., 1 Pet. iv. 6. q Luke 
ix. 26 (bis) ||Mk.ch. vi.21. 2Tim.i.8. Heb. ii.llal. Job xxxiy.19 BN. isa. i. 29 AN 13> only. r =_Acts 


viii. 10 reff. 


15. for To Kat eve, o ew eve G-gr: quod in me promptum est vulg G-lat Sedul, 


Pel: quod in me est promtus sum D-lat Ambr Ambrst Ruf Sedul,. 
vay D! (and lat!) b! o am fuld! G-lat: em G-gr. 


16. for ro, em super G: de Aug Vig. 


ins ev bef 
om Tos ev pwun G. 
rec aft evayyeAtoy ins Tov xpiorov, with 


D3KL rel Thl Ge: om ABCD'GRN 17 vulg syrr copt arm Orig Eus Bas Cyr Chr Thdrt 


Pauline formula: see reff. kal kok. 
axpu T. Sedpo is best as a parenthesis, as 
it is impossible that tva can depend on 
é€xwavenv. So Demosth. p. 488. 7, euol 3, 
& tv5pes AO, Soxet Aewrivys (kat wor mpds 
Aids pndtv dpyiobijs’ ovdev yap pAaipov 
€p@ oe) 7) ovK aveyvwkevar Tos SdAwvos 
vouous }) ov cuvievat. The reason of the 
hindrance is given in ch. xv. 20—22: it 
was, his Aorta to preach the gospel 
where it had not been preached before, 
rather than on the foundation of others. 
KapTéy | Not, ‘ wages,’ or ‘result of 

my apostolic labour,’ for such is not the 
ordinary meaning of the word in the N.T., 
but fruit borne by you who have been 
planted to bring forth fruit toGod. This 
fruit I should then gather and ‘present to 
God; ef. the figure in ch. xv. 16: see also 
Phil. i. 22 and note. 14,] The con- 
nexion seems to be this: He wishes to have 
some fruit, some produce of expended la- 
bour, among the Romans as among other 
Gentiles. Till this was the case, he himself 
was a debtor to every such people: which 
situation of debtor he wished to change, by 
paying the debt and conferring a benefit, 
into that of one having money out at in- 
terest there, and yielding a kaprés. The 
debt which he owed to all nations was (ver. 
15) the obligation laid on him to preach 
the gospel to them; see 1 Cor. ix. 16. 
EAA.— BapB.— ood. — dvorjr. | 

These words must not be pressed as apply- 
ing to any particular churches, or as if any 
one of them designated the Romans them- 
selyes,—or even as if codots belonged to 
“EAAnow, and dvojros to BapBdpos. They 
are used, apparently, merely as compre- 
hending all Gentiles, whether considered 
in regard of race or of intellect; and are 
placed here certainly not without a pro- 
spective reference to the universality of 
guilt, and need of the gospel, which he is 
presently about to prove existed in the 
Gentile world. Notice that he does not 


call himself a debtor to the Jews —for they 
can hardly be included in BapBadpots (see 
Col. iii. 11). Though he had earnest de- 
sires for them (ch. ix. 1—3; x. 1), and 
every where preached to them first, this 
was not his peculiar opefAjua, see Gal. ii. 7, 
where he describes himself as wemo7evpe- 
vos TO evayyéAtov THs akpoBveTias, Kalds 
Ilétpos Tis mepitou7s. 15. vires | 
“ Est quasi... . illatio a toto ad partem 
insignem.” Bengel. ‘As to all Gentiles, 
so to you, who hold no mean place among 
them. 16.] The od yap ératoyt- 
vopar seems to be suggested by the posi- 
tion of the Romans in the world. ‘Yea, 
to you at Rome also: for, though your 
city is mistress of the world, though your 
emperors are worshipped as present deities, 
though you are elated by your pomps and 
luxuries and victories, yet I am _ not 
ashamed of the apparently mean origin of 
the gospel which I am to preach; for 
(and here is the transition to his great 
theme) it is,’ &e. So for the most part, 
Chrysostom, Hom. iii. p. 444. 

Svvapis yap 0. éotiv] The gospel, which 
is the greatest example of the Power of 
God, he strikingly calls that Power itself. 
(Not, as Jowett, ‘a divine power,’ nor is 
duxator. Beod below to be thus explained, 
as he alleges.) So in 1 Cor. i. 24 he ealls 
Christ, the Power of God. But not only 
is the gospel the great example of divine 
Power; it is the field of agency of the 
power of God, working in it, and inter- 
penetrating it throughout. The bare 
substantive ddvauis here (and 1 Cor. i. 24) 
carries a superlative sense: the highest 
and holiest vehicle of the divine Power, 
the divauis kat’ ekoxhv. “It is weighty 
for the difference between the Gospel and 
the Law, that the Law is never called 
God’s power, 15, but light, or teaching, 
in which a man must walk, Ps. xxxvi. 10; 
exix. 105; Prov. vi. 23; Isa. ii. 5.” Umbreit. 
And the direction in which this power acts 


ABCD 
KLNa 
edfg 
k] m1 

ol7 


14—17. 


Nt a > 
yap Ocod éotw Seis cwrnplav TavTt TO TioTEVOVTL, 


Saiw te Tp@Tov Kal “EAA. 


Procop Damase Phot Tert Arnob Hil Ruf. 
Te, tovde(sic) N!(txt N-corr?). 
Chr Thdrt Damase Thl @e Ruf Bede. 


in the gospel is eis cwtyplav—it is a 
healing, saving power: for as Chrysostom 
reminds us, there is a power of God eis 
kéAagww, and eis amméAciav, see Matt. x. 28. 
But ¢o whom is this gospel the power 

of God to save? mavtitG motevovTt. The 
universality implied in the wavri, the con- 
dition necessitated in the moredovri, and 
the ddvauis Ocod acting «is cwrnplay, are 
the great subjects treated of in the former 
part of this epistle. Add are proved to be 
"under sin, and so needing God’s righteous- 
ness (ch. i. 18—iii. 20), and the entrance 
into this righteousness is shewn to be by 
faith (ch. iii, 21—v. 11). Then the 6v- 
vous Geo in freeing from the dominion of 
sin and death, and as issuing in salvation, is 
set forth (ch. v. 11—viii. 39). So that if 
the subject of the Epistle is to be stated 
in few words, these should be chosen: 76 
evayyéAvov, Svivapis Oeod eis cwryptav 
wavtt TO MuotTevovTt. This expresses it 
better than merely ‘justification by faith,’ 
which is in fact only a subordinate part of 
the great theme,— only the condition neces- 
sitated by man’s sinfulness for his enter- 
ing the state of salvation: whereas the ar- 
gument extends beyond this, to the death 
unto sin and life unto God and carrying 
forward of the sanctifying work of the 
Spirit, from its first fruits even to its com- 
pletion. *Tovd. mpa@tov «.” EAA.) This 
is the Jewish expression for all mankind, as 
"EAA. k. BapB. ver. 14 is the Greek one. 
“RAA. here includes all Gentiles. mpatov 
is not first in order of time, but princi- 
pally (compare ch. ii. 9), spoken of na- 
tional precedence, in the sense in which the 
Jews were to our Lord of %3:01, John i. 11. 
Salvation was ex T@v "Iovdaiwy, Jolin iv. 
22. See ch. ix. 5; xi. 24. Not that the 
Jew has any preference under the gospel ; 
only he inherits, and has a precedence. 
ovde yap ered 5) mpOrds éors, Kab TA€OV 
AawBdver THs xdpitos: 7 yup avTh Swped 
kal tovT@ Kaelyw SidoTar GAAG Tdkeds 
eort Tye wdvoy TO Tp@Tos. Chrys. Hom. 
iii. p. 445. 17.] An explanation, how 
the gospel is the power of Giod to salva- 
tion, and how it is so fo the believer :— 
because in it God’s righteousness (not His 
attribute of righteousness,—‘the right- 
eousness of God,’ but righteousness flowing 
Srom, and acceptable to Him) is unfolded, 


TIIPO> POMAIOT®2. 


319 


ot 
OU- 8 =ver. 5 reff. 
t ch. iii. 5, 21, 


17 t Sixavocvvyn yap * Geobd &v Fed.¥. a, 


James i, 
20. 2Pet.i.1. (Micah vi. 5.) 


om es gwrnpiav G. for tovdaiw 


om mpwrov BG Tert: ins ACDKLN 17 rel Orig 


and the more, the more we believe. I sub- 
join De Wette’s note on din. Oeov. “The 
Greek 8c. and the Heb. mp are taken 
sometimes for ‘virtue’ and ‘piety ? which 
men possess or strive after,—sometimes 
imputatively, for ‘freedom from blame’ or 
‘justification. The latter meaning is most 
usual with Paul: dcx. is that which is so in 
the sight of God (ch. ii. 13), the result of 
His justifying forensic Judgment, or of 
‘Imputation’ (ch.iv.5). It may certainly 
be imagined, that a man might obtain jus- 
tification by fulfilling the law: in that case 
his righteousness is an idfa [ Sicaocdyn | 
(ch. x. 3), a Su. € TOD vduou (Phil. iii. 9). 
But it is impossible for him to obtain a 
‘righteousness of his own,’ which at the 
same time shall avail before God (ch. iii. 
20; Gal. ii. 16). The Jews not only have 
not fulfilled the law (ch. iii. 9—19), but 
could not fulfil it (vii. 7 ff.): the Gentiles 
likewise have rendered themselves ob- 
noxious to the divine wrath (i. 24—32). 
God has ordained that the whole race 
should be included in disobedience. Now 
if man is to become righteous from being 
unrighteous,—this can only happen by 
God’s grace,—because God declares him 
righteous, assumes him to be righteous, 
Sixarot (ili. 24; Gal. iti.8):—8irarody is not 
only negative, ‘fo acquit, as pasa Exod. 
xxiii. 7; Isa. v. 23; ch. ii. 13 [where how- 
ever see my note], but also positive, ‘to 
declare righteous ? but never ‘to make 
righteous’ by transformation, or imparting 
of moral strength by which moral perfec- 
tion may be attained. Justificatio must 
be taken as the old protestant dogmatists 
rightly took it, sensw forensi, i. e. impu- 
tatively. God justifies for Christ’s sake 
(ch, iii. 22 ff.) on condition of faith in Him 
as Mediator: the result of His justifica- 
tion is Sixaoctvn ex miorews, and as He 
imparts it freely, it is dicacocdvy Oeod (gen. 
subj.) or éx @eov, Phil. iii. 9: so Chrys. 
&e. (Sic. Oeod is ordinarily taken for Suk. 
mapa Oeg, as Luth.: ‘die Geredytigfeit 
die vor Gott gilt:’ compare ch. ii. 13; iii. 
20; Gal. iii. 11; but that this is at least 
not necessary, see 2 Cor. v. 21). This 
justification is certainly an objective act 
of God: but it must also be subjectively 
apprehended, as its condition is subjective. 
It is the acquittal from guilt, and cheer- 


320 


u = Matt. xi. 
25. xvi. 17 


TIIPOZ POMAIOTS. 


£ 


9.4 yy? / 2 / 5 .? , 06 L 
avuT@ ATOKANUTTTETAL EK TLOTEWS “ELS TTLOTW, KAUWS YE- 


al Isai pamtat YO 6€ Sixatos éx miatews Syoerat. 


& 

v Has. ii. 4. _ 
w = Luke xvii. 
30. 
13. 

ii. 3. 


1 Cor. iii. 
2 Thess. 


17. for yap,.d¢ A Clem. 


x John iii. 36. (ch. iii. 5. ix. 22.) Eph.v.6. Rev. xix. 15. 


aft dicatos ins wou (as LXx-A) C}; 


18 W’AtroxanuTTeTat yap * dpyn * Oeod am ovpavod ¥ éi 


y = Acts xiii. 11 reff. 


aft ex mortews (as 


LXX-Bk) syr Eus Jer: txt ABDGKLX® rel Clem Chr Thdrt Iren-int Ambr. 


Julness of conscience, attained through 
faith in God’s grace in Christ,—the very 
frame of mind which would be proper to 
a perfectly righteous man,—if such there 
were,—the harmony of the spirit with 
God,—peace with God. Al interpretations 
which overlook the fact of imputation (the 
R.-Cath., that of Grotius, Baumgarten- 
Crusius, &c.) are erroneous.” ‘To say, 
with Jowett, that all attempts to define 
dixaoo. Oeod are “the after-thoughts of 
theology, which have no real place in the 
interpretation of Scripture,” is in fact to 
shut our eyes to the great doctrinal facts 
of Christianity, and float off at once into 
uncertainty about the very foundations of 
the Apostle’s argument and our own faith: 
of which uncertainty his note here is an 
eminent example. év aite@ | in it, 
‘the gospel ? not, in T@ moTevoyTt. 

amokahvmretat| generally used of making 
known a thing hitherto concealed: but here 
of that gradually more complete realization 
of the state of justification before God by 
faith in Christ, which is the continuing 
and increasing gift of God to the believer 
in the Gospel. éx migtews| ‘ex 
points to the condition, or the subjective 
ground. iors is faith in the sense of 
trust, and that (a) @ trustful assumption 
of a truth in reference to knowledge = 
conviction: (b) a trustful surrender of 
the soul, as regards the feeling. Here it 
is especially the latter of these: that trust 
reposed in God’s grace in Christ, which 
tranquillizes the soul and frees it from all 
guilt,—and especially trust in the atoning 
death of Jesus. Bound up with this (not 
by the meaning of the words, but by the 
idea of unconditional trust, which excludes 
all reserve) is humility, consisting in the 
abandonment of all merits of a man’s own, 
and recognition of his own unworthiness 
and need of redemption.” De Wette. 

eis miotiw| amd mlaotews &pxeTat kK. cis 
motevovra Anyet (Ccum.) seems the most 
probable interpretation, making mlorw 
almost = tovds mortevoytas, see ch. ili. 22: 
but not entirely,—it is still the aspect, 
the phase, of the man, which is receptive 
of the d:ica:octvn Oeod, and to this it is re- 
vealed. The other interpretations,—‘for 
the increase of faith’ (Meyer),—‘that faith 


may be given to it’ (Fritzsche, Tholuck, 
Krebs),—‘ proceeding from faith, and 
leading to a higher degree of faith’ 
(Baumg.-Crus.),—do not seem so suitable 
or forcible. It will be observed that é 
m. eis 7. is taken with amoxaAdmrera, not 
with S:xkaoctvn. The latter connexion 
would do for é« 7., but not for eis 7. 
Kaas yéyp.| He shews that righteous- 
ness by faith is no new idea, but found in 
the prophets. The words (ref.) are cited 
again in Gal. iii. 11; Heb. x. 38, in the 
former place with the same purpose as here. 
They are used in Habakkuk with reference 
to credence given to the prophetic word: 
but properly speaking, all faith is one, in 
whatever word or act of God reposed: so 
that the Apostle is free from any charge of 
forcing the words to the present purpose. 
The two ways of arranging them, 6 dfkatos 
—éx miorews Choetar, and 6 Sikasos ek 
twictews—(hoeroat, in fact amount to the 
same : if the former, which is more agree- 
able to the Heb., be taken, (joerar must 
mean, ‘shall live on,’ endure in his 61- 
katootvn, by means of faith, which would 
assert that it was a d:xaocdvn of faith, 
as strongly as does the latter. See by 
all means, on the quotation, Umbreit’s 
note: and Delitzsch, der Proph. Habakuk, 
p- 51 ff. This latter remarks (I quote 
from Philippi), “The Apostle rests no 
more on our text than it will bear. He 
only places its assertion, that the life of 
the just springs from his faith, in the 
light of the N. T.” 

Cuap. I. 18—XI. 36.] Tur Docrrinan 
EXPOSITION OF THE ABOVE TRUTH: THAT 
THE GOSPEL IS THE POWER OF GOD UNTO 
SALVATION TO EVERY ONE THAT BELIEYV- 
ETH. And herein, ch. i. 18—iii. 20,—7znas- 
much as this power of God consists in the 
revelationof God’s righteousness in man by 
faith, and in order to faith the first requi- 
site is the recognition of man’s unworthi- 
ness, and incapability to work a righteous- 
ness for himself,—the Apostle begins by 
proving that all, Gentiles and Jews, are 
GuILty before God, as holding back the 
truth in unrighteousness. And FIRST, ch.i. 
18—32, oF THE GENTILES. 18.] He 
first states the general fact, of all mankind; 
but immediately passes off to the considera- 


18, 19. 


nr Z > Vi A 10 / > 0 , lal \ ’ 10 
maoav *acéBeay Kat adixiay avOpoTray TOV TIVY adnJeLav 
> 5 / a 4 19 b i Ae : yy 
€V AOLKLa * KaTEYOVTMD, OLloTL TO SYyvwaTOV TOD Oeod 


15,18 only. Jer. v.6. (-Bys, ch. iv. 5. -Betv, 2 Pet. ii. 6.) 


= Acts xviii. 10, or 1 Cor. xy. 9. 


18. ins twy bef avOpwrwy D'G. 


tion of the majority of mankind, the Gen- 
tiles; reserving the Jews for exceptional 
consideration afterwards. Grok. yap | 
The statement of ver. 17 was, that the 
RIGHTEOUSNESS of God is revealed. . The 
necessary condition of this revelation is, the 
DESTRUCTION of the righteousness of MAN 
by the revelation of God’s anger against sin. 
amoxahtmretat, not in the Gospel 
(as Grot.): not in men’s consciences (as 
Tholuck, ed. 1, Reiche): not in the mise- 
rable state of the then world (as Kilner) : 
but (as implied indeed by the adjunct am 
ovpavov,—that it is a providential, univer- 
sally-to-be-seen revelation) in the PUNISH- 
MENTS which, ver. 24, God has made to 
follow upon sin, see also ch. ii. 2 (so De W., 
Meyer, Tholuck, ed. 5, &e.). So that aor. 
is of an objective reality here, not of an 
evangelic internaland subjective unfolding. 
_ dpyy Geod is anthropopathically, 
but with the deepest truth, put for the 
righteousness of God in punishment (see 
ch. ii. 8; v. 9; Eph. ii. 3; Matt. i. 7; 
John iii. 36). It is the opposite, in the 
divine attributes, to Love (De W.). 
Gm’ ovp. (see above) belongs to amoxadv- 
mreTat, not to Geov, nor to dpyy Beod (7% 
Gm oup.). aoeBevav, godlessness ; 
Gduxiav, iniquity: but neither term is 
exclusive of the other, nor to be formally 
pressed to its limits. They overlap and 
include each other by a large margin: the 
specific difference being, that ac€8. is more 
the fountain (but at the same time par- 
tially the result) of adixfa,—which adc. is 
more the result (but at the same time par- 
tially the fountain) of acéBewm. abduK. is 
the state of the thoughts and feelings and 
habits, induced originally by forgetfulness 
of God, and in its turn inducing impieties 
of all kinds. We may notice by the way, 
that the word aséBe.a forms an interesting 
link to the Pastoral Epistles. avOp. Tay 
THV GA. év aducia KatexdvTwy| of men 
who hold back the truth in iniquity: 
who, possessing enough of the germs of reli- 
gious and moral verity to preserve them 
from abandonment, have checked the de- 
velopment of this ¢ruth in their lives, in 
the love and practice of sin. That this is 
the meaning of katexévTwy here is plain 
from this circumstance: that wherever 
xatéxw in the N. T. signifies ‘to hold,’ it 
Vou. II. 


IIPO> POMAIOTS. 


321 


z ch. xi. 26 
(from Isa. lix. 
a 20). 2 Tim. 
ii. 16. Tit. 
ii. 12. Jude 


a = 2 Thess. ii. 6 (see note). 


c = Acts i. 19 reff. (see note.) constr., see Winer, $ 34. 2. 


is emphatic, ‘to hold fast, or ‘to keep 
to,’ or ‘to take or have complete possession 
of : see for the first, Luke viii. 15; 1 Cor. 
xi. 2; -xv<2; 1 Thess. v. 21; Heb. iii. 6, 
14; x. 23: for the second, Luke xiv. 9 
(every other place except the lowest being 
excluded): for the third, Matt. xxi. 38; 
1 Cor. vii. 30. Now no such emphatic 
sense will apply here. If the word is to 
mean ‘holding,’ it must be only in the 
loosest and least emphatic sense: ‘having 
a half and indistinct consciousness of,’ 
which does not at all correspond to the 
kard, indicating vehemence of purpose, as 
in katapirew, Ke. But the meaning ‘hkeep- 
ing back,’ ‘hindering the development of, 
—while it has a direct example in Paul’s 
own usage in reff., and in Luke iv. 42, and 
indirect ones in [the spurious John v. 4] 
Acts xxvii. 40; ch. vii. 6; Philem. 13,— 
admirably suits the sense, that men had 
(see vv. 19 ff.) knowledge of God sufficient, 
if its legitimate work had been allowed, to 
have kept them from such excesses of 
enormity as they have committed, but that 
this aajdem they karetxov ev adiia, i.e. 
crushed, quenched, in (as the element, 
conditional medium in which) their state 
and practice of unrighteousness. It is plain 
that to take év adicia for adikws (as Theo- 
phyl. and Reiche) is to miss the force of 
the expression altogether—the pregnant év, 
‘in and by, implying that it is their 
@dixla,—the very absence of dixaoctvn 
for which the argument contends,— which 
is the status wherein, and the instrument 
whereby, they hold back the truth lit up 
in their consciences. 19.] Sudt1, be- 
cause, may either give the reason why the 
anger of God is revealed, and thus apply 
to all that follows as far as ver. 32, being 
taken up again at vv. 21, 24, 26, 28 (so 
Meyer): or may explain Tév .... Karex. 
(so Thol.): which latter seems most pro- 
bable: the swbauditum being, ‘(this charge 
I bring against them), because.’ For he 
proves, first (ver. 20) that they ad the 
aA7Gea; then (vv. 21 ff.) that they held 
it back. 76 yvwordv, that which is 
known, the objective knowledge patent 
and recognized in Creation :—so Chrys., 
Theodoret, Luther, Reiche, Meyer, De 
Wette, al.:—not ‘that which may be 
known’ (as Orig., Theophyl., Cpe Erasm., 


322 
« 
d =ch. ii, 15. 
e ch. iii. 21. 5 i 
xvi. 26. John 9 \ \ f2 
i. 31 al. fr. 20 Ta yap 
Jer. xl. r i i: x : 
(xxxiii. 
only. TOLI)LACLVY VOOULEVEa 
f Col. i. 15, 16. 
Limas hee 
Heb. xi. 27 
only. Gen 
i. 2. Isa. 
sb ie alae A Beet g = Matt. xxv. 34. 


i Eph. ii. 10 only. Isa. xxix. 16. 


IITPO> POMAIOTS. 


k = Matt. xxiv. 15. 


a 


, BI a > > Lal : « 6 fe \ > Lal e ’ / 
davepov éativ “ey avbtois: 6 Geos yap artois © épavépwoer. 
aopata avtov ®amo “xticews Koopmou Tots 
] Bova ef m 15 5) atin 

Kabopata, % Te ™ aidios avTod 
ry / \ n 6 , ro) > \ 9S > \ p > AS 4 
days Kal ™Georns, Peis TO eiva adrovs ? dvarrohoyi- 
tous, 2! IduoTe *yvovtes Tov * Gedy ovy ws Oedv * edo-acay 


h = Mark x. 6. xiii. 19. 2 Pet. iii. 4. 


2 Tim. ii.7. Heb. xi. 3. Prov. i. 2, 6. 1 here 


only. Num. xxiy.2. Job x. 4 only. m Jude 6 only+. Wisd. vii. 26 only. (-679S, Wisd. ii. 23 
F (not ABN).) n here only. Wisd. xviii. 9 only. (-os, Acts xvii. 29.) o ch, iv. 11 reff. = 2 Cor. 
viil. 6. p ch. ii. 1 only +. q =1 Cor. xy. 9. r 1 Cor, i. 21 reff. s = 1 Cor. 
yi. 29. Mal.i.1l. Dan. vy. 23. xi. 38 Theod. 


19. for dott, ort D!G Chr. 
ABCD!GR m 17 Orig, 
20. for aop., opara G-gr 115. 


Beza, Grot., al.), which would assert what, 
as simple matter of fact, was not the case, 
that all which could be known of God 
was davepdy ev avtots. He speaks now 
not of what they might have known of 
God, but of what they did know. Thus 
Td yywor.7T. Oeov will mean, that universal 
objective knowledge of God as the Creator 
which we find more or less in every nation 
under heaven, and which, as matter of his- 
torical fact, was proved to be in possession 
of the great Gentile nations of antiquity. 
av. éor. év avtois| is evident in 

them, i.e. in their hearts: not, to them 
(as Luth.),—nor, among them (as Erasm., 
Grot., &e.): for if it had been a thing 
acknowledged among them, it would not 
have been karexéuevov. Every man has 
in him this knowledge; his senses convey 
it to him (see next verse) with the pheeno- 
mena of nature. 6 6. y. éd.| gives 
the reason why that which is known of 
God is manifest in them, viz. because God 
Himself so created the world as to leave 
impressed on it this testimony to Him- 
self. Notice, and keep to, the historic 
aorist, épavépwoev, not ‘hath manifested 
it’ (perf.), but manifested it, viz. af the 
Creation. This is important for the right 
understanding of amd xt. Kéou. ver. 20. 
20.) For (justifying the clause 
preceding) His invisible attributes (hence 
the plur. applying to dvvauis and Oedrns 
which follow), amd Kricews Koop., from 
the time of the creation, when the mani- 
festation was made by God: not = é« 
xtloews x. ‘ by the creation of the world ;’ 
which would be tautological, rots zo:- 
hast vootmeva following, besides that 
xtiois kéouov cannot = % Krlows, in the 
sense of ‘the creation,’ i. e. ‘the creatures.’ 
Umbreit has here a long and important 
note on O. T. prophecy in general, which 
will be found well worth study. Tots 
woinp. voovp.| being understood (appre- 
hended by the mind, see reff.) by means of 


rec yap bef #eos, with D?KL Ath, Thi Ge: txt 
Eus Ath, Chr Thdrt. 
om adios L. 


His works (of creation and sustenance, 
—not here of moral government), «a0- 
opata., are perceived; not, ‘are plainly 
seen,’—this is not the sense of katd in 
kaSopaw, but rather that of looking down 
on, taking a survey of, and so appr ehending 
or perceiving. H te at8. avr. Suv. | 
His eternal Power. To this the eyi- 
dence of Creation is plainest of all: Eter- 
nal, and Almighty, have always, been re- 
cognized epithets of the Creator. 

«. Oerdtys | and Divinity (not Godhead, 
which would be 6eé7s). The fact that the 
Creator is divine ;—is of a different nature 
from ourselves, and accompanied by dis- 
tinct attributes, and those of the highest 
order,—which we call divine. eis TO 
elvat avt. avatoX.| eis Té with an inf. 
never properly indicates only the result, 
‘so that ;’? but is often wsed where the re- 
sult, and the intention, are bound together 
in the process of thought. This is done by 
a very natural habit in speaking and writ- 
ing, of transferring one’s self to the posi- 
tion of the argument, and regarding that 
which contributed to a result, as worked 
purposely for that result. And however 
true it is, that in the doings of the Allwise, 
all results are purposed, —to give the sense 
‘in order that they might be inexcusable,’ 
would be manifestly contrary to the whole 
spirit of the argument, which is bringing 
out, not at present God’s sovereignty in 
dealing with man, but man’s inexcusable- 
ness in holding back the truth by unright- 
eousness. ets 176, then, in this case, is 
most nearly expressed by wherefore, or so 
that. See Winer, edn. 6, § 44.6. od dia 
TovUTO Ta’ta merolnkey 5 Beds, et Kal TOTO 
e&€Bn. ov yap tva avtovs amroAoylas aro- 
orephon, didackarlay tocabTny eis pécov 
mpovdnkev, GAN iva abtoy emvyvaow ayvw- 
Hovhoaytes dt dons EavTods ameotéepnoay 
amodoylas. Chrys. Hom. iv. p. 450. 

21. 8671} expands dvamodoryhtovs— with- 
out excuse, because... yvovres | 


ABCDG 
KLNat 
edfgh 
klmnoa 
ol7 


20—24., IIPO> POMAIOTS. 323 


Veep ee) / > > u2 , > a rr 

n ‘nvxapioTncayv, adr éuatamOnaav év Tots ¥ dvado- lag 
an > nr \ 3 / ¢ fe fal 

yiopots avTav, Kal “ éxKxoticOn 1) * aobveTos avTav Kapdia. “1'Kinas Xi 


1 Kings xiii. 
‘ * cas a 13. Jer. ii, 5. 
2 ¥ hacKovtes eivat soot * éuwpavOnoav * Kal *rAXaEaY  (-s775, ch. 


viil. 20.) 


\ a a > s a p) € es ate 
tiv Sogav tod -apOdprov Oeod °év 4 opormparte © ElKdvos * 51,2 
a bf , \ o lal) U 
‘ h0aprovd avOpwrov Kal *rretewav kal terpamodwy Kal 


James i. 4. 


xciil. 11), 
i c lal 
EPTTETWV. 


45. Rey. viii. 12) only. 


Luke xiv. 34) only. Jer. x. 13. 
P Tim. i. 17. 
d ch. yv. 14. vi. 5. viii. 3 


y. 15. 
b 1 Cor. ix. 25. xv. 52. 
ce constr., Ps. l. ec. 

viii. 29 reff. 

16 only. ots 
i Acts as above (h). James iii. 7 only. 

yii. 42. constr., vv. 26, 28. ch. vi. 17. 

iv.5. 2 Pet.ii.18. Xen. Cyr. i. 6. 34. 

vi. 19. 2 Cor. xii. 21. 


Gen. i, 24. 


21. om 7 A. 


Cyr Thdrt Thl.] adaAa Bb. 


248.0 [Kxai] !wapédmxev avtovs 0 Oeds év 
tails ™ ériOupiais TOV ™Kapoidv adTav eis ° axabapalav 


Eph, iy. 19. 


Eph. iy. 19 al5.) only, exc. Matt. xxiii. 27. 


w = ch. xi, 10, 
from Ps. 
xviii. 23 
(Matt. xxiv. 
29 || Mk. 
Luke xxiii. 


J x Matt. xy. 16 || Mir ver. 31. ch. x. 19 (from Deut. xxxii. 21) only. 
y Acts xxiv. 9, xxv. 19 only. Gen. xxvi. 20. 2 Macc. xiv. 27, 32 only. 
; 2 Kings xxiv. 10. 
1 Pet. i. 4, 23. ili. 4only +. Wisd. xii. 1. xviii. 4 only. 
Phil. ii. 7. 
f1 Cor. ix. 25. xv. 53, 54. 
g Acts x. 12 reff. Deut. xiv. 19, 20. 


z = 1 Cor. i. 20 (Matt. 

1 Cor. xv. 51, 52 reff. 

j (-ota, ch. ii. 7.) 

Rey. ix. 7 only. Deut. iv. 17, 18. ech. 

1 Pet. i. 18, 23 only +. Wisd. ix. 15 al2. 2 Mace. vii. 

h Acts x. 12. xi. 6 only. Gen. xxxiv. 23. 

k = [ch. iv. 22.) Phil. ii. 9. 1= Acts 

Isa. xxxiii. 23. Sir. iy. 19. m = 1 Thess. 

n Sir. v. 2 BN3° F (om. ACN). o Paul (ch. 
Proy. vi. 16. 


a Psa. cv. 20. 


[nuxapiotnoav, so ACDEN cdk1m n 17 Clem Orig Eus Ath 
kapdia bef avtwy D1G vulg. 


23. nAdakayto K cg hk Orig, Eus Cyr Thdrt, Thl. 
24, om kat ABCR 17 vulg Orig Did Damase Aug Ambrst Pelag: ins DGKL rel syr 


‘with the knowledge above stated. This 
participle testifies plainly that matter of 
fact, and not of possibility, has been the 
subject of the foregoing verses. From 
this point, we take up what they MIGHT 
HAVE DONE, but DID NOT. ovX ws 
Oecdv 256&.] They did not give Him glory 
(Sotd¢w here principally of recognition by 
worship) AS Gop, i.e. as the great Crea- 
tor of all, distinct from and infinitely 
superior to all His works. Bengel well 
divides éSdfacav and nvxaptotnoav— 
* Gratias agere debemus ob beneficia: 
glorificare ob ipsas virtutes divinas.” They 
did neither : in their religion, they deposed 
God from His place as Creator,—in their 
lives, they were ungrateful by the abuse of 
His gifts. épatardbnoay | 527, vanus 
Suit, is used of worshipping idols, 2 Kings 
xvii. 15; Jer. ii. 5, and 537, vanitas, of an 
idol, Deut. xxxii. 21; 1 Kings xvi. 26 al. : 
and hence probably the word waraidw was 
here chosen. Stadoyropots | their 
thoughts: but generally in N. T. in a dad 
sense: they became vain (idle, foolish) 
in their speculations. eoxotiaby 7 
dovv. att. kapd.| aotveros is not the re- 
sult of écxot.,—‘ became darkened so as to 
lose its understanding, —but the converse, 
—their heart (kap5ia of the whole inner 
man,—the seat of knowledge and feeling) 
being foolish (unintelligent, not retaining 
God in its knowledge) became dark (lost 
the little light it had, and wandered blindly 
in the mazes of folly). 22. daokovTes 
elv. aod.| Not, ‘because they professed 
themselves wise,’ but while they professed 
themselves wise—professing themselves 


to be wise. The words relate perhaps not 
so much to the schools of philosophy, 
as to the assumption of wisdom by the 
Greeks in general, see 1 Cor. i. 22, of 
which assumption their philosophers were 
indeed eminent, but not the only examples. 
23. mANagav x.7.A.] quoted from 
ref. Ps., only thy ddtav atv, ‘their 
glory,’ of the Psalm, is changed to ‘ God’s 
glory, —viz. His Power and Majesty visi- 
ble in the Creation. év represents the 
conditional element in which the change 
subsisted. ap0aprov and paprov 
shew by contrast the folly of such a sub- 
stitution: He who made and upholds all 
things must be incorruptible, and no cor- 
ruptible thing can express His likeness. 
Gpordpati eixdvos] the simili- 
tude of the form—eixdévos generalizes it 
to mean the human form, it not being 
any one particular man, but the form of 
man (examples being abundant) to which 
they degraded God,—and so of the other 
creatures. Deities of the huwman form pre- 
vailed in Greece—those of the bestial in 
Egypt. Both methods of worship’ were 
practised in Rome. 24—32.| Immo- 
rality, and indeed bestiality, were the 
sequel of idolatry. 24.| The «at after 
5.6 may import, As they advanced in de- 
parture from God, so God also on His 
part gave them up, &c.;—His dealings 
with ¢zem had a progression likewise. 
mapedwkev] not merely permissive, but 
judicial: God delivered them over. As 
sin begets sin, and darkness of mind deeper 
darkness, grace gives place to judgment, 
and the divine wrath hardens men, and 


Weez 


524 


IPOS POMAIOTS. 


I, 


pP=1Cor x Prop TaTymalerOar TA gopaTa avTaY ev avTois, * * cites ABCD) 

Acts y. 41 a rn a Ra 
Tre. § meta AAaEay THv tadynOevav Tod Oeod * év 7A ¥ Wrevdeu Kai ede 
oF ae Ie , a \ m | 
fete ss omy.  €o€BATOncav Kal * EXaTpeVoaY TH Y KTivEL * Tapa TOV 017 


Esth. ii. 20 
BN(not A) 
Esdr. i. 
31 (29) al. 

t = here only. 
5 1 Thess. 


26 Sia TovTo 4 


a ey: iv. My 


ai TE nae 8 iene auT@v 


a / a b] b > XN be ’ \ aA > , 
KTiOQVTA, OS ECOTLV evAoynTos ELS TOUS ALWVAS, AfLL1)V. 
a) > SY © ‘al \ > e iO f > / 
TTApEe @KEV AUTOUS O VEOS ELS ~ TAU1) ATLAS 


‘weTHARXaEaY THY ” duotKHY 


/ 9 Ld , \ e 
Lf ow *e ™ 27 ® guoiws ™ Te ™ Kab 
ees, RTSID, ets TY lump pues Vian on aloe ie OL 
eee oo ‘haha Padévtes THY " hvaotxny ‘ypnow Tis ® Onrelas 
liv. 2 
w eee only +. y = ch, viii. 39 reff. z =— ch. xiv. 5 reff. a Mark 
xiii. 19. Eph. iii. 9. Gol. i iii. Xo. 1 Tim. iv.3al. Deut. iv. 32. b ch. ix. 5 reff. ech. 


d ver, 24. 
fch. ix, 21. 
Ley. xxvii. 4. neut., 


xi, 36. Heb. xiii. 8. 
Mem. iii. 10. 8. 
g fem., here bis only. 


e Col, iii. 5. 
1 Cor, xi. 14. xv. 43. 
Matt. xix. 4|| Mk. 


1 Thess. iv. 5 only +. 
2 Cor, vi. 8, xi. 21. 
Gal. iii. 28 only. 


Job xvi. 4 Symm. = Xen. 
2 Tim. ii. 20 ponhy. P. 
Loe i. 27. vii. 


Jer, xx. 1]. 
h here 


bis. 2 Pet. ii. 12 only t. (-K@s, Jude 10.) ihere bis only, 1 Kings i. Wisd. xv. 7,15. Sir. xviii. 8 
only. Thue. vii. 5. k = James iv. 9, Rev. xi. 6. i ese xviii, 13. ch. iv. 18. xi. 24. Gal. 
i. 8,9 al. m ch. ii. 14, 27. xi. 21, 24 (3ce). 1 Cor. xi. 14. Gal. ii. 15. iv. 8. Eph. ii. 3. James iii. 7 
bis. 2 Pet. i.4 only +. Wisd. vii. 20 only. n here only. see 1 Cor. vii. 3, 4. o here 3ce. Matt. 
xix.4||Mk. Luke ii. 23. Gal. iii. 28. Rev. xii. ,13 only. Jer, xx. 15. p = Matt. xxiii. 23. Rev. 
ii.4. Judg. ix. 9 &c. A. propr., Matt. iv. 11, 22. 


Ath Chr Thdrt Th] Ge. 


om o 8eos Cl(appy) Did Ath-mss. 


rec €avtots, with 


D3EGKL 17 rel Chr, Thdrt Damase Thl @e: txt ABCD!N copt Chr,. 


26. for xpnow, criow D!: 
arm Jer. 


sensum VD-lat. 


aft mapa puow, add xpnow D'G vulg 


27. for re, 5¢ AD1G 0117 vulg syr Clem Ath Chr Thdrt Damase Thl Aug Ruf, 


Ambrst : om C a! b h o copt Orig Jer Ruf, : 
rec (1st) appeves, with ACD°LN rel Ath Chr Thdrt Thl : 


hurries them on to more fearful degrees of 
depravity. év tats émv§.| in the 
lusts—not by nor through the lusts (as 
Erasmus and E. V.);—the lusts of the heart 
were the field of action, the department of 
their being, in which this dishonour took 
place. axalapotay | more than mere 
profligacy in the satisfaction of natural lust 
(as Olsh.); for the Apostle uses cognate 
words ariudeoOa and atiuta here and in 
ver. 26 :— bestiality ; impurity in the phy- 
sical, not only in the social and religious 
sense, Tov atipaleoGar | the genitive 
may imply either (1) the purpose of Gou’s 
delivering them over to impurity, ‘ that 
their bodies should be dishonoured, or (2) 
the result of that delivering over, ‘so that 
their bodies were dishonoured,’ or (3) the 
nature of the a@xa@apala, as md0n atimlas 
below,—‘ impurity, which consisted in 
their bodies being dishonoured.’ ‘The se- 
cond of these seems most accordant with 
the usage of the Apostle and with the argu- 
ment. arid er@a is most likely pas- 
sive (Beza, al. De Wette), as the middle 
of a7iud@w is not found in use. And this 
is confirmed by the old and_ probably 
genuine reading avro?s, which has been 
altered to éavrots from imagining that 
‘they’ was the subject to arid eoOau. 
So that their bodies were dishonoured 
among them. 25.| This verse casts 
light on the riy GAO. ev ddinla Katexdv- 
tov of ver. 18. The truth of God (the 


oma Lk. 
txt BD!G (c?) Athen 


txt BD3K LN Syr eth Gc. 


true notion of Him as the Creator) which 
they professed, they changed intd (see on 
ev, ver. 23) a lie (pevdos = rv, used of 
idols, Jer. xvi. 19), thus counteracting its 
legitimate agency and depriving it of all 
power for good. ocBalopat, of the 
honour of respect and observance and 
reverence,—atpevo, of formal worship 
with sacr ifice and offering. Both verbs 
belong to Hh ktige:; though weBdCouat 
would require an accusative, Aarpevw, the 
nearest, takes the government. mH 
Kt.| the thing made, the creature—a 
general term for all objects of idolatrous 
worship. mapa, beyond—which would 
amount to the exclusion of the Creator. 

The doxology expresses the horror 
of the Apostle at this dishonour, and puts 
their sin in a more striking light. But 
we need not supply ef Kat obras UBpicay, as 
Chrys. evAoyntés is Blessed, kat’ 
étoxhy : the LXX put for it the perf. part., 
I's. exvii. 24. The adjective is usually of 
God : the participle, of man, 26.) wa@y 
aTip...—see above, ver. 24,—stronger than 
&riua maOn, as setting forth the status, 
ariula, to which the way belonged. Con- 
trast 1 Thess. iv. 4, 7d éavTotd oKevos KTG- 
oO ev TiLy. XpHow | usum vene- 
reum; see examples in Wetstein. This 
abuse is spoken of first, as being the most 
revolting to nature. “In peceatis argu- 
endis seepe scapha debet scapha dici. Pu- 
dorem preposterum ii fere postulant qui 


25—29. 


IIPO> POMAIOTS. 


325 


4 ’ A fal 
1 é£exavOnoav ev TH * opéEer adtav eis aNArXovs, ° dipaeves 2 here only. 


Deut. xxix. 
Diod. 


s2,07 \ t 2 , u , \ \ 20. 
ev °apoeow THv ‘ acynuwoovyny “Katepyalomevor Kal TIHV Sic. xiv. 108. 


VY avripiabiav hy eer THS “ TWAaVHS adTav év EavTots * atro-_ 


AapBavortes. 


4 co oe - b 
EXEL eV ETTLYVMCEL, 


fal tal \ \ , ¢ 
©adoxiov vodv, moeiy Ta pr “xabjKovta, * ° reTAnpw- 


, f f b) / hik 
pévous ' aon © adikia, 


xii. 23. -movety, 1 Cor. vii. 36.) 


fate) ‘ \ 7 ‘ 
28 cat xabws ovK Y édoxiwacay tov Oeov % 


Polyb. ix. 10. 


r here only +. 
Sir. xxiii. 6 


s = 1Tim.i.16. 


mapédwxev avtovs 6 Oeds ” eg t = here (Rev. 


xvi. 15) only. 
(Exod. xx. 
26.) Jos. 


/ : ! * Antt. xvi. 
movnpia,  wreoveEia, ™ Kakia, 7.6. 
t “ “7? (c 1c 
powv, 1 Cor. 
u = ch, ii. 9 reff, v 2 Cor. vi. 13 only +. w = James 


y. 20. 2 Pet. ii. 18. Judell. Ezek. xxxiii. 10. x Tuke vi. 34. xxiii.41 al. Num. xxxiv.14, 2 Mace. 
iv. 46. vi. 21. viii. 6 only. y = here only}. Jos. Antt. ii. 7. 4. see ch. xiv. 22 reff. 1 Cor. 
iii. 13 reff. z=1Tim. iii. 4. so €xewv ev aittacs or 6c’ aitias, Thue. ii. 18. see Viger, p. 249. 
ach. iii. 20 reff. Hos. iv. 1. b ver. 24. ec 1 Cor. ix. 27. 2 Cor. xiii. 5,6,7. 2 Tim. 
iii. 8. Tit.i.16. Heb. vi.8 only. P.H. Prov. xxv.4. Isa. i. 22 only. d Acts xxii. 22 only. Deut. 
xxi. 17. 2 Macc. yi. 4. e constr., Luke ii.40. 2Cor.vii.4 only. 2 Macc. vii. 21. “f= Acts 
xx. 19 reff. g Luke xiii. 27. Actsi.18. Ps. xxvii. 3. h Acts iii. 26 reff. i Mark 
vii. 22. k 1 Cor. y. 8. 1Eph. iv. 19. 2 Pet.ii.3 al. Ezek. xxii. 27. m = 1 Cor. 
xiv. 20 reff. 
Orig Eus Ec. appeves (2nd) ACN! b! 17 Clem Orig Ath, Chr Thdrt: txt BDGL 


X&-corr! Th! Ge. 
Ath, Chr Thl Ge. 


ev appeot AN! 5. 17 Clem Orig Ath, Thdrt: txt BCDGL &-corr! 
for eaut., avtois BK 35. 


28. om o @eos A X'(ins corr!) 2 Nyss Ath Damasce Hil-mss Vict-tun: Chr has it bef 


auTous. 


29. rec aft adicia ins ropvea, with L rel syrr Thdrt Thl @e Ennod, and D'!EG vulg 
Lucif Ruf Ambrst aft cari, omg rovnpia: om ABCKRN 17 copt «eth Ephr Bas Chr Isid 


Max Gennad Damase Aug Ruf-comm. 


Kakia bef wAeovet. AR Ephr Aug: rar. 


mov. tA. C (d) 17 copt wth Isid Max Damasc: kak. wopvera mAcov. D1 (aft mopy. ms 
movnp. D3) G 2. 46. 71. 92: txt BK(omg wovnp.) L rel syr Bas Chr Thdrt Thl He. 


pudicitia carent . .. Gravitas et ardor stili 
judicialis, proprietate verborum non violat 
verecundiam.” Bengel. 27.) THY 
a&oxnu. perhaps, as De W., ‘the (well- 
known, too frequent) indecency,’ — ‘cui 
ipsa corporis . . . conformatio reclamat,’ 
Bengel: but more probably the article is 
only generic, as in 2 Pet. i. 5—8 re- 
peatedly. Thy avtyrcOiav| The 
Apostle treats this ariula into which they 
fell, as a consequence of, a retribution for, 
their departure from God into idolatry,— 
with which 77 fact it was closely connected. 
This shame, and not its consequences, 
which are not here treated of, is the avti- 
puc8ia of their wAdyn, their aberration 
from the knowledge of God, which they 
received. This is further shewn by vy 
€de: in the past tense. ei yap kal ui yé- 
evva av, pnde KdédAaois AmelAnTo, TovTo 
mdons KoAdoews XeEtpov iv. et 5€ HdovTat, 
Thy mposOijkny jor A€yets THS Tiwplas. 
Chrys. Hom. v. p. 457. év €avTois, 
in their own persons, viz. by their de- 
gradation even below the beasts. 

28.] The play on doximd(w and addKximas 
can hardly be expressed in any other lan- 
guage. ‘Non probaverunt’ and ‘repro- 
bum’ of the Vulgate does not give it. 
Because they reprobated the knowledge 
of God, God gave them over to a repro- 
bate mind, is indeed a very inadequate, 
but as far as the form of the two words is 
concerned, an accurate representation of it. 


(Mr. Conybeare givesit,—‘“As they thought 
fit to cast out the acknowledgment of God, 
God gave them over to an outcast mind.”) 
For adéximos is not ‘judicii expers’ (as 
Beza, Tholuck, &c.), but reprobate, 7e- 
jected by God. God withdrew from them 
His preventing grace and left them to the 
evil which they had chosen. The active 
sense of a3dx:uos, besides being altogether 
unexampled, would, in the depth of its 
meaning, be inconsistent with the assertion 
of the passage. God did not give them up 
to a mind which had lost the faculty of 
discerning, but to a mind judicially aban- 
doned to that depravity which, being well 
able to exercise the doxiuacia required, 
not only does not do so, but in the head- 
long current of its abandonment to evil, 
sympathizes with and encourages (ver. 32) 
its practice in others. It is the ‘video 
meliora proboque,’ which makes the ‘ dete- 
riora sequor’ so peculiarly criminal. 

ovK edorluacay €xew is not = edoxiu. ovk 
éxew (as Dr. Burton): the latter would 
express more a deliberate act of the judg- 
ment ending in rejection of God, whereas 
the text charges them with not having ex- 
ercised that jadgment which would, if exer- 
cised, have led to the retention of God in 
their knowledge. éxewv év étruyv: | So 
Job xxi. 14,—“they say to God, Depart 
from us: for we desire not the knowledge 
of thy ways,” and xxii. 15—17. 
29—31.] wemAnpwpevous belongs to the 


526 


n = Matt. 
XXill. 28. ch. 
xv.]l4. James 
iii. 8, 17 al. 
Ezek. xxxvii. _ 
1, Nah. i. 10 XY 
only. 


IIPOS POMAIOTS. 


I. 30—82. 


"pecTous Pt dOovov, ° povov,  pidos, SdXov, * kaxonbelas, 
a / 

‘apiOupiotds, °°" Katadddous, ¥ Oeootuyeis, UBpioras, 

uTrepnpavous, ** adaSovas, * épeuperas Kaxav, * yovebow 


o (Gal. v. 20, 21.] p Phil. i. 15. 1 Tim. vi. 4. q as above (op). Matt. xxvii. 18 |j Mk. Tit. 
” iii. 3. Jamesiv.5. 1 Pet. ii. 1 only. Wisd. vi. 23 (25). 1 Mace. viii. 16 only. : r 1 Cor. i. 11 reff. 

s here only +. 3 Mace. iii. 22. vii.3. kakoyjOeva, 70 emt TO xXElpov YrodauBaveww amavta, Aristot. Rhet. ii. 13. 
there only+. (-(Gewv, Ps. xl.7. -topds, 2 Cor. xii. 20.) u here only+. (-Ata, 2 Cor. xii. 20, -Aetv, James 
iv. 11.) y here only +. wl Tim. i.13 only. Prov. vi. 17 al. (-tpca, Jer. xxvii. (1231. -tTtKos, 
Prov. xx. 1.) x 2 Tim. iii. 2. yas above (x). Lukei.51. James iv.6. 1 Pet. v. 5 


only. Ps. exviii. 21,51. (-véa, Mark vii. 22. 
li. 5 only. a here only +. 


govwy G D!-lat Lucif Ennod: epidos bef govou A. 


30. kakoAadous D!. 


subject of moiety, understood. The 
reading ropvela appears to have arisen out 
of wovnpia, and is placed by some mss. 
after that word, by some after kax/a, omit- 
ting ov. The Apostle can hardly have 
written it here, treating as he does all 
these immoralities of the heart and con- 
science as results of, and flowing from, 
the licentious practices of idolatry above 
specified. Accurate distinctions of 
ethical meaning can hardly be found for 
all these words. Without requiring such, 
or insisting on each excluding the rest, I 
have collected the most interesting notices 
respecting them. Umbreit has illustrated 
their LXX usage and Hebrew equivalents. 
ddicia} Perhaps a general term, 
comprehending all that follow : such would 
be according to the usage of the Epistle : 
but perhaps to be confined to the stricter 
import of injustice; of which'on the part 
of the Romans, Wetst. gives abundant 
testimonies. tovnpia.| Ammonius in- 
terprets 7 movnpdy, Td Spactikdy KaKov,— 
used therefore more of the tempter and 
seducer to evil. teovetia | covet- 
ousness (not as 1 Thess. iv. 6, see there), 
of which the whole provincial government 
and civil life of the Romans at the time 
was full. ‘Quando | major avaritie patuit 
sinus?’ exclaims Juvenal, soon after this. 
Sat. i. 87. kaka | more the passive 
side of evil—the capability of and proclivity 
to evil,—the opposite to aper:—so Arist. 
Eth. Nic. ii. 3. 6, drdxerrar tpa 4 aperh 
elvat....T@v BedAtioTwY mpaKTiKh H dé 
kakla, TovvavTiov. $8dvovand ddvov 
are probably put together from similarity 
of sound. So Eurip. Troad. 770 ff., é Tuv- 
Sdpeioy €pvos, oot ef Aids | moAA@y 6 
marépwy pnt a exmepuxévar, | *AAdoTopos 
bev mpa@rov, elta 5 p6dvov, | pdvou Te, 
Oavdrov 0, boa Te yi Tpepe KaKd. 
KakonPetas | see reff.  YiOvp. secret ma- 
ligners,—katak. open slanderers. The 
distinction attempted to be set up by 
Suidas and others, between @couiohs, smd 
Gc00 picovpevos, and Oeoutons, 6 micaey Toy 


z as above (x) only. Job xxviii.8. Prov. xxi. 24. Hab, 


om doAov A Bas. 


[vv 27—30 are in a difft hand from the rest of D.] 


Gedv, has been applied to Georrvyeis also, 
which has therefore been written deoarb- 
yes. But the distinction is untenable; 
all compound adjectives in 7s being oxyton. 

Beoorvyys is never found in an active 
sense, ‘hater of God, but always in a 
passive, hated by God (cf. Eur. Troad. 
1205, 7 Ocootuyhs ‘EAér7: Cycl. 395, 7g 
Geootvyet Gov waryelpw: ib. 598: so Oco- 
g~iAnjs, Demosth. 1486 ult. : evTUXETTaTHY 
Tacav méhewy Thy tpmetépay voullw rar 
GeopiAcoratny: and Alsch. Bum. 831) ; 
and such is apparently the sense here. 
The order of crimes enumerated would be 
broken, and one of a totally different kind 
inserted between kataddAous and UBpiordas, 
if Oeoor. is to signify ‘haters of God? 
But on the other supposition,—if any 
crime was known more than another as 
‘hated by the gods, it was that of ‘dela- 
tores,’ abandoned persons who circum- 
vented and ruined others by a system 
of malignant espionage and false informa- 
tion. And the crime was one which the 
readers of this part of Roman history know 
to have been the pest of the state; see 
Tacitus, Ann. vi. 7, where he calls the dela- 
tores ‘ Principi quidem grati, et Deo exosi? 
So also Philo, ap. Damascen. (quoted by 
Wetst.) Si¢Boro: xa Oclas aromeurror 
xdpitos, of Thy adthy enelv@ diaBoArrkhy 
vooovytTes kakoTexviay, Ocoorvyects Te Kal 
Geouice’s tavtn. It does not follow that 
the delatores only are intended, but the 
expression may be used to include all those 
abandoned persons who were known as 
Diis exosi, who were employed in pursuits 
hateful and injurious to their kind. So 
Wetst., Meyer, Riickert, Fritzsche, De 
Wette:—the majority of Commentators 
incline to the active sense,—so Theodoret, 
(Ee., Erasm., Luther, Calv., Beza, Estius, 
Grot., Tholuck, Reiche, &e. UBpiords | 
opposed by Xenoph. Mem. i. and Apol. 
Socr. to odppwy, ‘a discreet and modest 
man :’ but here perhaps, as said by Paul of 
himself, ref. 1 Tim., ‘qui contumelia afficit,’ 
“an insulting person.’ itrepyavovs | 


ABCD: 
KLNa 
edfg 
kilm 
017 





iT. 


d 


xb ameiOeis, 31 © dcuvétous, 


TOls Tpacaovow. 


II. 1 Avo Pdvarrodoyntos i, & avOpwre Tas 0 4% Kpi- 


only +. @schin. p. 47, 29. 
h Job xxxiv. 27. * 

xiii. 12 reff. 

xxiii. 29 reff. 


IIPOS POMAIOTS. 


acuvbérous, 
favehenpovas, °2 8 oitwes TO “idixalwya Tod Oeod ™* érru- 
yvovTes, OTL of TA ToLav’Ta TpacoovTes ™ aEvoL ™ Oavdtov 
etolv, ov povoy avTa TroLodaW, AAA Kal © cUVEVdSoKODCLY 


f here only. 
i= Lukei. 6. ch. ii. 26. viii. 4. 
m = of persons, ch. xiii. 46. 
o 1 Cor, vii. 12, 13 reff, 


527 


e b My 
aoTopyous, 


Tit. 1.6; iii! 8 
only. L.P. 
Deut, xxi. 18. 
(-Oetr, -Oeva, 
ch. xi. 30. 

c ver. 21 reff. 

d here only. 
Jer. iii. 8, 10, 
11 only. 
Demosth. p. 
383. 6. 

e 2 Tim. iii. 3 
g = Acts x. 41 reff. 

k = 1Cor. 
n Acts 
q = ch. xiy. 3, 4 reff. 


Prov. v. 9. xi. 17. 
Heb. ix. 1,10. Exod. xv. 25. 
Matt. x. 10 al. Deut. xxv. 2, 
p ch. i. 20 only +. 


31. rec aft acropyous ins agmovdous (gloss in marg to explain acvyderous), with 
CD3KLN? rel vulg syrr Chr(omg acuverovs) Thdrt ; pref, 17.76 Thl; bef acurOerous 
D3: om ABD!GN! fuld! copt Ephr, Damase Lucif. 

82. emyvovtes L 17: emiyivwokovtes B 80: yvorvres Thl: e:dores 116 Chr: add 
ove evonoay D Bas: ove eyvwoav G 8-pe: ov ovynkav 15: non intellewerunt, or the 


like, latt. 
Ambrst. 


ov povoy yap (see above) D1: ov w. de 46 Bas: ka ov w. vulg arm 
To.ouvTes and auvevdokovvtes B: ov pov. o1 moiovytes avTa aA. Kal ot 


guvevdoKovytes some mentd by Isid vulg(not am!) D?-lat G-lat arm (Clem-rom) Ephr, 


Bas. 


eat) 5€ brepnpavia Kkatappdyvyncts Tis TARY 
avTov Tav %AAwy, Theophr. Char. 34. It 
may be observed that Aristotle, Rhet. ii. 
16, mentions bBpioral and brephpavor as 
examples of T@ TAOUT@ & EmeTaL HON. 

G@daldvas] see reff. done? 5¢ Kad adraCdy 
elvat 6 Gpacvds kad mposmointixds aydpelas, 
Aristot. Eth. Nic. iii. 10. Sore? 5% 6 pev 
Ghalev mpostomtixds Tay evddEwy civat, 
kal un brapxdvTwy, kad perCdvwv 7) Srapxer 
....[€vexa ddins ral Tits]... . Kal yap 
7 SwepBory Kat 7 Alay ZrAdAeuis GAaCoviKdy, 
Thid. iv. 13. édeup. kak. | ‘Sejanus 
omnium facinorum repertor habebatur,’ 
Tacit. Ann. iv. 11:—‘scelerumque inventor 
Ulixes,” Virg. Ain. ii. 161: cracidpya, 
pidompdypoves, kax@y evpetal, TapatimdAr- 
des, Philo in Flace. § 4, vol. i. p. 520 :— 
mdons kaktas ebperhs (of Antiochus Epiph.), 
2 Mace. vii. 31. aovverous, destitute 
of (moral) understanding, see Col.i. 9, and 
reff. Here perhaps suggested by the simi- 
larity of sound to aovvGétouvs, without 
good faith, ov éupévovras tais ovvO7- 
kos, Suid. and Hesych. In the same 
sense, evouvOereiy and aovvOetety are op- 
posed by Chrysippus and Plutarch (see 
Wetst.). aoTdpyous | ui) Gyamrav- 
tds Twa, Hesych. And Athenzus, speak- 
ing of of KkaAovpmevor dpvibes pedcarypldes, 
—éotl 6€ doTopyov mpos Ta Exyova Td 
Upveov, Kal GArywpel THY vewTéepwy, Xiv. 
p- 655 c. “In hae urbe nemo liberos tol- 
lit, quia, quisquis suos heeredes habet, nec 
ad ccenas nec ad spectacula admittitur.” 
Petronius, 116. (Wetst.) 82.]| The 
Apostle advances to the highest grade of 
moral abandonment,—the knowledge of 
God’s sentence against such crimes, united 
with the contented practice of them, and 


encouragement of them in others. 70 
Sixatwpa 7. 0.] the sentence of God, un- 
mistakeably pronounced in the conscience. 

6rt x.7.A.] viz. that they who do 
such things are worthy of death; this zs 
the sentence, and must not be enclosed in 
a parenthesis, as in Wetstein, Griesbach, 
and Scholz. Oavatov, what sort of 
death? Probably a general term for the 


fatal consequence of sin; that such courses 


lead to ruin. The word can hardly be 
pressed to its exact meaning: for many of 
the crimes mentioned could never be visited 
with judicial capital punishment in this 
world (as Grot.): nor could the heathen 
have any definite idea of eternal, spiritual 
death, as the penalty attached to sin 
(Calov.),—nor again, any idea of the con- 
nexion between sin and natural death. 
** Life and Death,” remarks Umbreit, “are 
ever set over against one another in the 
O. T. as well as in the N. T., the one as 
including all good that can befall us, the 
other, all evil.” p. 246. The descrip- 
tion here given by the Apostle of the moral 
state of the heathen world should by all 
means be compared with that in Thucyd. 
iii, 82—84, of the moral state of Greece in 
the Peloponnesian war: and a_ passage 
in Wisd. xiv. 22—31, the opening of 
which is remarkably similar to our text: 
cir ovk ijpxeoe TH TAGVaTOaL TEpl THY TOU 
Qcod yy@ow, GAAG...., ver. 22, and 
again ver. 27, 7 yap Tay dvwvdpwv cidd- 
Awy Opnokela TavTds apx) KaKed Kat aitla 
ka) mepas eoriv. 

II. 1—29.] Secondly, tur samn, that 
all are guilty before God, 13 PROVED OF 
THE JEWs ALso. And first, vv. 1—11, no 
man (the practice of the Jews being hinted 


328 IIPO> POMAIOTS. if, 
reh.xiv.22, pap Tév w@ yap IKpiveis Tov *étepov, ceavTov * KaTa- ABCDC 
‘Torivs. Kpiwelss Ta yap a’Ta Tpdooes 0 IKpWav. * oidapev Sd cate: 
20 al, “Exod. OTL TO“ Kpia Tov Beov éotiv Y Kata * adnOevay “ eri TOUS oiT 
tS Ta ToLadTAa TpacoovTas. %*Xoyify 5é TodTO, @ avOpwre 

Toe eh sy. 6 IKpivev TOUS Ta TOLAUTA TpdcoovTas Kal TrOL@V avrd, 

atm, op ‘ tips dining 3 eee 

w= Mark xi eee ae y expevsn TO Se! ie ae IB Tou kes! 

ti xi TS “ XpHaTOTNTOS avTOV Kat TIS “avoxns Kal TIS 

al oan 


xxviii. (li.) 
10. 
here only. 
w = Acts xiii. 
11 reff. 
xi. 33. 


< 


x constr., (ch. xiy. 14) 2 Cor. x. 7, 11. 


a2 Cor. vi, 6, Gal. v. 22. 
al2.P, Ps. xxiv. 7. (-reveoOar, 1 Cor. xiii. 4.) 
Antt. vi. 5. 1.) d see Eph, iy. 2 


xiii. 4. -sws, Acts xxvi. 3.) 
reff. h 1 Cor. xv, 33 reff. 
y. 18. Polyb. i. 15, 13, 


Ixviii. 16 al.) 


2 Tim, iii. 6. 


e ch. ix. 22. 

” £ Matt. xviii, 10. 
Ps, rye 8. constr. ych. i. 19, 20, 
k here only. 


a : a Sel \ 
ade waxpoBumias ' Katadppoveis, ® ayvodv £ 6Tt TO * ypnoToV 


Tov Oeod els peTavoiay ce 


Heb. xi. 19, 
1 Thess. vy. 3 (Acts xvi. 27 reff. xix. 6) only. 1 
i. 7, 18. ii. 7 al. (Paul.) Tpudas Uro mAovTOV THIS godtas, Plato, eee! p- 12. 


K oKAn- 


y = Luke xxi. 36. 2 Cor. 
z= ch. ix, 23. xi. 33. Eph. 
(= An 90s, LXxX. Ps. 

b as above (a). ch, iii. 12, xi. 22 (3ce). Eph. ii. 7 
c (=) ch. iii 25 only +. (1 Macc. xii. 25 only. Jos. 
1 Tim. i. 16 al. Prov. xxv. 15. (-mecy, 1 Cor. 
Proy. xiii. 13. gch.i.13 

i= ch, viii. 14. Gal. 
= Deut, ix. 27. see Matt. xix. 8. 


idyet, © Kata O€ THY 


1 Mace. vi, 9. 
2 Macc. vii. 35. 


1 Cor. xi. 22 al. 


Crap. II. 1. ins cpmari bef kpivers C! m 73. 80. 93. 179 syr-w-ast copt Jer. 


2. for de, yap CX m 17. 80. 122- 


79 vulg D-lat copt arm Chr Pelag: 


txt 


AB D-gr GKL rel Thdrt Damase Thl Ee Tert: om 23 wth, 


3. touTw A. 


at) must condemn another, for all alike are 
guilty. 1,| The address passes gra- 
dually to the Jews. They were the people 
who judged—who pronounced all Gentiles 
to be born in sin and under condemnation : 
—doubtless there were also proud and cen- 
sorious men among the Gentiles, to whom 
the rebuke might apply, but these are 
hardly in the Apostle’s mind. This is evi- 
dent by comparing 7a yap ad’ta mpdooes 
6 kplvwy with vv. 21—23, where the same 
charge is implied in a direct address to 
the Jew. 816, on account of this 
dikaiwua Beod decreeing death against the 
doers of these things—For thou doest them 
thyself. Therefore thy setting thyself up 
as a judge, is unjustifiable. mas 6 
«ptvwy| The Jew is not yet named, but 
hinted at (see above) : not in order to con- 
ciliate the Jews (Rickert), but on account 
of the as yet purposely general form of 
the argument. This verse is in fact the 
major of a syllogism, the minor of which 
follows, vv. 17—20, where the position 
here declared to be unjustifiable, is as- 
serted to be assumed by the Jew. 
év@ ... | For wherein (not ‘in that’), 
as . V.—i.e. ‘in the matter in which? 
2.) of. 8€, ‘atqui scimus’—now 
we know. kara a\.| according to 
truth, as E. V., De Wette:—not, ‘truly,’ 
‘vevera’ (as Raphel, &c.)—for ofdauer, 
on which the emphasis is, implies certain 
knowledge. Nor does kara GA. belong to 
Kpiua, ‘judgment according to truth’ (as 
Olsh.),—but to éoriv, is, (proceeds) ac- 
cording to justice (Jolin viii. 16). 


3.] Here he approximates nearer to the 
Jews. They considered that because they 
were the children of Abraham they should 
be saved, see Matt. iii. 7, 9. TOUTO, 
viz. 671 ob exd., following. ov has the 
emphasis on it, thou thyself, —‘ thou above 
all others. 4.] 7, or (introducing 
a new error or objection, see ch. iii. 29; 
vi. 3; xi. 2), ‘inasmuch as God spares 
thee day by day (see Eccles. viii. 11), dost 
thou set light by His long-suffering, ig- 
norant that His intent in it is to lead thee 
to repentance ?” ar\ovTov, —a favourite 
word with the Apostle (see reff.), the ful- 
ness, ‘abundance.’ XenoT., as shewn 
by His avoxyy and pakpod. (reff.) 

ayvoov, not knowing,—being blind to the 
truth, that... Grot., Thol., al. would ren- 
der iti ‘not considering :’ but as De Wette 
remarks, itis a wilful and guilty ignorance, 
not merely an inconsiderateness, which is 
blamed in the question. ayet, is lead- 
ing thee: this is its intent and legitimate 
course, which thy blindness will frustrate. 
‘Malo deducit quam invitat; quia illud 
plus quiddam significat. Neque tamen pro 
adigere accipio, sed pro manu ducere.’ 
Calvin. 5.] Iam inclined with Lach- 
mann to regard the question as continued. 
If not, the responsive contrast to the ques- 
tion in ver. 4: would begin more emphati- 
cally than with cara 5€ . . .; it would be 
ov b€KaTa ... . or OnoaupiCers 5¢ ceavTG@ 
Kara But the enquiry loses itself 
in the digressive clauses following, and no 
Where comes pointedly to an end. I have 
therefore not placed a mark of interroga- 


+E 
ayet 
vig Cc. 
ABDG 
KLNa’ 
edfg!) 
kimn 
o1l7 


2—7. 


IIPO> POMAIOTS. 


329 


ere only +. 


/ a 
poTnta cov Kat | aperavontov capdiav ™ Onoaupifers ceauT@ Ihrer only +, | 


> \ > € / fal : , / 
"opyny ev °nwépa ™ opyis kal? atroxanvews 4 Sixavoxpialas 
lal nr a ~ 
Tod Oeod, § ds *atrodwoe: *éxaotw 'KaTa Ta Epya avTod, 
a b 
T rots pev cal *brromoviy * épyou 


p =1Cor, i.7. 2 Thess. i. 7 al. 
2 Macc. xii, 41,) r= Matt. xvi. 27. 
xxi. 19. ch. v. 3,4, Heb. xii. 1 al. 


36 reff. sing., ch. xiii. 3. 


5. for aroxaduews, avtamodocews A eth Ces-arel. 


Ezra x. 2. see James i, 4. constr., 1 Thess. i. 3. 
u=ch. vy, 2. 


(Matt. vi. 19, 
20 al.) 
n abs., Luke 
xxi. 23, ch, 
P iii. 5. iy. 
> a \ 15 al. 
tayabod “dokav Kab oho vir. 
Zeph. ii. 3. 


q here only +. Hos. vi. 5 (for Hwy) Incert. in Hexapl. (-Kptzys, 
Tbs 


s = Luke 
t Acts ix. 


Rey. xxii. 12. Prov. xxiv. 12. 


viii. 18. ix. 23 al. 


ins kat bef Sixasoxpioias 


D3KLN3 17 rel syr eth Orig, Eus Ephr Bas Chr Thdrtsepe ; Ts 3. 33-5. 108-21: om 
ABD!GN? vulg Syr copt goth Orig; Damase (ie Iren-int Cypr Lucif. 


tion at &yer or at Oeov, as Lachm. does,— 
but have left the construction to explain 
itself. kata] not, ‘in proportion to’ 
(Meyer), but as E. V. after, ‘in conso- 
nance with,’ *seeundum, —deseribing the 
state out of which the action springs: see 
ver. 7, Kad? dromovhp. aperav.] not 
admitting that werdvoia to which God is 
leading thee. év Hpéepa, not for, nor 
= eis juépayv, nor should it be rendered 
‘against the day,’as E.V. I need hardly 
remind any accurate scholar, that such an 
interpretation as ‘éy for eis’ is no where 
to be tolerated. It belongs to épynv,— 
wrath in the day of wrath, ‘wrath which 
shall come upon thee in that day,’—not 
to @noavplCers, imagining which has led to 
the mistake. The 7uépa dpyijs is the day 
of judgment, viewed in its relation to sin- 
ners: see reff. G@troxah. Sicavoxp. | 
the manifestation (public enforcement, it 
having been before latent though deter- 
mined) of God’s righteous judgment. 
The reading amor. Kal dixaoxp. would 
mean, ‘the appearance (retff.) of God, 
and his righteous judgment, —not refer- 
ring merely to the detection of men’s 
hearts, as Origen, Theophyl., Riickert. 
But the reading is not strongly upheld, 
nor is it according to the mode of speak- 
ing in the argument—see ch. i. 17, 18. 

6, 7.] 
carefully kept in its place in the argu- 
ment. The Apostle is here speaking ge- 
nerally, of the general system of God in 
governing the world,—the judging accord- 
ing to each man’s works—punishing the 
evil, and rewarding the righteous. No 
question at present arises, how this righte- 
ousness in God’s sight ts to be obtained — 
but the truth is only stated broadly at 
present, to be further specified by and by, 
when it is clearly shewn that by épya vduou 
no flesh can be justified before God. The 
neglect to observe this has occasioned two 
mistakes: (1) an idea that by this passage 
it is proved that not faith only, but works 
.also in some measure, justify before God 





This retribution must be- 


(so Toletus in Pool’s Syn.), and (2) an idea 
(Tholuck Ist edn. and Kéllner) that by 
Epyov ayadov here is meant faith in Christ. 
However true it be, so much is certainly 
not meant here, but merely the fact, that 
every where, and in all, God punishes evil, 
and rewards good. 7, 8. Tots pev Kad” 
tr..... dpyn K. Oupds] To those who 
by endurance in good works seek for 
glory and honour and immortality (will 
He render) eternal life: but to those who 
are (men) of self-seeking, and disobey 
the truth, but obey iniquity (shall accrue) 
anger and wrath, &c. The verb amo- 
déce1, ver. 6, should have two accusatives, 
representing the two sides of the final retri- 
bution,— (yy aidv. and épyjv, &e. But 
the second of these is changed to a no- 
minative and connected with éo7a: under- 
stood, and made the first member of the 
following sentence, dééa 5€ «.7.A. being op- 
posed to it. Thus also two datives belong 
to amoddoe, viz. Tois... . Cnrovaw,— 
and tots . . . Gdiclg. To (nrovow belong 
d0E. kK. Tin. K. DG. as its accusatives, and 
Kal’ bro. épy. ay. as itsadverb. This, as 
De Wette remarks, is the only admissible 
construction : in opposition to (2) cum. 
and Beza, who divide épy. ay. from Kaé’ 
drou. (tis quidem qui secundum patientem 
expectationem querunt boni operis glo- 
riam),—(B8) Bengel, Knapp, Fritzsche, 
Olsh., and Krehl, who take tots... . 
ayafov as meaning ‘those who endure in 
good works’ (as (He. does rots Ka” sou. 
those who endure, absol.), and Sétav.... 
(nrovow, as in apposition with it,—(y) 
Photius (in @eum.), Luther, and Estius, 
who take it, rots... .. (ntotow Cwhv 
aidv.—dotav K.T.A.,—(5) Reiche, who 
takes tots wév,—‘ to the one,’—alone, and 
makes ka@ trou. parallel to kata Ta Epya, 
representing the rule of judgment, taking 
the rest as(y). _— €pyov, sing. of moral 
habitude in the whole, the general course 
of life and action (see reff.). ddEav, 
absolute imparted glory like His own, see 
Matt. xiii. 43 ; John xvii. 22 :—rupyy, re- 


only.) 

w = Matt. vi. 
33. Col. iii. t ri mn 
lial sea; OMEVOU 
xxxiii. 14. lig ‘s TO n 

x = John xviii. 37. ch. iii. 26. iv. 12,14. Gal. iii. 7 al. 

ui. 14, 16 only +. z=ch. x. 21. 
v. 36 reff. ech. i. 18 al. d ver. 6. 


xv.1. Ezek. vy. 15. h = 2 Thess. i. 6. 


above (i). 2 Cor. xii. 10 only. (-peto@at, 2 Cor. iy. 8.) 


ii. 43 reff. Luke ix. 56 v. r.° Num. xix. 11, 13. 
iv. 3. Ps. Ixvii. 31 (29) N3* Ald. 
xiii. 5. 3John ll only. Deut. xxx. Us. 


8. epnOeias A f: epedias BIDIG: epibias D1. 
rel 17 syr Orig Ephr Chr Thdrt Damase Thl Gc Ruf. 


D8KUL 17 rel syr Thdrt Gc : 


cognition, relative precedence, see Matt. 
x. 32; xxv. 34:—aOapoiav, incorrupti- 
bility: so the aim of the Christian athlete 
is described, 1 Cor. ix. 25, as being to obtain 
orépavoy &pOaprov. 8. tots Se ef 
épOcias| as in reff., to be supplied by 
otow, those who live in, act from, are 
situated in and do their deeds from—épi0ela 
as a status, as of é& spoken of place. 

€piGeia,—not from és, from which it is 
distinguished 2 Cor. xii. 20; Gal. v. 20, 
but from épi@os, a hired workman, whence 
€piWevw or -ouat, properly ‘to work for 
hire,’ but met. and generally, ‘ ambitum 
ewercere, used principally of official per- 
sons, who seek their own purposes in the 
exercise of their office, and (according to 
the analogy of maidela from madeto, 
dovrela from dovdetdw, adaCovela from 
Graovevoua) epiOela, * ambitus,’ ‘ self- 
seeking,’ ‘greed. It stands opposed to 
dmouov)) Epyov aya%od, which requires self- 
denial and forbearance. There seems to 
be no reason why this, the proper mean- 
ing, should not here apply, without seek- 
ing for a more far-fetched one, as ‘the 
party spirit of the Jews,’ Riickert. The 
mistake of rendering it ‘contentiousness,’ 
and imagining a derivation from épis pre- 
vailed universally (Orig., Chrys., Theodo- 
ret, Theophyl., cum., Hesych. (7jpibevero, 
épidrovelxe:), Vulg., Erasm., Grot., &e., and 
even the more recent English Commen- 
tators, Bloomf., Slade, and Peile, rozs eg 
€pibelas, i.e. rots ép{Cover) according to De 
Wette, down to Riickert, who first sug- 
gested the true derivation. It appears to 
have arisen from épe@i(w being somewhat 
similar in sound. Aristotle uses it in the 
sense of ‘ ambitus,’ canvassing for office, in 
Polit. v. 3,—etaBdArovar dé ai wodrreiat 
kal tvev ordoews bid Te Tas epibelas, Ssmep 
év ‘Hpala: €& aiperay yap 31a Todt émoln- 
Tay KAnpwrds, bri ypodvro Tovs épiWevoue- 


TTPO POMAIOTS. 


Deut. xxi. 20. 


if, 


TYysny Kat \ abGapoiay “ Cyrodow Conv aidviovr 8 rots 88 aBvc 
3 > / \ > fal \ lol a > / b / 
* €& ¥ épieias Kai * arreBodar pev TH arnbeia, ” revPopévors 
NA t 2S oly Cet ek e*. of ,. 9 thi gy? ij 
- 66 TH © aduxia, * 6py) Kal “8 Ovpds, 9 Prius Kal i ote- 
a \ by] , nr 
voxwpla, *ért macav 'xyuynv avOperov tod ™ KaTEpya- 
n , ? 8 / lal EL vf 
kaxov, lovdaiov te mpatov Kal “EXXnvos* 


y 2 Cor. xii. 20. Gal. v.20. Phil. j. 17, ii. 3. James 
a= 1 John i. 6 al. b = Acts 


e Eph. iv. 21. f Ps. Ixxvii. 49. g = Rev. 


ich. viii. 35. 2 Cor. vi.4. Isa. viii. 22. xxx. 6. jas 
k = Acts xiii. 11 reff. 1 Acts 
m = ch, i. 27. vii. 13, 15,17, 18. 1Cor.y.3. 1 Pet 


om pey BD!GN! Thi: ins AD°KLN3 
rec Ouuos kat opyn, with 


txt ABD'GN m vulg Syr arm Orig Ephr Damase Thl. 
9. covdaiw and eAAnve G m 1. 109 D!-lat. 


vous. Fritzsche, who has an execursus on 
the word, renders of ef &p.0.,—* malitiosi 
Sraudum machinatores, Ignatius, ad 
Philad. § 8, p. 704, opposes ép.8. to 
xpitrouabia. On the whole, self-seeking 
seems best to lay hold of the idea of the 
word: see note on Phil. i. 16, 17. 

aev8. p. TH GA.] Hindering (see ch. i. 18) 
the truth which they possess from working, 
by self-abandonment to iniquity. 

Spy? x. Oupds] According to this arrange- 
ment (see var. readd.) the former word 
denotes the abiding, settled mind of God 
towards them (nh épy) 7. Ocod méever er” 
avrdév, John iii. 36),—and the latter, the 
outbreak of that anger at the great day of 
retribution. So the grammarians: @uuds 
hey éott mpdsxaipos (excandescentia, as 
Cicero) dpyh 5& worvxpdévios uvnotKakla, 
Ammon. See the same further brought out 
by Tittmann, Syn. i. p. 131. 9. Odi. 
k. otev.| An expression from the LXX 
(see reff.): the former signifying more 
the outward weight of objective infliction, 
—the latter the subjective feeling of the 
pressure. It is possible, in the case of 
the suffering Christian, for the former to 
exist without the latter: so 2 Cor. iv. 8, 
év mavtl @AtBduevor, GAN ov oTEVOXW- 
povuevot. But here the objective weight 
of infliction and the subjective weight 
of anguish, are coexistent. emt 
mwagav wp. av0.) probably a_periphrasis 
for the sake of emphasis and solemnity. 
Had it been (as Fritzsche and Meyer) 
to indicate that the soul is the suffering 
part of the man (nearly so Olsh.), it 
should have been as De W. observes, 
émt Wuxiv mavtds avOp., or én macay 
Yuxiv avOpdmrwy (see reff.). KaTepy. | 
katepydCoua and épydCoua seem to have 
but this slight difference,—that Kar epydao- 
Hai, answering rather to our ‘commit,’ is 
more naturally used of evil, as manifested 





KLNa 

cedfg. 

kim: 
o17 


8—13. 


TIPO] POMAIOTS. 


331 


U4 nr 
10 ° So£a dé Kab TLLN Kab P eionvn TavTl TO q épyatoméev o = ver. 7. 


"ro Tayabor, lovdaiw te mp@tov Kal “ENXApv1. 


p=ch. v.1. 
ll > , viii. 6. [x. 
OU YQP 15 (from Isa. 
fe lii. 7)] al. 


é€oTw *TposwTroAnuwia Tapa TO Od 12 bcou yap * avo- 45, Matt. vii 


4 tae , \ Li ee? nr \ fd v.22. 

pws tuaptov, tavouws Kat “amroAodvTal, Kal Ooot * év 
, \ ’ ¢ 

Yvoup tuaptov, Sia vopov “ KptOncovrary 1 od yap ot 


bis. xii. 21. xiii. 3,4. Philem. 14 al. 2 Kings xiv. 17. see John vy. 29, 1 Pet. wi. 11. 
iii. 25. James ii. 1 only+. (-77ns, Acts x. 34. -mTetv, James ii. 9.) 


viii. 17 only; but not =. (-os, 1 Cor. ix. 21.) 
ii. 15. iv. 3. 2 Thess. ii. 10. Lev. xxiii. 30. 
xvii. 31. ver. 16. ch. iii.6 al. Ps, xev. 13. 


10. rw epya¢. To ayabor bef mayT: G. 


and judged of by separate acts among 
men, whereas épyd(ouat, answering to our 
‘work,’ is used indifferently of both good 
andevil. That this is not always kept to, 
see reff., especially ch. vii. 18, and Plato 
Legg. ili. p. 686, end, in both which places, 
however, definite acts are spoken of. The 
pres. part. denotes the status or habit of 
the man. *Iovd. Te wp@Tov | Because 
the Jew has so much greater advantages, 
and better opportunities of knowing the 
divine will: and, therefore, pre-eminent 
responsibility. 10. eipyjvy| Here in 
its highest and most glorious sense, see 
reff. 11.] This remark serves as the 
transition to what follows, not merely as 
the confirmation of what went before. As 
to what preceded, it asserts that though 
the Jew has had great advantages, he shall 
be justly judged for his use of them, not 
treated as a favourite of Heaven: as to 
what follows, it introduces a comparison 
between him and the Gentile to shew 
how fairly he will be, for those greater 
advantages, regarded as mp@ tos in re- 
sponsibility. And thus we gradually (see 
note on ver. 1) pass to the direct com- 
parison between him and the Gentile, 
and consideration of his state. 

12—16.] The justice of a GENERAL judg- 
ment of ALL, but according to the advan- 
tages of each. 12. dco. y. avd- 
pos ....] For as many as have sinned 
without (the) law (of Moses): shall also 
perish without (the) law (of Moses) : i.e. 
it shall not appear against them in judg- 
ment. Whether that will amediorate their 
case, is not even hinted,—but only the fact, 
as consonant with God’s justice, stated. 
That this is the meaning of avduws is clear 
from 1 Cor. ix. 21. That even these have 
sinned against @ vduos, is presently (ver. 
14) shewn. Chrys. says (Hom. vi. p. 466), 
. 2. Opev yap “EAAnY avduws kplverat 
To 5& dvopws evTavda ov Th XaAETaTEpor, 
GAA Td ucpoTepov A€yer’ (this is perhaps 
saying too much, see above) tovtéorwy, 
ovK Exel KaTnYyopovvTa Toy vYouoy. Td Yap 
avéuws TovT eat, xwpls THs e& exelvou 


23. xxvi. 10. 
Gal. vi. 10 al. 
Ps. xiv. 2. 
eT Matt. xix. 17. 
Luke vi. 45. 
ch. vii. 13 
s Eph. vi. 9. Col. 
t here bis only +. 2 Mace. 
u = Matt. xviii. 14. 1 Cor.i.18. 2 Cor. 
vy =here only. (Gal. iii. 11. vy. 4.) w = Acts 


11. om tw D'. 


Katakploews, pnoty, amd ToY THs picews 
Aoyiopay KaTadinacerar mdvwv. 6 d5& "lov- 
datos, éevvduws, TovTeoTL, ETA TIS Picews 
kal Tod vduouv KaTnyopovyTos’ bow ‘yap 
mAclovos amhAavoey emiedelas, Toco’Tw 
pelCova décer Six. kat (De W.) 
serves to range aoa., as well as tjuapr. 
under the common condition avduws: As 
many as without the law have sinned, 
without the law shall also perish. 

atrodovvTar, the result of the judgment 
on them, rather than kpi0jcovta, its pro- 
cess, because the absence of the law would 
thus seem as if it were the rule by which 
they are to be judged,—whereas it is only 
an accident of that judgment, which de- 
pends on other considerations. év 
vopw, under (77, as a status) the (Mosaic) 
law ; not ‘a law,’ which would make the 
sentence a truism: it is on that very 
undeniable assumption, ‘that all who have 
had a law given shall be judged by that 
law,’ that the Apostle constructs his ar- 
gument, asserting it with regard to the 
Mosaic law in the case of the Jews, and 
proving that the Gentiles have had a law 
given to them in the testimony of their 
consciences. As to the omission of the 
article, no inference can be drawn, as the 
word follows a preposition: see ver. 23, 
where ev véum unquestionably means ‘in 
the law of Moses.’ Besides, these verses 
are no general assertions concerning men 
who have, and men who have not, a 
law revealed (for all have one), but a 
statement of the case as concerning Jews 
and Gentiles. vépnos, throughout, 
signifies the law of Moses, even though 
anarthrous, in every place, except where 
the absence of the article corresponds to 
a logical indefiniteness, as e.g. éavtots 
eioiv vduos, ver. 14: and even there 
not ‘a law: see note. And I hope to 
shew that it is never thus anarthrously 
used as= 6 véuos, except where usage 
will account for such omission of the 
article. 81a vop. kprd. | Now, shall be 
judged by the law: for that will furnish 
the measure and rule by which judgment 


53382 IIPOS POMAIOTS. i. 


* 99 2 a a rn rn 
x Jamesi-22, X GxpoaTat VvoLov OiKatorY Tapa To Oem, AXN oi * TounTal 
Z a , l4 2% asin Sy x | ae ae 
only. |, VOpou duKalwOnoovTat. étav yap €Ovn Ta pH vomov 
a ORa TES , oN. Ps , a , 
oi al évoptTa hues “TA TOD VOMOV TrOL@TW, OUTOL VOMOV An 
above (x), a , - 
andiv.lt €YovTeEs EavTots elow vowos, 15 4 ofrwes © évdeixvuvTat TO 
fépyov Tov vouov %ypartov év Tais Kapdiais avTor, 
h Guupaptupovons avTav tis ‘auvedycews Kai * petakd 


(Acts xvii. 
28) only +. 
b Gal. ii. 15, iv. 8. Eph. ii. 3 


1 Mace. ii. 67 
only. 

= Paul (Acts 
xiii. 39. ch. a 
iii. 20 al23.) only, exc. Luke xviii. 14. 


-*) 


James ii, 21, 24, 25. Ps. cxlii. 2. 


only. (ch. i. 26 reff.) e constr., ch. viii. 5. Matt. xvi. 23. Luke ii.49, Thue, viii. 31. d= Acts 
x. 41 reff. e = ch. ix. 17 (from Exod. ix. 16), 22. 2 Cor. viii. 24. Eph. ii.7. 1 Tim. i. 16 (2 Tim. 
iv. 14 [see note there] al2. Heb. vi. 10,11) only. P.H. (Gen. 1. 15, 17.) f see ver. 7 reff. g here 
only. 2 Chron. xxxvi. 22. Esdr. ii. 2, 2 Macc. xi. 15 only. h ch. viii. 16, ix. 1 only ¢. i 2 Cor. 
i. 10 reff. (Eccles, x. 20.) Wisd. xvii. 11 only. k Acts xy. 9 reff. 


13. rec ins Tov bef Ist vowov, with KL 17 rel Mcion-e Chr Thdrt Phot : om ABDGR 
Damasc. om tw BD! kt: ins AD8GKLX® rel Mcion-e Chr Thdrt. for adv 
ot, ad\Aa G. ree ins tov bef 2nd voyov, with D§KL 17 rel Mcion-e Chr Thdrt 
Phot: om ABD!GN Damasce. aft SiratmOynoovra ins mapa Oew G. 

14. for yap, 5¢ G xth arm Orig,(om,). ins ta bef e6vn G k. rec morn 
(grammatical corrn), with D* rel Chr Thdrt: mores KL a17: rotovow DIG: txt ABN 
Clem Orig, Damasc. for ovro., 0 Totovra G vulg D-lat Orig, Hil Pelag Fulg. 

15. evdiyvuta A: evdinv. GR. THs cuvetdnoews bef avtrwy DG Aug: avtots 
7. cvy. tol! Chr Jer Ruf: avras 7. o. avtwy vulg Pelag Ambrst: txt ABKLN 17 rel. 


will proceed. 13.] This is to explain to 
the Jew the fact, that not his mere hearing 
of the law read in the synagogue (= his 
being by birth and privilege a Jew) will 
justify him before God, but (still keeping to 
general principles and not touching as yet 
on the impossibility of being thus justified) 
the doing of the law. tov has been ap- 
parently inserted in both cases in the later 
mss. from seeing that véuos was indispu- 
tably the law of Moses, and stumbling at 
the unusual expression of a&kpoaral vdpou. 
But the of in both cases is generic, and 
&kpoaths-véuov, moint?s-vduov (almost as 
one word in each case), ‘a hearer-of-the- 
law, a ‘doer-of-the-law. So that the 
correct English for of axpoaral véuou is 
hearers of the law, and for of rointa) vouou, 
doers of the law. It is obvious, that 
with the omission of the rod in both places, 
the whole elaborate and ingenious criticism 
built by Bp. Middleton on its use, falls to 
the ground. (See Middleton, Gr. Art. in 
loc.) His dictum, that such an expression 
as of Gkpoatal vduov is inadmissible, will 
hardly in our day be considered as deciding 
the matter. 14.| €0vn, the Gen- 
tiles; see ch. iii. 29; xi.13; xv. 10, 12. 
In this place, €0vn 7a ph vou. ExovTa is 
the only way in which the sense required 
could be expressed, for 7a €0vn Ta mh V. 
éxy., would mean ‘ those Gentiles who have 
not the law, as also would €6yn wh vdpov 
éx., whereas the meaning clearly is, the 
Gentiles not having the law. 

vopov] Again, ‘the law,’ viz. of Moses. 
A luw, they have; see below. 

dice, by nature, trois pucixois érducva 
Aoytopots, Schol. in Matthai. TO 


Tov vopov m.| do things pertaining 
to the law, e.g. abstain from stealing, or 
killing, or adultery. But it by no means 
follows that the Apostle means that the 
Gentiles could fulfil the law, do the things, 
i.e. all the things enjoined by the law (as 
De Wette): he argues that a conscientious 
Gentile, who knows not the law, does, 
when he acts in accordance with require- 
ments of the law, so far set up the (see 
below on the art.) law to himself. 70 
Tov vduov is interpreted by Beza, Wetst., 
and Elsner, ‘ that which the law does, i.e. 
make sanctions and prohibitions: but this 
can hardly be. The Apostle does not 
deny certain virtues to the Gentiles, but 
maintains the inefficiency of those, and all 
other virtues, towards man’s salvation. 
€avtois eloty vopos| are to themselves 
(so far) the law, not ‘a law,’ for a law 
may be just or unjust, God’s law or man’s 
law: there is but one law of God, partly 
written in men’s consciences, more plainly 
manifested in the law of Moses, and fully 
revealed in Jesus Christ. The art. could 
not have been here used without stultifying 
the sentence by distributing the predicate, 
making the conscientious heathen to be to 
himself the whole of the law, instead of 
‘the law, so far as he did the works of the 
law. Cf. Aristot. Eth. iv. 14, 6 5 yapleis 
k. é€Aevbepios oUTws Eger ofov vdéuos dv 
éauT@. 15.] évSeixv., by their con- 
duct shew forth,—give an example of. 
78 Epy. TOU vopov = Ta TOD vduou 
above: but sing. as applying to each of the 
particular cases supposed in the 6rav . . 
moow. If it had here been ta épya rod 
véuov, it might have been understood to 


ABD 
KLN ; 
cdf 
klm 
017 


14—17. 


AAjrov Toav !Aoyiouav ™KaTNYyopovvTwY 1) Kab 
80s Noryoupéevwv. 


n abs., Luke xxi. 14. 
xxiv. 50. p ver. 12 reff. 
25. 2Cor. iv. 2. Isa. xxii. 9. 
1.5, 2 Thess. ii. 14. s here only. 
xi. 25.) Micahiii. 11. w. dat., 1 Mace. viii. 12. 


Staroyiouwy G. 


IIPOS POMAIOTS. 


16 2 ec / 02 p Ane \ \ q \ 
€V leet  P upweb o Oeos Ta KpuTTa 
Led > \ > , fal 
BDK Tav avOpoTwv, KaTa TO *evayyédvovy * wou Sia “Incod 2: 
lo) ili > be \ all 5 lal Ss Pb] 4 \ t > fe 
YplaTov. el 0€ cv lovdatos § érovoualy Kat ' eravatravn 
Acts xxvi. 1 (xix. 33 reff.). L.P. 


r ch. xvi. 2 
Gen, iy. 17, 25. 


333 


ne? . 12Cor. x. 5 
amTro only. Proy. 
vi. 18. Jer. 
xi. 19. 

m = John y, 45 

Paul, 

Acts xxiv. 13 

al3. Epp. 

here only +. 

1 Mace. vii. 6. 
Jer, xii. 1. 

q Matt. vi.4 

De 


o constr., 2 Cor. i, 4. Matt. 

al. Deut. xxix. 29. constr., 1 Cor. iv. 5. xiv. 
2 Tim. ii. 8 only. see 2 Cor. iv. 3. 1 Thess. 
t = here (Luke x. 6) only. (Num. 






16. rec (for 7) ore, with DGKLN 17 rel vulg syr Ath Chr Thdrt Ee Ruf,: txt A 


B(n nz.) tol Syr copt Cyr Damasce(év 7) Ambr Aug Ambrst. 


xp. befino. B(N} ?): ev 


XpioTw ino. Orig: om ino. Tert: dia w xv is written by X-corr! over an erasure. 


add tov kupiov nuwy D G-lat Ambr. 


17. rec for et Se, we (see note), with DL rel syr Chr Thdrt Ge: txt ABD! KX d2 


vulg G-lat Syr Clem Damase Thl. 


mean the whole works of the law, which 
the indefinite éray prevents above. 
ypartov év tT. K. ait.] Alluding to the 
tables of stone on which the law was 
written: see a similar figure 2 Cor. iii. 3. 
ouppapt. av’t. tT. cvverd.| This is 
a new argument, not a mere continuation 
of the €vde:éis above. Besides their giving 
this example by actions consonant with the 
law, their own conscience, reflecting on 
the thing done, bears witness to it as good. 
oupp., not merely = papr., as Grot., 
Thol., nor = wna testatur, viz. as well as 
their practice,—but confirming by its 
testimony, the ovr signifying the agree- 
ment of the witness with the deed, as con 
in contestari, confirmare :—perhaps also 
the cvy may be partly induced by the ovv 
in cuvedjoews,—referring to the reflective 
process, in which a man confers, so to 
speak, with himself. Kal pet. GAA. 
k.7.A.| and their thoughts (judgments or 
reflections, the self-judging voices of the 
conscience, which being corrupted by sin- 
ful desires are often divided) among one 
another (i.e. thought against thought in 
inner strife) accusing, or perhaps excusing 
(these two participles are absolute, de- 
scribing the office of these judgments,— 
and nothing need be supplied, as ‘ them,’ or 
‘their deeds’). Notice the similarity of 
this strife of conscience, and its testimony, 
as here described, to the higher and more 
detailed form of the same conflict in the 
Christian man, ch. vii. 16. 16.| To 
what has this verse reference? Hardly to 
that just preceding, which surely speaks of 
a process going on in this life (so however 
Chrys. takes it. See also a fine passage in 
Bourdaloue’s Sermons, Vol. i. Serm. ii. p. 
27, ed. Paris, 1854): nor, as commonly as- 
sumed, to «ps0qoovrau (ver. 12), which only 
terminates one in a series of clauses con- 
nected by ydp:—but to the great affirma- 
tion of the passage, concluding with ver. 


eravamaver K 17(sic). 


10. To this it is bound, it appears to me, 
by the ra kpurra Tay ayOpdrwy, answering 
to macav Wuxnv avOpdrov, ver. 9. This 
affirmation is the last sentence which has 
been in the dogmatic form :—after it we 
have a series of quasi-parenthetic clauses 
ov ydp—boor ydp—ovd ydp—itav ydp; 
i.e., the reasons, necessitated by the start- 
ling assertion, are one after another given, 
and, that having been done, the time is 
specified when the great retribution shall 
take place. KaTG TO evayy. pov | See 
reff. according to (not belonging to 
Kpwet as the rule of judgment, but to the 
whole declaration, ‘as taught in,’ ‘as form- 
ing part of’) the Gospel entrusted to me 
to teach. Sia “Ino. xp.] by Jesus 
Christ, viz. as the Judge—see John y. 22: 
—belongs to xpivez. See also Acts xvii. 
3l. 17—24.] The pride of the Jews 
in their law and their God contrasted 
with their disobedience to God and the 
law. 17. et 8€] This has been in the 
later Mss. changed into idé, apparently to 
avoid the anacoluthon, or perhaps merely 
by mistake originally. | The anacoluthon, 
however, is more apparent than real. It is 
only produced by the resumption of the 
thread of the sentence with odv, ver. 21. 
Omit (in the sense) only that word, and all 
proceeds regularly—‘ But if thou art de- 
nominated a Jew, and &c...., thou that 
teachest thy neighbour, dost thou not teach 
thyself?’ &e. The et 8€ ov carries on the 
apostrophe from ver. 5, since when it has 
been broken off by reference to the great 
day of retribution and its rule of judg- 
ment; the o¥ identifies the person ad- 
dressed here as the same indicated by the 
gov and geavt@ there, and by & av@pwre 
inver.1. Thus the Apostle by degrees sets 
in his place as a Jew the somewhat inde- 
finite object of his remonstrances hitherto, 
—and reasons with him as such. étrov. | 
No stress on ér-,—art named, ‘denomi- 


534 


u Paul (ver. 17. 
ch. vy. 3, 11. 
2 Cor. x. 15 
al.) only, exc. 
James i. 9. 
iv. 16. Jer. 
ix. 23, 24. 

y Acts xxii. 14 
reff. 

w ellips., here 
only. see ch. 


xii. 2. 
x Phil. i. 10. 
y = Luke xii. 
56. Ps. xvi. 
3. 
z=1 Cor. xv. 
41. Dan. vii. 


3. 
a Luke i. 4. 

Acts xviii. 25. 
i. 16 reff. 
only. Hos, y. 
6,11. Eph. y. 
Gal. iv. 19.) 
(Rey. xxi. 8) only. 


xxi. 21, 24. 
d Luke i. 79. 1 Thess. y. 4. 
Sir, xxxvii. 19 only. 
- 1 Pet. ii. ls only. Job vy. 3. 
i= Luke i. 77. xi. 52 al. 
Exod. y. 21. 


1 Cor. xiy. 19. 


2. 
17 


TIPO POMAIOTS®. 


Gal. vi. 6 only fF. 
1 John i. 6. 
f Luke xi. 40. xii. 20. 
= 1 Cor. iii. 1 reff. 
Mal. ii. 7. 


EY: 


sf nr fal ; \ Ls 
vou kal” cavyadaat “ év bed 18 kal¥ yuookers "TO O€Anpa 
/ > Le] 
kal *Y doxipavers Ta * Suaépovta, *KaTnyovpmevos €k TOD 
/ ‘ c 7 cal 
vopov, 19 »aréqov8as te ceauvTov °odnyov Elvat TUPABY, 
a a ¢ , 
pas Tov 4 év 4 oKorer, 29 © ratdeuTHv f appovwr, didacKaov 
lol j / n 
Eyntiov, éyovta THv » poppwcw Ths ‘yvooews Kal Tis 
ir fA) / > fal “4 é Pal CY > 8 8 , cA \ 
arnbeias ev TH vopw *1 6 ody SidacKwY ETEpoV TEavTOV 
/ s / 
ov didacKes ; 6 Knpvoowy * wh KrETTEW KAETTELS ; 
\ , \ 
éeyou * uy povyevew poryevers; oO | BdeXvoecopEVos Ta 


22.6 


b constr. w. inf., 2 Cor. x. 7. 
see Matt. iv.16. Isa. ix. 2. | 
1 Cor. xy. 36. 2 Cor. xi. 16 bis, 19. xii. 

h 2 Tim. iii. 5 onlyt. (-o¥@at, 


k constr., Acts xxi. 4, 21. 1 = here 


rec ins Tw bef vouw, with D?KL 17 rel Thdrt Thl @c: om ABD'18 Clem Did Chr- 


comm(and mss) Damasc. 
20. om didack. vnmiwy A. 


nated,’—‘ hast the name put on thee;’ see 
reff. éravar.| Used of false trust, 
see reff. The 7@ of the rec. has been in- 
serted in the later mss. before véu@, be- 
cause it here clearly applied to the ‘law of 
Moses,’ and the absence of the article gave 
offence. It is omitted, because ‘the law’ 
is not here distributed—it is not the law 
itself in its entirety, which is meant, but 
the fact of having or of knowing the law :— 
the strict way of expressing it would per- 
haps be, ‘in the fact of possessing a law,’ 
which condensed into our less accurate 
English, would be in one word, in the 
law: viz. ‘which thou possessest.’ 
kavx. év 0.] viz. ‘as thy Covenant God? 
“as being peculiarly thine.’ 18. yuv. 
76 8€X.] Oeds having been just mentioned, 
it is left to be inferred that @éAjua refers 
to Him. Soxup. T. Sad. | provest 
(in the sense of sifting and coming to a 
conclusion on) things which differ,— 
évaytla adAtAots, Steaootynv Kk. adixlay, 
«.7.A. Theod. xplvers rl Se? mpatar x. rl 
bh Se? mpatar, Theophylact. The Vulg. 
*probas utiliora,’ and E. V.‘ approvest the 
things that are more excellent,’ is some- 
what flat in meaning, and not so applicable. 
KaTnx: €k Tov vép.| being (ha- 
bitually, not in youth only,—force of pres.) 
instructed (not merely catechetically but 
didactically, in the synagogues, &c.) out of 
the law (rod vduov, though after a prepo- 
sition—because the law is distributed—it 
is the book of the law, the daw tfself, out 
of which the kathxnots takes place). 
19.] méroWas, sometimes with éav7@ or 
ep’ éavt@ (see Luke xviii. 9), and some- 
times with 67: (Luke, ib.; Gal. v.10; Phil. 
ii. 24; Heb. xiii. 18),—regardest thyself 
as,—art confident in thyself as being. 


21. ins rov bef erepov Ln 1. 30-8. 93. 


68nyov tupdr.] We can hardly say 
with Olsh., that the Apostle undoubtedly 
refers to the saying of our Lord, Matt. xy. 
14,—but rather that both that saying and 
this were allusive to a title ‘leaders of the 
blind’ given to themselves by the Pha- 
risees, with which Paul as a Pharisee would 
be familiar. Similarly, the following titles 
may have been well-known and formal ex- 
pressions of Jewish pride with reference to 
those who were without the covenant. 
20.] pépdworv, not the mere apparent 
likeness (Theophylact, &c.), but the real 
representation. The law, as far as it went, 
was a reflexion of the holiness and cha- 
racter of God. Hardly so much is here 
meant (Olsh.), as that the law contained a 
foreshadowing of Christ,—for the Apostle 
is speaking now more of moral truth and 
knowledge, by which a rule of judgment is 
set up, sufficient to condemn the Jew as 
well as the Gentile. But after all, this 
clause (€xovra ... vduw) is not to be 
pressed as declaring a fact, but taken sub- 
jectively with regard to the Jew, after wéor- 
6as, and understood of his estimate of the 
law. év TO vopw, because the book of 
the law, the whole law, is denoted. 
22. 6 BSeX. Ta €5. tepoovActs | The con- 
trast here must be maintained; which it 
will not be if we understand fepocvAe?s 
of robbing the temple of God of offerings 
destined for him (Jos. Antt. xviii. 3, 4). 
And 7@ eY5wAa leads into the kind of rob- 
bery which is meant. Thou who abhor- 
rest idols, dost thou rob their temples ? 
That it was necessary to vindicate Jews 
from such a charge, appears from Acts 
xix. 37: and Jos. Antt. iv. 8. 10 gives as 
a law, uh ovAdy iepa Eevixd, und dy erwvo- 
Magpuévoy Tit Oe@ KeimwhArov AauBdvew. 


18—27. 


HPO POMAIOTS 


335 


/ € fal c rm lal lol 
m e/Swda " lepoovreis ; *8 ds ° ev vouw °Kavyaoat, Sia THs ™ Nat» Acts 


£ fol , 
* PrapaBacews Tod vomwov tov Oeov TaTtimaters ; 2* TO ya 
Yap 


1 Cox. xii. 2. 
1 Thess. i. 9. 
1 John y. 21. 


dvoya Tod Beod dv bpdas UBNEOH i echeat €v Tots eOveow, a CaioM 


KaQas yéyparrat. 
tyomov ' mpacons: 


25 qrepiToun pev yap Sw@derel, eav 
2\ be u / , > 

éav 6€ “qapaBatrns vowouv as, 7 
mept- TEpLTOUN Tov Y aKpoBvaTia ™ yéyovev. 


xvii 
n here jay a 
(-Aos, Acts 
e xix. 37. -Ada, 
4 Mace. xiii. 


5 \ 9 ; 
26 é€av OUV 1) My aKpo- o ver. 17. 


p w. gen., here 


Mace / , a , ' Near 

DG Buvotia Ta * dixatmpata Tod vou“ov Y dudXacon, ovYi H YPM? Nae 
mab — > (in nt at 9 NGF , o7 \ re iv. 15 reff. 
fgh Y axpoBvotia * avtov * els TrepLTo“ny oy Ojoera ; °T Kab (Barns, ver. 


n 4 
17 ’Kpuvet n° ex “ duoews * 
risa. li. 5. Tit. ii. 5. 
only. see John yii. 19. 


xviii. 10, yv ch. iv. 9—12 al. 
iv.3||L. Johnii. 9. x. 16. 


s absol., 


xv. 26. z indef. pron., Luke xxiii. 51. 
edn. 6, 3 22. 3. b. a = ch, ix. 8 reff. 
only. d = Gal. ii. 15. (ch. i. 26 reff.) 


25. om yap dm vulg D-lat eth arm lat-ff. 

akpoBuoria(but corrd) X?}. 
G?-lat harl!. 
txt DGKL 17 rel Chr Thdrt Thl Gc. (A uncert.) 


observes vulg D-lat; custodias Aug. 
26. for Ta Sikawpata, Sikawua G-gr 

for ovx1, ovx BX 44 Damasc : 
27. om 7 ek puc. axpoB. G. 


23.] év vope, see above (ver. 17) 
for the omission of the art.—but it is not 
did mapaBdoews vduou, because a tapaBacis 
is Tov vduov, the law being broken as a 
whole (see James ii. 10: and on zrapa- 
Barns vouov below, ver. 25). And ris 
map. T. vou., is thy breaking of the law. 

This question comprehends the pre- 
vious ones. 24. | « For what is written 
in the prophet Isaiah, is no less true now 
of you:’ ‘the fact is so, as it is written.’ 

25—29.| Inasmuch as CIRCUM- 
CISION was the especial sign of the cove- 
nant, and as such, a distinction on which 
the Jewish pride dwelt with peculiar satis- 
faction: the Apostle sets forth, that cir- 
cumcision without the keeping of the law 
is of no avail, and that true circumcision 
and true Judaism are matters of the 
heart, not of the flesh only. GA’ 7 Tepl- 
TOM) MEya, onoly. dpMoAoye@ Kaya, aAAG 
mére; bray Exn Thy Evoov TEpLTOMay. kal 
okéme: otveoiv, TOs cvKalpws Toy Tep) 
auTijs eishyaye Adyov. ov yap evOéws am’ 
auTis iptaro, émeid}) moAAt Hv avTis 7 
brdAnis’ GAN jvika evSertev adtods amd 
Tov melCovos mposkekpoukdtas Kal Tis els 
Ocdv Baracdnulas aitiovs, téTe Aowrdy 
AaBov toy akpoathy KaTeyvwxdta avTar, 
kal ‘yuuvdoas 77) mpoedplas, cisdryes TOV 
mepl TepiTouijs Adyov, Oappayv Gr. ovdels 
avTH Whgettror Aoudy. Chrys. Hom. vii. 
ATA, 25.| tjepttopy, chosen as an 
example in point, and as the most com- 
prehensive and decisive example; and wey 
yep binds it on to the foregoing reason- 
ing: q.d. ‘in the same way circumcision 


= John vi. 63 only. 

u here bis. Gal. ii. 18. 

Paul only, exc. Acts xi. 3. 
x ch. i. 32 reff. 

John yiii. 44. Eph. y.12. 


‘ axpoBvatia TOV VOMOv ® TeMOVTA 4 Acts v. a 


Hab. ii. 18. Xen. Anab. y. 1. 12. t here 
James ii. 9,11 only+. Symm., Ps. xvi. 4; Ezek. 
Gen. XVii. ll. w = Matt. 
y act., = Acts xvi. 4 reff. Exod. 
1 Pet. "iii. 14. Jude 24 al. Winer, 
b see ch. xiy. 22. James iv. 11, 12. c here 
e = James li.8, Gal. y. 16. 


for mpacons, pudaacons D}-gr; 


gvaacoe, L Damasce. 


&e.’ vomov, not Toy vouov, Tpaaoys, — 
because the latter would import the per- 
Sect fulfilment of the whole law: whereas 
the supposition is of acting according to 
the law, doing the law. mapaBarns 
véuov here, not Tod vduov, the mapaBarns 
véuov, like akpoaths-véuov and months- 
véuov, ver. 13, being a designation generally 
of a law-breaker, as those of a law-hearer 
and law-fulfiller. apoB. yey. | counts 
for nothing: the Jewish transgressor is 
no better off than the Gentile transgressor. 
26. 4 axpoB.]| i.e. of ev TH axpo- 
Bvortia. 7a Sixatwp.] plainly, the 
moral requirements, not the ceremonial : 
for one of the very first of the latter was, 
to be circumcised. The case is an impos- 
sible one: nor does the Apostle put it as 
possible, only as shewing manifestly, that 
circumcision, the sign of the covenant of 
the Law, was subordinate to the keeping of 
the Law itself. The articles shew how 
completely hypothetical the case is—no less 
than entire fulfilment of all the moral pre- 
cepts of the law being contemplated. 
ovxi 4...) ‘In such a case would not he 
be counted as a circumcised person ?’ 
27.) I prefer with De Wette (and Erasm.), 
Luth., Bengel, Wetst., Knapp, and Meyer, 
to regard this verse not as a continuation 
of the question, but as a separate emphatic 
assertion, and as leading the way to the next 
verse. xpwvet, ‘shall rise up in judg- 
ment against,’ judge indirectly by his ex- 
ample. See Matt. xii. 41, 42, where cara- 
Kplyw is used i im a sense precisely similar. 
H é« diaews axpoB.| ‘he, who 


336 


f= ch. iv..11. 
xiv. 20. 
2 Cor. ii. 4. 
Heb. ix. 12. 
Winer, edn. 
6,3 471. 

g see note & 
ver, 29 reff. 

h here [ Matt. 
vi. 4, 6 rec.) 


° é« Tov Oeod. 


ili. 6. 
y. 39. ch. v. 16. 


29. adda (Ist) D'G. 
tov { bef @e.] D?G a. 


remains in his natural state of uncircum- 
cision” ek diva. is contrasted with d4 
ypdmu. xk. mepit. below. The position of éx 
gicews decides for this rendering and 
against joining it with teAovea, which 
would require 7 axpoBvotla, ex pisews Toy 
vomoy TeAoUTA. Tov vop. TeX. | such is 
the supposition—that an uncircumcised 
man could fully act up to the (moral) re- 
quirements of the law. It is not 4 Tov vdu. 
TeA.; because akpoB. is used in the widest 
abstract sense: no distinction is made be- 
tween one and another uncircumcised per- 
son, but some one man is taken as an ex- 
ample of axpoBvoria. So that the omis- 
sion of the art. does not give a new hypo- 
thetic sense, ‘if it fulfil the law, but 
merely restates the hypothesis: fulfilling 
(as it does, as we have supposed) the law. 

oé TOv..... mapaBatny vopov | 
Here again the position of da ypduuaros 
kK. mepiTouys, between Toy and mapakarny, 
sufficiently shews that, as éx pdaews above, 
it is a qualification of o& Toy mapaBdrnv 
véuov. Bp. Middleton (it appears, Gr. Art. 
in loc. and compare his ref.) would take 
ot Toy 5a ypdumatos K. TepiTomis (dvTa), 
‘thee who art a professor of the law and a 
circumcised person, «and understand elvat 
after mapaBatny,—shall adjudge thee to 
be a transgressor of the law. But this ap- 
pears exceedingly forced, and inconsistent 
with the position of mapa8. vduov, which 
if it had been thus emphatic, would cer- 
tainly have been placed either before, or 
immediately after xpive?. We may well 
imagine that such an interpretation would 
not have been thought of, except to serve 
the supposed canon, that, ‘if 7év were im- 
mediately tlie article of mapaBarny, vduou 
depending on it could not be anarthrous.’ 
See above on zapaf. vdéu. ver. 25, and on 
ver. 13. Sua yp. «. mep.| did (see 
reff.) is here used of the state in which the 
man is when he does the act, regarded as 
the medium through which the act is done. 
It is rightly rendered by in E. V. (not, 


TIPO POMAIOTS. 


for 2nd ev, os G D-lat. 
aft @eov ins eri D! vulg lat-ff. 


II. 28, 29. 


‘ \ / rn 
cé Tov ‘dua ® ypampatos Kal TEepiTouAs “ TapaBaTny Vo“oV. ARD 
28 ob yap 6 »év tH * havep@ “lovdatds éatwv, ode 7 ™ 
TO “havepo ‘év icapki repitou7, *9 adv 6 ™ & TO 
hk xpumt@ Llovdatos, Kat mepiToun | Kapodias év ™ mrvevpaTte 
t ] 

> m U ‘3 ©. c n BA ’ Oo > > fa) , PZ 

ov ™ypaupate ov Oo “érawos ovK °e& avOpwrwv a 


o = Matt. i. 20. Acts 


adda (2nd) B. om 


‘in spite of,’ as Kéllner and al.) 
ypeppatos | ‘litera scripta,’ the written 
word: here in a more general sense than 
in ver. 29, where it is pressed to a contrast 
with avedua: thee, who in a state of 
external conformity with the written 
law and of circumcision, art yet a trans- 
gressor of the law. In vv. 28, 29, sup- 
ply the ellipses thus: in ver. 28, fill up the 
subjects from the predicates,—ob yap 6 év 
TS pavep@ (lovdatos) "lovdatds eoriw, ovde 
N ev TG pavep@ ev capri (wepiTou?) wept- 
Town (eorw); in ver. 29, fill up the 
predicates from the subjects,—a@an 6 év 
TG KputTT@ “lovdaios (lovbatds eorwv), Kat 
TepiToun Kapdlas év mvevmaTi ov ypaumaTe 
(wepitoun eat). Thus the real Jew only, 
and the real circumcision only, are ex- 
pressed in both verses. This is the ar- 
rangement of Beza, Estius, Riickert, De 
Wette: Erasm., Luther, Meyer, Fritzsche, 
take "Iovdatos, and év mv. ov ypau., as the 
predicates in ver. 29; but the latter gives 
a very vapid sense, besides that the opposi- 
tion of 6 év TG paveps, and 6 ev 7@ KpurTGg 
is, as De W. observes, also vapid. 
29.| év t@ Kp. as belonging to “Iovd. is 
parallel with capSlas as belonging to 7epi- 
Toun, both designating the inner and spiri- 
tual reality, of which the name of Jew and 
the carnal circumcision are only the signs. 
mep. kapd. is no new expression :—we 
have it virtually in Deut. x. 16; Jer. iv. 
4: see also Acts vii. 51. év av. 
ev yp.] in spirit, not in letter. Not 
merely ‘spiritually, not externally: nor 
does zy. allude to the necessitating cause 
of circumcision (the uncleanness of the 
inner man) (@e., Grot., Estius, Fritzsche) : 
—nor signify the material (‘que spiritu 
constat,’ Erasm.): nor the rule (Meyer), 
—but as De Wette rightly, the diving 
power or element, wherewith that inner 
sphere of being is filled—év being as in 
Acts xvii. 28, of that in which any thing 
lives and moves,—compare xapa év my. 
ayiyv, ch. xiv. 17,—aydan ev mv., Col. i. 


€v cdfg 
kim 


Ra 


o17 


III. 1—3. 


/ 5 \ fa) 3 
III. 1 Té ody 7d Prepiccov tod “lovdaiov, % tis 
3 / a a ¢ 
T@pereva THs Tepitoms ; * wodv * KaTa * TavTa * TpOTrOV. 
Sarp@tov § ev [Syap] Ore ' émuorevO % “do D 
p pev [Syap] ote térictevOnoay Ta “royia TOD 


Oeod. 


r = Num. xviii. 7. see Acts xv. 11. 


IIPO> POMAIOTS. 


s 1 Cor, xi. 18. 


337 


¢ p = Matt. vy. 37, 
1) 47. Eccles. 
vii. 1 BN. 
Dan. vy. 12, 

14 Theod, 

(-oceva, 
Eccles. i. 3.) 


/ / / - 
3°r¢ yap; eb \nmlotnody Ttivess pn 1) * amrioTia VIE ony 


Job xxii. 3. 
; Ps, xxix. 9. 
ft =1 Cor. ix.17. constr., Acts xxi.3. Gal. 


ii. 7. 1 Thess. ii. 4. merrevOévtos THv ev Mepyaum BiBAroOyKny, Diog. Laert. vii. 1.29. Winer, edn. 6, 


3 39. 1. 
i. 18, w = 2 Tim. ii. 13. 
20. Heb. iii. 19. see note. 


u Acts vii. 38. 


Cuapr. III. 1. om 7 GN}. 


Heb. v.12, 1 Pet. iv. 11 only. 


{Acts xxviii, 24 reff. 


Num. xxiv. 4, 16 al. 
-T0S, Luke xii. 46.) 


y Phil. 
x= ch xt, 


2. ree ins yap, with AD°KLN 17 rel syr Thdrt Phot Thl @e; om BD!G vulg Syr 


Chr Aug Orig. 
3. nrevOnoav A, deliquerunt Pacian. 


8,—dovaAcvew ev kav. mv., ch. vii. 6,—eivat 
ey my., ch. vill. 9. So that mvedua here is 
not man’s spirit, nor properly the Holy 
Spirit, but the spirit, as opposed to the 
letter, of the Jewish law and of all God’s 
revelation of Himself. 00 | viz. "Iovdalov, 
—of the true Jew. mepitoui Kapd. as be- 
longing to him, is subordinate. The 
@ratvos of such a character, (for érauvos it 
must be,) can only come from Him who sees 
ev T@ kpuTT@ (Matt. vi. 4, 6), and can dis- 
cern the heart. III. 1—20.] Taxine 
INTO ALL FAIR ACCOUNT THE REAL AD- 
VANTAGES OF THE JEWS, THESE CANNOT, 
BY THE TESTIMONY OF SCRIPTURE ITSELF 
CONCERNING THEM, EXEMPT THEM FROM 
THIS SENTENCE OF GUILTINESS BEFORE 
Gop, IN WHICH ALL FLESH ARE IN- 
VOLVED. 1—4.] The circumcised 
Jew did unquestionably possess great ad- 
vantages, which were not annulled by the 
rebellion of some. 1.] ovy, ‘quae cum 
ita sint.’ Iftrue Judaism and true circum- 
cision be merely spiritual, what is the profit 
of external Judaism and ceremonial cir- 
eumcision ? amepicoov | advantage, 
profit, pre-eminence,—see reff. It is best 
to take the question, not as coming from 
an objector, which supposition has obscured 
several parts of this Epistle, but as asked 
by the Apostle himself, anticipating the 
thoughts of his reader. 2.] wokd 
answers the first question of ver. 1, but 
takes no account of the second, as it is 
virtually included in the first. Nor can 
it be properly regarded as answered in ch. 
iv. 1 ff. (see there). Kata wavTa 
tp.| not merely omnino, but as E. V. in 
every way, i.e. in all departments of the 
spiritual life. arp@tov| The Apostle 
begins as if intending to instance several 
of these advantages, but having mentioned 
the greatest, leaves it to his reader to fill 
in the rest, and turns to establish what he 
has just asserted. For mpérov can only be 
first,—‘secondly,’ &e., being to follow: 
—not, ‘primarium illud’ (as Beza),—nor 
Vou. II. 


aft eriotevOnoay ins avtois G2. 


‘precipue’ (as Calv.),—nor ‘id quod pre- 
cipuum est’ (as Calov.), all of which are 
attempts to avoid the anacoluthon: com- 
pare a similar one at ch. i. 8. emo. | 
see reff.—they were entrusted with. 

7a Noyta 7. Geod] These words look very 
like a reminiscence of Stephen’s apology, 
see Acts vii. 38. These oracles are not only 
the law of Moses, but all the revelations of 
God hitherto made of Himself directly, all 
of which had been entrusted to Jews only. 
By these they were received into a special 
covenant, which advantage is therefore in- 
cluded in their being entrusted with the 
divine oracles, 8.] And this advan- 
tage is not cancelled, nor the covenant 
annulled, by their disobedience. Tt 
yap;] For what? (‘quid enim?’ Hor. 
Sat. i. 1. 7.) The ydp confirms the pre- 
ceding—the / indicates some difficulty, or 
anticipated objection to it. ei WTIoT. 
tues | If we place an interrogation at ydp, 
we must render this, suppose some were 
unfaithful; if only a comma, as in E. V., 
‘For what if... The former seems pre- 
ferable, as more according to usage. See 
leit a6 le): Ariotyoav, did not 
believe. If this seem out of place here, 
where he is not speaking of faith or want 
of faith as yet, but of adicla (ver. 5) and 
moral guilt, we may meet the objection by 
remembering that unbelief is here taken 
more on its practical side, as involving 
disobedience, than on the other. They 
were &moro, unfaithful to the covenant, 
the very condition of which was to walk 
in the ways of the Lord and observe His 
statutes. The word may have been chosen 
on account of émorev@noay above and r. 
miatw tT. Oeod below. ) 1 at. 
x.7.A.] shall their unfaithfulness (to the 
covenant: see above, and Wisdom xiv. 25: 
in the root of the matter, their unbelief, 
as in reff.: and the substantive amoria is 
bound to the verb jrlcrynoay, but its ren- 
dering must be ruled by the contrast to 
 twlotis Tov Gov, which must be “the 

Z 


338 


y = Matt. xxiii. 
23. Tit. ii. 

. Prov. 

z Paul (ver. 31. 
1 Cor. xiii. 8 
al. fr.) only, 


exc. Luke 
xiii. 7. Heb. 
ii. 14. Ezra 


iv. 21, 23. v. 
5. vi. 8 only. 
Paul (ver. & 


e 


-réyo. 6° wr) ryévouTo" 


IIPO> POMAIOTS. 


IIT. 


avtav THY Y TictW TOD Oeod *KaTapynoer ; * * wn yévoLTO 
xii 22 PywvérOw dé 0 Beds “adrnOijs, Tas dé avOpwTos * ~evarns, cdfgt 
Kalas yéyparrrat ® "Oras © dy *dixatwOhs €v Tots Aoryous 
cov Kal viknons év TO & KpivedOai ce. 
nav Oeod ‘ dixacocvynv icuvictnow, * tt * épodpev; pur 
adios 6 Beds 6 érihépwv tiv ™ dpynv; “Kata avOpwrrov 


5 ef dé 4  adixia 


lal lal \ 
érel Paras Ixpwel o Beds Tov 


< an a , 
‘ coopov ; 7 eb yap 7 adiOeva Tod Ocod * ev TO Eu@ Srevd- 


al. ¢ subj., Matt. xxii. 16. John iii. 33. vii. 18. viii. 26. 2 Cor. vi. 8 f. d John viii. 44, 55. 1 Tim 
i.10. Tit.i.12. 1Johni.10al4. Psa. exy. 11 (2). e Acts iii. 19 reff. Psa. 1. 4 (6). ‘ f= Luke 

vii. 29, 35. 1 Tim. iii. 16. Ps. 1. c. = Acts xxv. 9, 10 al. h = ch. i. 18 al. _, ich. i, 17 reff. 
j=ch.v.8. 2Cor. vi. 4. vii. 11. Gal. ii. 18. Paul only (exc. Luke ix. 32. 2 Pet. iii. 5). Wisd. vii. 14. Diod. Sic. 
xiv. 45. k ch. iv. 1. vi. 1. vii. 7. viii. 31. ix. 14, 30 only. P. Josh. vii. 8. 1 = Jude 9 (only). Gen. 
Xxxvii. 22. €muh. TWL TOAELOV, Polyb. xy. 18. 4. m = ch. ii. 5, 8. n Gal. iii. 15. 1 Cor 
ix.8. (see ch. vi. 19. 2 Cor. iii. 3. xv. 32. Gal.i. 11. 1 Pet. iv. 6.) o ver. 4 reff. p = Luke 

xi. 18. ch. vi. 2 al. q = ch. ii. 12 reff, r=ch.v.9. Matt. xvii. 21. Luke xxi. 34. s here 


only +. Job xxxiv. 6 Aq. Theod. 


katapynon L b! o Chr-2-mss : katapyer 47: karepyace: 5: karnpynoe 28. 76 syrr Cypr 


Pelag Vig. 


4. for yweo0w, eotw G-gr; est vulg D-lat Syr Cypr, est and esto G-lat, si¢ Ambr: 


yeveoOw Li c Chr. 


for Ka0ws, cabarep BN Thdrt: ws 73: KaGo 76. 
aft opynv ins avrov N1(X% disapproving). 


5. dixaocvyny bef Geov G vulg. 


for de, yap G D-lat Syr Cypr Ambrst Sedul: ovy arm. 


vienoers ADN n: vienots 17. 


7. for yap, de Ad 5. 23. 57. 74. 124 harl copt Damase. 


Saithfulness of God’) cancel (nullify) the 
faithfulness of God? ‘Because they have 
broken faith on their part, shall God break 
faith also on His ?’ 4.| pn yev., let it 
not be: see reff. The Apostle uses this ex- 
pression of pious horror, when he has sup- 
posed or mentioned any thing by which the 
honour, truth, or justice of God would be 
compromised, as here by His covenant-word 
being broken. It is often found in Poly- 
bius, Arrian, and the later Greek writers. 

yivéoOw x.7.A.| ‘rather let us be- 
lieve all men on earth to have broken their 
word and truth, than God His. Whatever 
becomes of men and their truth, His truth 
must stand fast? The citation which 
follows goes to the depth of the matter. It 
is the penitent confession of a sinner, that 
he is sensible how entirely against God his 
sin has been, and how clearly his own un- 
worthiness sets God’s judgment against 
sin vindicated before him. And to this 
meaning the objection in the next verses 
is addressed,—see below. That thou 
mightest be justified (shewn to be just) 
in thy sayings (sentences, words of judg- 
ment), and mightest conquer when Thou 
art judged,—vycera ‘in thy judging,’ 
which cannot well be our rendering of év 
7@ Kplveo@ai oe,—i.e. ‘when thy dealings 
are called in question by men.’ 5.| In 
the citation, the penitent regarded his sin 
as having been the instrument of bringing 
out God’s justice into clearer light. On 
the abuse which might be made of such a 
view,—the Apostle founds another ques- 





tion :—‘It would almost seem as if God 
would be unjust in inflicting His wrath (the 
consequences of His wrath) on men whose 
very impiety has been the means whereby 
His own righteousness has been shewn 
forth, and established.’ jpov | ‘of the 
Jews’ (Grot., De Wette, &e.), not ‘of all 
men’ (Fritzsche), for only to the Jews can 
ver. 7 apply. 
established by the dixcaotc@a of ver. 4; 
not His goodness (as Chrys., Theodoret, 
Grot., al.),—nor His truth (Beza, al.). 
kata avOpwrrov A€yw | said, as elsewhere by 
Paul, to excuse a supposition bearing with 
it an aspect of inconsistency or impiety :— 
not implying that he speaks in the person 
of another, but that he puts himself into 
the place of the generality of men, and uses 
arguments such as they would use. 
6.] He does not enter into the objection 
and answer it in detail, but rejects at once 
the idea of God being wnjust, alluding pro- 
bably to Gen. xviii. 25, by recalling to 
mind, that the Judge of all the earth must 
do right. éret, for (i.e. ‘if it were 
so,’ ‘alioquin’). Tov Kogpov is not the 
Gentiles (Bengel, Reiche, Olsh., al.), nor is 
the respondent in ver. 7 a Gentile (Olsh., 
al., not Bengel), but one of the 7uév in ver. 
5, only individualized to bring out one such 
case of pretended injustice more strikingly. 
7.] This follows (connected by yap) 
upon ver. 6, and shews that the supposition 
if carried out, would overthrow all God’s 
judgment, and (ver. 8) the whole moral 
life of man. How shall God judge the 


Stxaroovvyy | viz. that _ 


ABDG 


017 


KLN at 


———— 


4—9, 


IIPO> POMAIOTS. 


339 


’ , fal 
opate ‘érepiacevoev “els tiv Sd€av adtod, Y TL éTL Kara t Phil.i. 2. 


1 Thess. iv. 1, 


¢ \ - Pa 
@s “apaptwdos *xpivouat; § Kat pn Kabas ¥ BXaody- ,, Tit 16, 


7 \ a .3l, 
povpeOa Kai Kabads haciv Tiwes judas Néyetv OTL TOLjTwpeEY i bai. 


Ta Kaka Wa *€On Ta ayaba ; 
€oTUW. 


x = John viii. 15. 
z = Matt. xviii. 7. a= ch. ii. 2 reff. 
d here only. Eccl. x.10Symm. see note. 

reff.) Winer, edn. 6, $ 61. 4 (5). f. 


1 Cor. y. 12 (bis). 


8. om 2nd cu BK a 39. 74. 
Ambrst. om ta [bef kaka] Di. 


%°T? ody; *mpoeyoucda ; ov °TavTas. 


Eph 
v ch. ix. 19. 


b EVOLKOV Gal. v. 11. 


il Sa | fa) 
@V TO “KptLa w Matt. ix. 10. 


f xi. 19. ch. v. 
TT po- 8,19. Ps. 
xlix. 16. 
= ch. xiv. 16. 1 Cor. x. 30. Tit. iii. 2. James ii. 7. 


ec ch. vi. 15. xi. 7. 
see 1 Cor. v. 10, xvi. 12. (Acts xxi. 22 


b Heb. ii. 2 only +. 
e = here only. 


f here only +. 


om ott G vulg 76. 120 Epiph Aug Pelag Ruf 


9. mpocxwucda AL k: epoumey wth: mpoxatexouey mepicooy D\(and lat) G 31 Syr 


Chr-2-mss Ambrst-mss Ruf: carexouey m. Thdrt Sev: tenemus D-lat G-lat. 


world? For, if the truth (faithfulness) 
of God abounded (was manifested, more 
clearly established) by means of my false- 
hood (unfaithfulness), to His glory (so 
that the result has been the setting forth 
of His glory), why any longer (271, this 
being so,—assuming the premises) am I 
also (i.e. as well as others,—am I to be 
involved in a judgment from which I ought 
to be exempt) judged (to be judged,—the 
pres. expressing the rule or habit of God’s 
proceeding) as a sinner? And (shall we) 
not (in this case rather say), as we (I Paul, 
or we Christians) are slanderously re- 
ported, and as some give out that we 
(do) say (87: recitantis), “Let us do 
evil that good may come?” whose con- 
demnation (not that of our slanderers 
[Grot., Tholuck], but that of those who so 
say and act) is according to justice (not 
only by the preceding argument, but by 
the common detestation of all men, for such 
a maxim as doing evil that good may come). 

The way adopted generally (Calv., 
Beza, Grot., Bengel, Wolf, Riickert, Kéll- 
ner, Tholuck) is to connect ver. 7 by yap 
with ver. 5, and to regard kata &vOp..... 
xédomov as a series of parentheses; but I 
very much prefer that given above, which, 
in the main, is De Wette’s. Fritzsche and 
Schrader strangely enough regard kayo as 
bona fide the individual Paul, and kpivouat 
as the judgment passed by his adversaries 
(“nam si Dei veracitas meo peccatoris 
mendacio abunde in Dei laudem cessit, 
cur adhue ego quoque, Paulus, tanquam 
facinorosus ab hominibus reus agor,” &e.) : 
Reiche, Olsh., &e. put ver. 7 into the 
mouth of a Gentile: Bengel, into that of a 
Jew. Doubtless the main reference of this 
part of the argument is to Jews: but the 
reasoning from the introduction of the 
words toy kécmoy (see above) is general, 
applying both to Jew and Gentile, and 
shewing the untenableness of any such view 
as that of the Jewish objection of ver. 5. 


for 


9—20.] The Jew has no preference, 
but is guilty as well as the Gentile, as shewn 
by Scripture; so that no man can by the 
law be righteous before God. 9.] ro 
ovyv cannot be joined with mpoexdueba (Cc., 
&e.), because ovd€y would then have been 
the answer. There is considerable diffi- 
culty in mpoexdpe9a. The meaning of 
mpo€éxouat every where else is passive, ‘ to 
be surpassed,’ and mpoéxw, act., is to sur- 
pass, or have the pre-eminence. So Plut. p. 
1038 p (Wetst.), Kar’? ovdéy mpoexouevors 
tmd Tov Aids, ‘cum Jove minores non sint:’ 
and Herod. i. 32, 6 wev 5) méya mAovotos 
avdABuos 5€, Svotor mpoexer TOU evTUXOUS 
pdvov, &c. (see Wetst.) Those therefore 
who have wished to preserve the usage of 
the word, have variously interpreted it in 
that attempt: (a) Wetst. would render it 
passively, and understand it (as spoken by a 
Jew) ‘Are we surpassed by the Gentiles?’ 
But (1) for this inference there is no ground 
in what went before, but the contrary (vv. 
1 ff.),—and (2) the question if it mean 
this, is not dealt with in what follows. (8) 
(eum. (2nd altern.) regards it as said by a 
Gentile, ‘ Are we surpassed by the Jews ?? 
but for this question there is no ground in 
the preceding, for all has tended to lower 
the Jews in comparison and reduce all to 
one level. (y) Reiche and Olsh. take it 
passively, and render, ‘Are we preferred 
(by God)? but no example of this mean- 
ing occurs, the above use in Plutarch not 
justifying it. (6) Koppe and Wahl render, 
taking it as the middle voice, ‘ What can 
we then allege (as an excuse)?’ but this 
will not suit ob mdvtws. (€) Meyer, 
‘ What then, have we an excuse?’ but 
mpoexdu. has not this meaning. (¢) 
Fritzsche, ‘ What then? do we excuse our- 
selves (i.e. shall we make any excuse) ?’ 
But (1) zpoex. és put absolutely ; and (2) 
the answer would rather be uydauas than 
ov mdévtws, which replies to a question on 
matter of fact. Besides (3) the argument 


Z 2 


340 IPOS PQMAIOTS. IE 
= ’ 
go Mat vi gruacapeba yap “lovdaiovs te xal"EXAqvas travtas © up ABDG 
alli ” 

I ize. Gpaptiavy ®elvat, 1 nabas yéypartac Ste ovK EoTW cafe 
Deut. xxxiii.3. - e e m 
newt Oéeatos lovde elst 1 ode éotTw 6 *ovvimv, ovK EoTW O O17 
. (Ae = ~ c , 
omourwy. léxtnt@v tov Oeov: 12 aavres ™ €Eéxdwav, dua " HYpELo- 


freely at beg. 
i Acts iv. 32 reff. 
k = ch. xy. 21 
reff. 
lActsxv.17 reff. 
m ch, xvi. 17. 
1 Pet. iii. 11 
only. = Job 
Xxxiv. 27. 
Mal. ii. 8. 
Eo lii. 3 
(A def.) 
n Lind only. 
4 Kings lii. 
19. Jer. xi. 
16. Polyb. i. 
14. 6 al. 
o = here only. 
(ch. ii. 4 reff.) Ps. xxxvi. 3. 
only. Num.xxy.28. Ps. l.c. (y. xiii.) civ, 25only. 
xxiv. 6, 11,12,13. Ep. Jer. 12, 24 only. 
xi. 12. xiii. 15. Ss Pet. iii. 10 (from Ps. xxxiii. 13) only. 
only. Hos. iv. x = Acts viii. 23 reff. 
al5. only. z = here (Rev. i. 16. ii. 12 
Acts xxii. 20.) Rev. xvi.6 only. Gen. ix. 6. 
c James y. 1 only. Isa, xlvii. Al. 
e Psa. xxxy. 1. 
g Matt. xxi. 2 


c “ 
EVOS. 
yAwoooas avTav 


ovK éyvmoar. 





OQncav: ovK éoTW ToLOV 


lal € na r \ 

°raraiTwpia év Tals odots abtay, li Kat 
Lol U Lol 

Se ove éxtw ' Hoos ' Oeod £ avrevayTe TOV 
p Matt. xxiii. 27, 29 al4. only. 
t here only. 
xiv. 14, &c. xix. 15) only. 
Isa. lix.7,8. 
(- -pos, ch. vii. 24.) 


2 Cor, yii. 1 only. 
2. Xxvii. 24, 61. 


’ 4 
° ypnoTOTNTA, OVK EOTW EWS 


13 Prados avewypévos 6 YXadpvyE avTov, Tails 
" €dohlovdaar. 
Uveihn avTaVv. MY dy TO cTOma  apas Kal * muKplas ¥ yéuel. 
15 2 6£e?s of trodes adTOv * exyéat *aiua. 1°” ctyTpysma Kal 


\ \ 
Silos taomridovy uTo Ta 


4 6d0v 4 eipnyns 


Psa. y. 9. 
s James iii. 8. v.3 only. 
Job xx. 14. u Matt. xv. 8 || Mk. 
vy Psa. ix. 7 (27) (singular). 
y Matt. xxili. 6,7. Luke xi. 39. 
Amos iL 15. a (-xvv., 
Proy.i.16 AN? (not BCN!). b here only. Proy. 
d Luke i. 79 oe a (iP ie Isa. 
2 Cor. v.11. Eph. y. 21.) = Neh. 
Josh. xxiv. 26. 


q here only. Ps. clix. 6, r here 
Psa. (xii.3 BN!) cxxxix. 3. Ezek. 
1Cor. xivy.21. Heb. 
w here 
Rey. iv. 6,8 


(Acts ix. 31. 
Acts il. 16, xvii. 7 only. 


mpont., ntiacaueba, DIG 31. 891 eth Chr-2-mss @c-comm, causati sumus latt. 


om yap D}. 
10. ovd D1 1. 
11. om Ist o ABG: 
for ex¢., (ntoy B. 
12. nxpewOnoay AB'D'GN. 
om 2nd our ect B 67? Syr eth. 
18. Aapuvf Adk: -vvt G. 


would then go to shew, not that all are sin- 
ners, as it does, vy. 10O—20, but that all 
are liable to God’s wrath, without excuse. 
(n) Theonly way leftseems (with Theophyl., 
(Ee. (1st altern.), Schol. in Matthai, Pelag., 
Vulg., Erasm., Luther, Calv., Beza, Grot., 
Bengel, Tholuck, Kéllner, Schrader, De 
Wette, al.) to take rpoexdue@a as middle, 
and understand it as mpoéxouev—Have we 
(Jews) the (any) preference? We have 
an use of rapéxomacas active, Acts xix. 24, 
Tit. ii. 7. See also Winer, edn. 6, § 38. 
Bs. ov mavtws| No, by no means. 
This would more naturally be TdVTWS ov, See 


reff. But we have oddtv wdytws for ‘not 
at all,’ Herod. v. 34. The meaning ‘not 


in every way,’ ‘not altogether,’ —as 1 Cor. 
v. 10 and Theophr. de Caus. Plant. vi. 
24 (Wetst.), move? yap ob mdvrws, GAN 
éay ovAH Tis f bréxavoeros,—will not 
apply, for it does not agree with what fol- 
lows, where the Apostle proves absolute 
uality in respect of his argument. 
ita: ....€lvat| we have before proved 
(chs. i. ii.) both Jews and Gentiles all to 
be under sin; the construction is not ace. 
and inf.,—that Jewsand Gentiles ave under 
sin,—but "Iovd. ... mdytas is ace. after 


aft 1ovd. Te ins mpwroy A. 
ins DKLS& Chr Thdrt Damase Thl (ec. 


ins o bef roiwy (so Ps xiii. 


amavtas G: mayta Nn. utro B. 


om 2nd o BG. 
3 8!) DR. 


14. aft oroua ins avtwy B(not Tischdf) 17. 


the verb, and iq’ au. eiva: the matter of the 
charge,—q.d. ‘we have before brought in 
guilty Jews and Gentiles all as sinners.’ 
10—18.| Proof of this universal sinfulness 
Srom the Scripture, said directly (ver. 19) 
of the Jews, but a portion including, and 
taken for granted of, the Gentiles. Com- 
pare throughout the LXX (reff.)." 
11.| In the Psalm,—Jehovah looked down 
from heaven on the children of men, to see 
el €ort ouvicy 4) ex (nt av 7.9. He found 
none. This result is put barely by the 
Apostle as the testimony of Scripture, 
giving the sense, but departing from the 
letter. 18. | eodrodeay, an Alexandrine 
form for éd0Atouv; see Lobeck, Phrynichus, 
p- 349. The open sepulchre is an emblem 
of perdition, to which their throat, as the 
instrument of their speech, is compared. 
15.] The LXX (Isa. 1. ¢c.) have of 
de médes abray em movnplay TpéexXouet, 
Taxwwol exxéa aiuar ka of diadoyiopod 
abray diaroyirpot ard pdvev (dia. apps. 
vov AR): oUvT puja kal Taroumwpia ev Tals 
bd0is avTay, Kat dddv eiphyns ovK ofdacw 
(€yvwoar, A). 19.| He proves the 
applicability of these texts to the Jews by 
their being found in the Jewish Seriptures: 


10—21. IIPO> POMAIOTS. 341 


> a b] Yj id ¢ / eee 
oplarpav avtav. ' oidawev S€ bre boa 6 vomos Aéyet, » ZTake viii 
Philem. 20 al. 


ah. 2: an / Ni a a / i a AV els fi 
‘yo = TOLS " EV TH VOW aNEL, Wa TAY cTOmMa’ hoayn Kat * UTTO- i2Cor. xi, 10. 


AAEL... , Sic , a a Heb. xi. 33 
ABDF Oukos yévynTat Tas 0 KOopos TO Dew. 29 StdTe CE ™ Epyov only. 2Mace. 
"LN ab é e xiv. 36 Ald. 


Le / Lax see Da i 
afgh ™vououv “ov ” duxatwOjocrat ™P Taca P oapE 4 éverrioy ab- 38%R85* 


clmn a \ \ ' Fag a a , 21 \ \ k here only +. 
al7 TOU’ Oud yap vomov * érriyvwors dpaptias. *1 Nuvi 8é ° div ns 
In the TOUTMY TL 
mission mapaBaivy uTddixos éoTw TH TaOdvTL, Demosth. 518. 3. 1 ver. 30. ch. iv.2. v.1. Gal. 
f G see ii. 16 (3ce). iii. 8,24. James ii. 24 (bis), 25. m = ver, 28. Gal. ii. 16 (3ce). iii. 2, 5, 10 only. 
roleg.) n Matt. xxiv. 22. Actsx.14. Gal.ii.16. Exod. xv. 26. Psa. cxlii, 2. o = ch. il. 13 reff. 
p Acts ii. 17 reff. q = Luke xvi.J5. Ps.l.c r Paul, ch. i. 28. x. 2. Eph. iy. 13 


alll, elsw., Heb. x. 26. 2 Pet. i. 2, 3,8. ii. 20 only, Proy. ii. 5, 


19. for Aeye, AaAet N! vulg D-lat Orig. for AaAe, Aevyer DIF. 
20. ov Six. bef cf egy. vow. D F(and lat) fuld Ambrst. emiyvooews FB, 


not in any Gentile representation, which when aoa odpé shall stand before God,— 
might exclude Jews, but spoken univer- perhaps also as a citation from ref. Ps, 
sally, in those very books which were the LXX, od SixawOhoera evdmisy cov mas 
cherished possession of the Jews them- (6. ov... . maoa, which we render by 
selves. 6 vépos | Here, the whole O.T., nulla, must be kept in the mind to its lo- 
the law, prophets, and Psalms: see John x. gical precision: AJ/ flesh—subject—shall 
34, where our Lord cites a Psalm as in be—copula—not justified —predicate). 

‘the law. tois <v t@ v. Aadet] it The Apostle does not here say either (1) 
speaks (not says,—AaAéw is not ‘to say,’ that justification by legal works would be 
see John viii. 25, note) to (or for, dat. impossible if the law could be wholly kept, 
commodi: i.e. its language belongs to, is _ or (2) that those were not justified who ob- 
true of, when not otherwise specified) those served the prescribed sacrifices and offer- 
who arein (under) the law. Sothat the ings of the ceremonial law (of which he 
Jews cannot plead exemption from this has never once spoken, but wholly of the 
description or its consequences. iva] moral): but he infers from his argument 
in order that—not ‘so that.’ the bring- on matters of fact, a result in matter of 
ing in all the world guilty before God is an fact: ‘Mankind, Jew and Gentile, have all 
especial and direct aim of the revelation of broken God’s law, and are guilty before 
God’s justice in the law,—that His grace Him: Man keeps not God’s law. By that 
by faith in Christ may come on all who law then he cannot arrive at God’s righte- 


abandon self-righteousness and believe the ousness.’ Sua yap ....] For by the 
gospel. wav otopa dpayy| If the law (as before, whether partially known to 


Jew’s mouth is shut, and his vaunting in the Gentile or more fully to the Jew) is 
the law taken away, then much more the the knowledge of sin (whatever knowledge 
Gentile’s, and the whole world (see above each has,—whether the accusing and ex- 
ver. 6) becomes (subjective, as ywéow cusing of the Gentile’s conscience, or the 


ver. 4) guilty before God. 20.] The clearer view of offence against Jehovah 
solemn and important conclusion of allthe granted to the Jew). The reasoning is: 
foregoing argument. But not only the —the law has no such office, in the present 


conclusion from i: it is also the great state of human nature manifested both in 
truth, which when arrived at, is seen to history and Scripture, as to render righte- 
have necessitated the subordinate conclu- ows: its office is altogether different, viz. 
sion of ver. 19, the stopping ofevery mouth, to detect and bring to light the sinfulness 
&c. And therefore it is introduced, not of man. Compare Gal. ii. 16. 

with an illative conjunction, ‘wherefore’ 21—V. 11.] Tur ENTRANCE INTO Gop’s 
(which 6:d7« will not bear), but with ‘de- RIGHTEOUSNESS (ch, i. 17) Is SHEWN TO 
cause. Because by the works of the law BE BY FAITH.  21—26.] The Apostle 
(Gop’s LAw: whether in the partial reve- resumes the declaration of ch. i. 17 (having 
lation of it written in the consciences of the proved that man has no righteousness of 
Gentiles, or in the more complete one given his own resulting from the observance of 
by Moses to the Jews,—not, by works of God’s law): viz. that God’s righteousness 
Zaw : no such generalidea of Jaw seems to is revealed by Christ, whose atoning Death 
have ever been before the mind of the is, consistently with God’s Justice, suffi- 
Apostle, but always the law, emanating cient for the pardon of sin to those who 
from God) shall no flesh be justified before Jelieve in Him. 21. vuvi] Is this of 
Him (the future as implying possibility,— time, ‘now,’ in contradistinction to ages 
perhaps also as referring to the great day past, = év 7 viv kaip@, ver. 26,—or is it 


342 IIPO> POMAIOTS. II. 
a Ba. SX@pls vowou  Sixavocivn Oeod “redavépwrat, Y* waptv- 

Nsal” poupevn “b7r0 Tod * voépov Kal Tov * rpodnTar, 22 *Sucaroowvy C as 
tativrer, P ? 


u ch. i, 19 reff. 
v = John xviii. 
37. 3 John 


¥€ Ocod Sia *rictews “Inood ypicTod, ” eis Twavtas [Kal 
‘él mavtas| Tovs TicTEvovTas. ov yap éoTw * dvacTOAN 


3. Heb. vii. 
8. df 
y Acts x. 22 93 , x e Vest a a f , f ac g 
r tay = TTAVTES yap MapTOv Kal UVOTEPOVVTAL TS do0Ens TOU kimn 
Acts xiii. 15 a 9 , \ a > a / \ A 
“ret. Oeod, ** § Suxarovpevor » dSmpeay TH adtod ‘yapuTe dia THs 
y = Phil. ii. 8. 
zconstr., Mark xi. 22. Acts iii. 16. Gal. ii. 16,20. James ii. 1 al. b = Gal. iii. 14. sc Acts 
iv. 33 reff. d ch. x. 12 reff. e = (but act.) Luke xxii. 35 al. Ps.xxii.1. w. ev, 1 Cor. 
i. 7. constr., 2 Cor. xi. 5. f constr., John xii. 43. g w. dat., ver. 28. Tit. iii. 7 only. (ch. 
ii. 13 reff.) h Matt.x.8. 2Cor.xi.7. Exod. xxi. 2. (John xv. 25, from Ps. xxxiv. 19.) i= ch. 
y. li al, 


21. waptrupouern D!. 

22. for inc. xp. ev xpiotw ino. A: om Chr: om ingov B Tert: txt CDFKLX 17 rel 
vss Clem Orig Thdrt Thl (Xe Pelag Ambrst Chrom Bede. om Kal emt mayTas 
(possibly from homeotel: on the other hand, the longer text may be the junction of 
two readings) ABCN? copt «th arm Clem (Orig) Cyr Aug Ruf-comm: ins DEKLN?3 17 
syrr vulg(but am demid al Damasc om es rayt. kot) Chr Thdrt Thl dic Ambrst Chrom 


Bede. 


merely = ‘as things are,’ ‘now we find?’ 
The former is held by Grot., Bengel, Tho- 
luck, Reiche, Olsh., Riickert, al.,—the 
latter by Fritzsche, Meyer, and De Wette. 
The former is true in sense, and applicable 
to the circumstances of the gospel: but 
the meaning is foo strong, where no con- 
trast of time is expressly in view. I 
therefore prefer the latter, especially as 
Paul’s usage elsewhere justifies it ; see ch. 
vii. 17: 1 Cor, xv. 20. Xopis vopov | 
without the (help of the) law, ‘inde- 
pendently of the law:’ not ‘without the 
works ot the law;’ for here it is not the 
way to the dix. God which is spoken of 
(which is faith), but that d:. itself. 
Sixatoc. Geod} God’s righteousness: in 
what sense, see ch. i. 17, and note. 
mehavépwrat| viz. in the facts of the gos- 
pel. The perfect sets forth the manifesta- 
tion of this righteousness in history as an 
accomplished and still enduring fact—the 
Grokahtnrerat of ch. i. 17 denotes the con- 
tinual unfolding of this righteousness in 
the hearts and lives of faithful believers. 
Paptupovpévyn «.7-A.| being borne 
witness to (pres. because the law and pro- 
phets remain on record as a revelation of 
God’s will) by the law and the prophets 
(not merely the types and prophecies, but 
the whole body of the O. T., see Matt. 
xxii. 40). 22. Sixatoo. Sé @.] but 
that (so dé in Herod. vii. 8, "Apioraydpn 
7 Midnaolw, 5ovAm 5& uerépw,—and i. 
114, imd tod cov SovrAov, Bovrdrov Be 
maidds: the contrast being between the 
general mention which has preceded, and 
the specific distinction now brought in. 
See Hartung, Partikellehre i. 168 ff.) the 
righteousness of God (i.e. ‘I mean, the 
righteousness of God 81a miotews ’1. xp.’) 
which is (7 is not necessary, the art. being 


often omitted in cases where the ear is re- 
minded of a usage of the cognate verb 
with a preposition, such as dixaotoba ie 
miarews. Compare Col. i. 4, axotcavres 
tiv miorw iu. ev xpiaTte "Ino., and Eph. 
lii. 4, Sdvacbe vojoa Thy civecty mou év 
Te pvotnple [ovvnevtes ev don copia 
occurs Dan. i. 4 Theod.]. See Winer, 
edn. 6, § 20. 2. b) by the faith in Jesus 
Christ (gen.: see reff.). eis mavr. [k. 
émt mavt.| depends on redavepwrat,—(is 
revealed) unto (‘ towards,’ ‘so as to pene- 
trate to’) all[, and upon (‘over,’ ‘so as to 
be shed down on,’ but in the theological 
meaning, no real difference of sense from 
eis; this repetition of prepositions to give 
force is peculiar to Paul, see ver. 30, and 
Gal. i. 1) all] who believe. Probably the 
repetition of mavras was suggested by the 
two kinds of believers, Jew and Gentile, 
so as to prepare the way for od ydp éort 
diacroAy (but still no essential difference 
in the interpretations of eis and érf must 
be sought). 23. tas Sofns Tod 
Qeod) Of the praise which comes from 
God, see reff. (so Grot., Thol., Reiche, 
Fritz., Meyer, Riickert, De Wette): not, 
‘of praise in God’s sight’ (Luther, Calv., 
Estius, Kéllner): not, ‘of glory with 
God, as ch. v. 2 (Ce., Beza, al.),—for he 
is not speaking here of future reward, 
but of present worthiness: nor, of the 
glorious image of God which we have 
lost through sin (Calov., al., Rickert, 
Olsh.), which is against both the usage of 
the word, and the context of the passage. 

24.) Sixcatoduevor agrees with wav- 
res, Without any ellipsis; nor need it be 
resolved into kat dinacodvrar: the partici- 
pial sentence is subordinated to the great 
general statement of the insufficiency of 
all to attain to the glory of God. It is 


\ TwY mpo 
OnTwr... 
ABCDF 
KLN atl 


I 
ol7 


22—25. 


> a fal fal =) 
Kamohutpwocews THs !év ypict@e “Incod, * dv ™ mpoéPero 
€ fa} NS ne / 5 \ / 02 a > an 7 
0 Qeos itactnpioy dia Tictews °év TH avdTod aipart, 


IIPOS POMAIOTS. 


343 


1 Cor. i. 30, 
Eph. i. 7, 14 
iv. 30. Co 


Heb 


li rn a 
Peis VévderEw THS Suxavcocvyns avTod, Sia THY * Tdpecw i+. Heb. 
> ix. 15, xi. 35 


only. L.P.H. Dan. iv. 32 LXX only. (-o¥v, Exod. xxi.8. Zeph. iii. 1.) 1=ch, vi. 11. viii. 2 al. 
m = here (ch. i. 13. Eph.i.9) only. Polyb. i. 33. 9, tpo@ewevoe TOUS ypompou.dxous. n = here 
(Heb. ix. 5) only. see note. o = Matt. xii. 27, 28 al. p ch. i. 5 reff. q here 


bis. 2 Cor. viii. 24, Phil. i. 28 only +. 


rhere only+. (-v€vat, Sir. xxiii. 2.) 


25. iAaornpecoy F: om arm: propitiatorem D-lat vulg-sixt harl? Ambrst Oros, Jer 


Ambr: propitiationem vulg E-lat syr: placationem Hil. 


rec ins ts bef muorTews, 


with BC3D8KL 17 rel Chr-txt Thdrt Gc: om C!D! FX Orig, Eus Bas Cyr Damasce Thl. 


—om dia mictews A Chr-comm(and 2-mss). 


for 1st avrov, eavtov B 47. 


for mapeow, Topwow 46: rapaveow 69. 116: propositum D'-lat Aug Ambrst Pelag- 


comm. 


not necessary, in the interpretation, that 
the subjects of mdytes and dixatovpevor 
should be in matter of fact strictly com- 
mensurate:—‘all have sinned—all are 
(must be, if justified) justified freely, &c.’ 
wpedv]| see reff.: here ‘ without 
merit or desert as arising from earnings of 
our own; ‘gratis.’ TH avTov xapiTt | 
by His grace, i.e. ‘ His tree undeserved 
Love,’ as the working cause (De W.). 
Sua tis aod. «.7.A.] By means of the 
propitiatory redemption which is in (has 
been brought about by, and is now in the 
Person of) Christ Jesus. arohitpw- 
ows, redemption by a Avrpor, propitiation, 
—and, as expressed by the preposition ao, 
redemption from some state of danger or 
misery: here,—redemption from the guilt 
of sin by the propitiatory sacrifice of 
Christ’s death, see reff. and Matt. xx. 28. 
In Eph. i. 7 this droAd’tpwois is defined 
to = 7 &heots TOY TapaTTwMaTwr. 
25.] awpod8eto, not here ‘decreed,’ as in 
reff. N. T.,—but put forth, set forth, 
manifested historically in His incarnation, 
sufferings, and exaltation. Wetst. quotes 
Thucyd. ii. 34, ra d07& mpoTtievTa TOY 
amoyevouevwy, ‘they expose the bones of 
the deceased to public view.’ 
ikacryptov]| as a propitiatory offering. 
So we have cwrpia, Exod. xx. 24,—xapi- 
oTnhpiov (evxapiorhpiov A), 2 Mace. xii. 45, 
—and ka@dpo.oy, Herod. i. 35, in the sense 
of thank-offerings and offerings of purifica- 
tion (no subst., as 60a, need be supplied,— 
the words being themselves substantives) : 
and we have this very word in Dio Chrysos. 
Orat. ii. p. 184 (cited by Stuart), where he 
says that the Greeks offered an iAacrhpiov 
7™ “A@nva, a propitiatory sacrifice. The 
ordinary interpretation (Theodoret, Theo- 
phyl., Luth., Calv., Grot., Calov., Wolf, 
Olsh.) is founded on the sense in which the 
LXX use the word, as signifying the golden 
cover of the ark of the covenant, between 
the Cherubim, where Jehovah appeared 
and whence He gave His oracles. 1d 


iAaoThpiov méTadov Hv xpucoiy, éemékerto 
7G KiBwTd. ExarépwOey 5& cixe TA THY 
xepouBlu extuTduata. ekeidey TE Apxtepet 
Aertoupyovvti- eylvero SHAN Tov Beod 7 
etpevera .... TO GAnOwdy tAacThpioy 6 
deomdtns eo) xpiotds* exetvo 5€ TL Ta- 
Aaidy TovTov Thy TUTOY emAHpov. apudTTer 
dé adTG ws AvOparwH Td BvOMa, OVX ws OEg 
@s yap Ocds, adtds 31a Tod tAaornplov 
xpnuati¢e:. Theodoret: on which Theo- 
phylact further,—édjAou 5& mdvtws Thy 
avOpwrivny piow, ris mOua hv Tis 
OcdTnTOS, emikad’TTovca TavTHnY. The ex- 
pression occurs in full, iAaorhpiov emldeua, 
Exod. xxv. 17: elsewhere fAaorfhpioy only, 
as ref. Heb. See also Philo, Vita Mos. iii. 
8, vol. ii. p. 150. But De Wette well shews 
the inapplicability of this interpretation, 
as not agreeing with eis évdekw x.7.A. 
(which requires a victim,see below),and as 
confusing the unity of the idea here, Christ 
being (according to it) one while a victim 
(é€v TG avrod afuart), and another, some- 
thing else. The other interpretation (Vulg. 
propitiationem: so HE. V.: Beza, Riickert, 
al.: adj.— Rosenmiiller, Wahl), which 
makes fAaorfpioy an adj. agreeing with dy, 
‘a propitiator, hardly agrees with mpo- 
é0eTo, implying an external demonstration 
of Christ as the iAaarhpioy, not merely an 
appointment in the divine ceconomy. 

81a miotews| by faith, as the subjective 
means of appropriation of this propitiation : 
—not to be joined with év abrod aluar: (but 
the omission of T7js is no objection to this, 
see above on ver. 22), as Luth., Calv. al., 
Olsh., Riickert,—for such an expression as 
mioris or TioTevw ey TS alu. I. xp. would 
be unexampled,—and (which is decisive) 
the clause év T@ avrov aiuar: requires a 
primary, not a subordinate place in the sen- 
tence, because the next clause, eis évd. 7. 
dix. adt., directly refers to it. As dia 
mov. is the subjective means of appropria- 
tion, so év TG alu. avrod is the objective 
means of manifestation, of Christ as a pro- 
pitiatory sacrifice. aipa does not = 6dva- 


344 


t 


> na y. 
“Wh, TOY § mporyeyovdTov 
3 only. a 
t Mark iii. 28, Jeod, 
29. 1 Cor. vi. 
18 only. 
Isa. lyiii. 1. 
u ch. il. 4 reff. 
y Acts iii. 10. 
1 Cor. vi. 5 al. 


IPO> POMAIOT2. 


III. 


auapTnuatoy €v Th “avoxyn TOU 
r \ y n 4 > lal > 
26 Yarpds THY 1 évoeEw THs Sucatocvyns avTOD €év 
w na rn Ww lel x > \ Lo > % 6d \ y¥§ 
TO vov “ Kaip@, * els TO Elvat avdTov Sikatov Kat ¥ duKat- 
rn ’ rn 
obvta * Tov ék *qiatews * Inaod. 


fod rn > Ld if 
27 > Tlod obv n © Kav- 


w ch. viii. 18. xi. 5. 2 Cor. viii. ld only. Gen. xxx. 20. x Acts iii. 19. vii. 19. ch. i. 11, 20 al. y ch. 
ii. 13 reff. z constr., ch. ii. 8 reff. a constr., ver. 22. b = 1 Cor. i. 20. e Paul 
(ch. xv. 17. 1 Cor, xy. 31 al7.) only, exc. James iv. 16. Jer. xii. 13. 


26. rec om tyv, with D°KL Chr Thdrt Thl Ge: ins ABCD!1& Clem Cyr. (F 17 omit 


from dix. avrouv ver 25 to dik. avtov ver 26.) 


dikaiovyta, Sikacovy D}. 


om kat F fuld Ambrst. for 


om inoov F 52 H-lat: for mo., mo. xp. vulg copt Thdrt 


Ambrst Pelag Ruf: xp. ino. D}-lat: tov kup. nu. mo. xp. Syr: moouy D-gr Lbdfg 
m 017 Clem @c,: txt ABCKX am fuld D?-lat syr eth Chr Thl Ge, Aug Oros. 


tos, but refers to propitiation by blood,— 
the well-known typical use of it in sacrifice. 

eis evderguv x.7.A.| in order to 
the manifestation of His righteousness: 
this is the aim of the putting forth of Christ 
as an expiatory victim. Sikatoovvn, 
not ¢ruth (Ambrst., al.),—not goodness 
(Theodoret, Grot., Hammond, Koppe, 
Rosenm., Reiche),—not both these com- 
bined with justice (Beza),—not justifying 
or sin-forgiving righteousness (Chrys., 
Aug., Estius, Krehl, B.-Crus.),—not the 
righteousness which He gives (Luther, 
Elsner, Wolf, al.), which last would repeat 
the idea already contained in ver. 21 and 
rob els 7d eivat avT. Sixauoy of all meaning, 
—not holiness, which does not correspond 
to Sikaios and éiraovy,—but judicial 
righteousness, JUSTICE (as Orig., Calov., 
Tholuck, Meyer, Schrader, Riickert ed. 2, 
al.). This interpretation alone suits the 
requirements of the sense, and corresponds 
to the idea of d:xaotv, which is itself judi- 
cial. <A sin-offering betokens on the one 
side the expiation of guilt, and on the 
other ensures pardon and reconciliation : 
and thus the Death of Christ is not only 
a proof of God’s grace and love, but also 
of His judicial righteousness which re- 
quires punishment and expiation. (Mainly 
from De Wette.) 6a T. Tapeow 
K.T.A.] = Sih TH Tapievar Toy Deby TH 
Tpoy- GwapThuata ev TH avoxH avrov, and 
contains the reason why God would mani- 
fest His judicial righteousness ; on account 
of the overlooking of the sins which had 
passed, in the forbearance of God: i.e. 
to vindicate that character for justice, 
which might seem, owing to the sus- 
pension of God’s righteous sentence on 
sin in former ages in His forbearance, to 
be placed in question:—to shew, that 
though He did not then fully punish for 
sin, and though He did then set forth 
inadequate means of (subjective) justifica- 
tion,—yet He did both, not because His 
justice was slumbering, nor because the 


nature of His righteousness was altered,— 
but because He had provided a way where- 
by sin might be forgiven, and He might be 
just. Observe, mdpeors is not forgiveness, 
but overlooking, which is the work of for- 
bearance (see Acts xvii. 30), whereas for- 
giveness is the work of grace,—see ch. ii. 4: 
—nor is tav mpoyey. au., ‘the sins of 
each man which precede his conversion’ 
(Caloy.), but those of the whole world be- 
fore the death of Christ. See the very 
similar words Heb. ix. 15. The render- 
ing 6d, ‘by means of’ (Origen, Luth., 
Caly., Calov., Le Clere, Elsn., Koppe, 
Reiche, Schrader), is both ungrammatical 
and uhmeaning. 26. mpos Thy evd. 
k.T.A.| The art. distinguishes this évdecéis 
from the former, as the fuller and ulti- 
mate object, of which that €vderéis was a 
subordinate part:—with a view to the 
(or His) manifestation of his righteous- 
ness in this present time. The shewing 
forth that He was righteous throughout 
His dealings with the whole world, by 
means of setting forth an adequate and 
complete propitiation in the death of 
Christ, was towards, formed a subsidiary 
manifestation to, His great manifestation 
of His righteousness (same sense as before, 
Judicial righteousness, justice) under the 
Gospel. The joining amps thy ek. 
K.T.A. With ev Ti avoxy 7. Ge0d (Beza, 
Riickert ed. 2, Thol., al.) would draw 
off the attention from the leading thought 
of the sentence to a digression respecting 
the avoxy tT. @., which is not probable. 

eis TO elvar «.7.A.| in order that 
He may be (shewn to be :—the whole pre- 
sent concern is with évdecéis, the exhibition 
to men of the righteousness of God) just 
and (yet, on the other side) justifying 
him who is of (the) faith in Jesus (rdv 
€x mlor. “Ino., him who belongs to, stands 
in, works from as his standing-point, faith 
in Jesus: see ch. ii. 8, note, and reff.). 

27—IV. 25.] JEWISH BOASTING 
ALTOGETHER REMOVED by this truth, NoT 


ABCD: 
KLNa 
caf ¢) 
kimr 

017 


26—30. IIPO2 POMAIOTS. 


345 


b] Ul X\ / A . 
xnois ; éEexheioOn. Sid © roiov vououv; Tov * epywp 3 4Gal.iv.17 
xxi. 2B. 
2 Mace. xiil. 
h Sixatodo0ar ricte. dvOpwrov -' ywpls | épywv j vomov. ¢= Actsiv.7 
X re. 
on fr., Far 
BI a ” e © \ a 7 E sii. 14— 
eOvav, *9*eimep eis 6 Oeds Os JOtKatdoe. Tepitopny Kee we” 
ch. xiv. 14. Phil. iii. 13. Wisd. xv. 12. 


only. Exod. 
> / > AN \ / 
ovxl, GAa Oia vomouv Tictews. % & NoytloueOa * yap 
21 (only ?). 
°o , / id a ra ed 
79) “lovdaiwy 0 Geos povov, ovyi Kai eOvav; vai Kal '=%-%2 
20 (reff.). k ch, vill. 9 reff. 


e= and constr., 


h w. dat., ver. 24 reff. j ver. 


iver. 21. 


27. aft kavxnors ins cov F latt Thl-comm Aug). 
om 2nd dia D!. 


28. Aoy:Cwpebar D2K. *rec ovV (prob corrn Srom misunderstandg ef royt- 
Couat to convey a conclusion: see note), with BCD?KL 17 rel syrr Chr Thdrt Thl Ge: 
yap ADJFN latt copt Cyr Damase Ambrst Ruf Aug Ambr. ree more: bef 
dikaovobau (to throw emphasis on mote, supposing the ver to convey a solemn con- 
clusion), with KLN&* 17 rel syrr Chr Thdrt: for more: avOpwror, avOp. d:a motews F 
vulg eth Aug: txt ABCDN! copt. apOpwtov B}. 

29. om 7 n 39! Thdrt: wn Al(appy) 39? Hil: ec 77: an latt. Hovey B a b 23. 
39. 47-8. 76 Clem, Ath, Chr,(mss vary) Cyr Thl (but aft cov5. Clem Ath,): novos D: 
txt ACFKLN 17 rel Ath, Thdrt ce, tantum latt, rec aft ovx: ins de, with L 17 
rel syr Chr Cyr, Thdrt Thl Ee: om ABCDFKRN k latt Syr copt Clem, Ath Chr-ms, 
Cyr, Damasce. 

30. rec eme:tep (corn), with D1:3FKLN? 17 rel vss Eus Ath Chr Thdrt Thl Ge: 
quoniam quidem latt Ambr: txt ABCD?! copt Clem Orig Cyr, Did Damasc : siqui- 
dem Jer Pacian, om o D! Orig, 


for ovxt, ovk D!: ov F. 


however BY MAKING VOID THE LAW, nor 
BY DEGRADING ABRAHAM FROM HIS PRE- 
EMINENCE, but BY ESTABLISHING THE 
LAW, and shewing that Abraham was really 
JUSTIFIED BY FAITH, and is the FATHER 
OF THE FAITHFUL. 27.] 7 Kavxnots, 
the boasting, viz. of the Jews, of which 
he had spoken before, ch. ii., not ‘boasting’ 
in general, which will not suit ver. 29. (So 
Theodoret, 7d iWnAdv Tay "Iovdaiwy ppd- 
pnua,—Chrys., Theophyl., Gc. :—Vulg. : 
gloriatio tua: Bengel, Rickert, Meyer, 
De Wette, al.) efexd. | ov ert xopay 
@xet, Theodoret. Sia 1. v. K.T.A.] By 
what law (is it excluded) ? (is it by that) 
of works? No, but by the law (xorma, 
the rule) of faith. The contrast is not 
here between the law and the Gospel as two 
dispensations, but between the law of works 
and the law of faith, whether found under 
the law, or the Gospel, or (if the case ad- 
mitted) any where else. This is evident 
by the Apostle proving below that Abraham 
was justified, not by works, so as to have 
whereof to boast, but by faith. 28. 
AoyiLopeOa, not ‘we conelude, but we 
hold, we reckon, see reff.: the former is 
against N. T. usage; and has probably 
caused the change of ydp into ody, by some 
who imagined that this verse was a conclu- 
sion from the preceding argument. For we 
hold (as explanatory of the verse preceding, 
—on the other supposition the two verses 
are disjointed, and the conclusion comes 
in most strangely), that a man is justified 


by faith, without the works of the law 
(not works of law); and therefore boast- 
ing is excluded. 29.] Inshewing how 
completely Jewish boasting is excluded, 
Paul purposes to take the ground of their 
own law, and demonstrate it from that. 
He will shew that God is not (the God) 
of Jews alone, but of Gentiles, and that 
this very point was involved in the pro- 
mise made to Abraham, by believing which 
he was justified (ch. iv.), and therefore 
that it lies in the very root and kernel 
of the law itself. But, as often elsewhere, 
he passes off from this idea again and again, 
recurring to it however continually,—and 
eventually when he brings forward his 
proof-text (warépa moAAGy éOvav Tébeikd ce, 
iv. 17), Abraham’s faith, and not this fact, 
has become the leading subject. 30. 
etrep | if at least (if we are to hold to what 
is manifest as a result of our former argu- 
ment) God is One, who shall justify the 
circumcision (=the Jews, after the analogy 
of ch. ii. 26) by (éx, as the preliminary con- 
dition,—the state out of which the justifi- 
cation arises) faith, and the uncircumcision 
(the Gentiles) through (by means of) their 
faith. Too much stress must not be laid 
on the difference of the two prepositions 
(see ver. 22 and note). The omission of the 
art. in ék wior. and its expression in 6:4 THs 
mior. are natural enough: the former ex- 
presses the ground of justification, generally 
taken, é« mictews, by faith : the latter the 
means whereby the man lays hold on justi- 


346 IPOs POMAIOTS. ITI, 32. 
IPaul(ch.ii, griatews Kal laxpoBvoTtiay Sia THs mictews. % vowov ABCD) 
25. iv. 9, &c. i ‘i 5 
loaljoniy,’ OV ™KaTapyoumev Sia THS TiaTews ; ™ wi) YyévOLTO, aA cate 
exc. Acts x1. , D 
017 


8. Gen-xvi YOMOV © (7 TAVOMED. 
apa IV. 12 Ti obv époduey [4 ebpynxévar] "ABpaap tov 


n ver. 4 reff. 
o = Heb. x. 9. ‘ 
Num. xxx. 14. 1 Macc. xv. 5. -avw, see ch. vi. 13. 1 Cor. iii. 1 reff. 
9 


q = Luke 
ix. 12. Acts vii.1l. 2 Tim.i.18. Gen. vi. 8. xxvi. 12. 


p ch. ili. 5 reff. 


81. ree torwuev, with D3K LN? rel Chr Thdrt Thl Ge: cumorwpev 17. 65. 93 lect-6: 
mepiotavowevy D1: txt ABCD?FN? Orig Cyr Procop Damase. 


Crap. IV. 1. rec aBpaau tov marepa nuwv bef evpnrevat, with KL 17 rel syrr Chr 
Thdrt Thl Gc Gennad Phot: om evpneeva: B 47!: ins bef aBpaauw ACDFR latt Eus 


fication, 5:4 THs tioTews, by his faith: the 
former is the objective ground, the latter 
the subjectivemedium. Jowett’s rendering 
of repitouhy ex mlorews, ‘ the circumcision 
thatis of faith, though ingenious, is hardly 
philologically allowable, nor would it corre- 
spond to the other member of the sentence, 
which he rightly renders ‘and the uncir- 
cumcision through their faith’ To under- 
stand ris wlorews (as Mr. Green, Gr. p. 300) 
as referring to mlarews just mentioned ‘by 
the instrumentality of the identical faith 
which operates in the case of the circum- 
cised,’ is to contradict the fact: the faith 
was not, strictly speaking, identical in this 
sense, or the two cases never need have 
been distinguished. See vv. 1, 2. 31.] 
But again the Jew may object, if this is the 
case, if Faith be the ground, and Faith the 
medium, of justification for all, cireumcised 
or uncircumcised, surely the law is sebaside 
and made void. That this is not so, the 
Apostle both here asserts, and is prepared 
to shew by working out the proposition of 
ver. 29, that the law itself belonged to a 
covenant whose original recipient was jus- 
tified by faith, and whose main promise 
was, the reception and blessing of the Gen- 
tiles. vopov, not ‘aw,’ but the law, 
as every where in the Epistle. We may 
safely say that the Apostle never argues of 
law, abstract, in the sense of a system of 
precepts,—its attributes or its effeets,— 
but always of THE LAW, concrete,—the 
law of God given by Moses, when speaking 
of the Jews, as here: the law of God, in 
as far as written in their consciences, when 
speaking of the Gentiles: and when in- 
cluding both, the law of God generally, 
His written as well as His unwritten will. 

Many Commentators have taken this 
verse (being misled in some cases by its 
place at the end of the chapter) as standing 
by itself, and have gone into the abstract 
grounds why faith does not make void the 
Jaw (or moral obedience) ; which, however 
true, have no place here: the design being 
to shew that the law itself contained this 


very doctrine, and was founded in the pro- 
mise to Abraham on a covenant embracing 
Jews and Gentiles,—and therefore was not 
degraded from its dignity by the doctrine, 
but rather established as a part of God’s 
dealings,—consistent with, explaining, and 
explained by, the Gospel. 
IV.1—5.] Abraham himself was justified 
by faith. Thereading and punctuation of 
this verse present some difficulties. As to 
the first (see var. read.), the variation in 
the order of the words, and the reading 
mpomatopa seemed to me formerly, how- 
ever strongly supported, to have sprung 
out of an idea that cata odpxa belonged 
to matépa. This being supposed, edpn- 
kévat appeared to have been transposed 
to throw marépa ju. kara odpka together, 
—and then, because Abraham is distinctly 
proved (ver. 11) to have been in another 
sense the father of the faithful, tarépa to 
have been altered to the less ambiguous 
mpomatopa, ancestor, a word not found in 
the N. T., but frequent in the Fathers. 
I therefore in the 3rd edition of this vol., 
with De Wette, Tholuck, and Tischendorf 
(in his last edn.), retained the rec. text. 
Being now however convinced that we are 
bound to follow the testimony of our best 
Mss., and to distrust such subjective con- 
siderations as unsafe, and generally able 
to be turned both ways, I have adopted 
the reading of A(B)CDFR &c., bracketing 
edpnxeva as of doubtful authority, omitted 
as it is by B. Grot., Le Clere, and 
Wetst. punctuate, tl ody epoduey; edpne. 
- ++. odpxka:—and Matthai, rl otv; epodu. 
. odpka; supplying dieacoortyny (or 
more rightly an indefinite 71) after eipy- 
kévat. But as Thol. well remarks, both 
these methods of punctuating would pre- 
suppose that Paul had given some reason 
in the preceding verses for imagining that 
Abraham had gained some advantage ac- 
cording to the flesh : which is not the case. 
1. otv | The Apostle is here contend- 
ing with those under the law from their own 
standing-point : and he follows up his yduoyv 


IV. 1—3. 


IIPOS POMAIOTS. 


347 


* Tpomatopa LV s KaTQ 5 odpka ; 2 él yap "A Rpadp t é& r here only +. 


Ps. xxix. 8 


»y ’ Sy: 5 
Epyov ‘educaiwiOn, “Y ever YY xabynua. "ANN od *aTpds sale rele 


eov: 3 ri yap 1) Y ypady Néyeu ; *’Emiotevoev 5é’ABpadp 


17. 1 Cor. xv. 31. v Gal. v 
x. 21 al. 
xy. 6. Acts xvi. 34 reff. 


Cyr Damase Ambrst. 


y Gal. vi. 4. 
x = Mark xii. 12, or Johni. 1, 2. 


t ch, iii, 20 
reff. 
u= ch. xy. 
w Paul (1 Cor. v. 6 al8.) only, exc. Heb. iii. 6. Deut. 
y ch. ix, 17 reff. zw. dat., GEN. 


rec (for mporat.) matrepa, with C3DFKLN-corr! 17 rel latt 


syr Chr Thdrt Gennad Phot Thi Ge: patriarcham Syr: txt ABC!N1:3 copt ath arm 


Eus (Chr-comm,) Cyr Damasc. 
2. adda F. 
Cyr. 


3. in & yap has been written twice, but the first erased. 


sary) D'F b o latt Chr Cypr. 


iordvouev, by what therefore (‘hoc con- 
cesso,’ ‘seeing that you and I are both 
upholders of the law’) shall we say, &c. 
This verse, and the argument following, are 
not a proof, but a consequence, of vduoy 
tor., and are therefore introduced, not with 
yap, but with ovv. evpynKévat] viz. 
towards his justification, or more strictly, 
earned as his own, to boast of. KaTO 
odpxa belongs to evp., not (as Chrys., 
Theophyl., Erasm.) to wpowatopa 7p. 
For the course and spirit of the argument 
is not to limit the paternity of Abraham to 
a mere fleshly one, but to shew that he was 
the spiritual father of all believers. And 
the question is not one which requires any 
such distinction between his fleshly and 
spiritual paternity (asin ch. ix. 3,5). This 
being so, what does kata capa mean ? 
It cannot allude to cirewmeision ; for that 
is rendered improbable, not only by the 
parallel expression ef €pywy in the plural, 
but also by the consideration, that circum- 
cision was no épyov at all, but a seal of the 
righteousness which he had by faith being 
yet uncircumcised (ver. 11),—and by the 
whole course of the argument in the pre- 
sent place, which is not to disprove the 
exclusive privilege of the Jew (that having 
that the father and head of the race him- 
self was justified not by works, but by 
faith. Doubtless, in so far as circumcision 
was a mere work of obedience, it might be 
in a loose way considered as falling under 
that category : but it came after justifica- 
tion, and so is chronologically here ex- 
cluded. kata odpka then is in contrast 
to Kata mvedua,—and refers to that de- 
partment of our being from which spring 
works, in contrast with that in which is the 
exercise of faith : see ch. viii. 4, 5. 2. | 
For if Abraham was justified (assuming, 
as a fact known to all, that he was justified 
by some means) by works, he hath matter 
of boasting (not expressed here whether 
in the sight of men, or of God, but taken 


rec ins Toy bef Oeov, with D3KL 17 rel Chr Thdrt: om ABCD'FX 


om de (as wnneces- 


generally: the proposition being assumed, 
‘ He that has earned justification by works, 
has whereof to boast’). Then, in disproof 
of this,—that Abraham has matter of boast- 
ing,—whatever men might think of him, 
or attribute to him (e. g. the perfect keep- 
ing of the law, as the Jews did), one thing 
at leastis clear, that he has none before God. 
(pds, probably as in the second ref., with, 
in the sense of chez: apud Deum.) This 
we can prove, (ver. 3) for what saith the 
Scripture ? Abraham believed God (God’s 
promise) and it (7+ moredoa) was reck- 
oned (so LXX. Heb., ‘ He reckoned it’) to 
him as (ch. ii. 26) righteousness. The 
whole question so much mooted between 
Protestants on the one hand, and Romanists, 
Arminians, and Socinians on the other, as 
to whether this righteousness was reckoned 
(1) ‘ per fidem,’ being God’s righteousness 
imputed to the sinner; or (2) ‘propter 
Jidem,’ so that Godmade Abraham righteous 
on account of the merit of his faith, lies in 
fact in a small compass, if what has gone 
before be properly taken into account. 
The Apostle has proved Jews and Gentiles 
to be all under sin: utterly unable by 
works of their own to attain to righteous- 
ness. Now faith, in the second sense men- 
tioned above, is strictly and entirely a work, 
and as such would be the efficient cause of 
man’s justification,—which, by what has 
preceded, z¢ cannot be. It will therefore 
follow, that it was not the act of believing 
which was reckoned to him as a righteous 
act, or on account of which perfect righte- 
ousness was laid to his charge, but that 
the fact of his trusting God to perform 
His promise introduced him into the bless- 
ing promised. God declared his purpose 
(Gen. xii. 3) of blessing all the families of 
the earth in Abraham, and again (Gen. xv. 
5) that his seed should be as the stars of 
heaven, when as yet he had noson. Abra- 
ham believed this promise, and became par- 
taker of this blessing. But this blessing 
was, justification by faith in Christ. Now 


348 


a = ch. ix. 8 
reff. Proy. 
xvii. 28. 

1 Mace. ii. 52. 

' Ps. cv. 31. 

b absol., Acts 
xviii. 3 reff. 


TIPO POMAIOTS. 


TV, 


a fal nr A 

TO Oe@, Kat *édoylaOn adtad *eis Suxatoctyny. * TO 6é 
\ 

> épyalouevy 6 ° wa80s od royiferar *xaTa “yapw, ara 
kata © opeihnuar © TO O€ pr) » epyalouéve, ! riatevovTe Oé 


. x r \ ral / ig 
co Mikes, fémt tov § duxatodvta Tov “aceBh, *royileTar 1) TioTIs 


7. 1 Cor. iii. > ene A 
8al. Gen. QUTOU “ ElS OuKatocvvnv. 
Xxxi. 7. 

d yer. 16. e = here (Matt. vi. 12) only. 
24. Acts ix. 42. xi.17. see Matt. xxvii. 42 v. r. 
iv.18. 2 Pet. ii. 5. iii. 7. Jude 4, 15 (bis) only. 
xii. 12 al8.) only, exc, Heb. iv. 2. 


Deut. xxiy. 10, 


Prov. xxi. 30. 
Ley. xxvii. 8 only (?). see Heb. v. 4. 


Sixabatep cat Aaveld iréyes Tov 


Thue. ii. 40. 

g ch. ii. 13 reff. 

(-Beva, ch. i. 18.) 
4 j = John viii. 27. 


(-Ay, ch. xiii. 7.) f ver. 
hch. v.6. 1Tim.i.9. 1 Pet. 
i Paul (ch. xii. 4. 1 Cor. 

Phil. iii. 18. 


4. rec ins 70 bef opesAnua (appy as agreeing better with the idea of a definite obliga- 
tion incurred : i.e. = Td operduevoy, ‘what is due from the employer, as indeed 


Bloomf. explains it): om ABCDFKLYX rel. 


B! repeats from o puobos to epya- 


ouevw, ver 5, but the passage is marked for erasure, except the first o. 
oe 5 I DS Pp 


§. aceBnv DIFR. 
6. for kadatep, ka0ws DF. 


Abraham could not, in the strict sense of 
the words, be justified by faith i Christ, 
—nor is it necessary to suppose that he 
directed his faith forward to the promised 
Redeemer in Person ; but in so far as God’s 
gracious purpose was revealed to him, he 
grasped it by faith, and that righteousness 
which was implied, so far, in it, was im- 
puted to him. Some have said (Tholuck, 
e. g.) that the parallel is incomplete— 
Abraham’s faith having been reckoned to 
him for righteousness, whereas, in our case, 
the righteousness of Christ is reckoned to 
us as our righteousness, by faith. But the 
incompleteness lies in the nature of the re- 
spective cases. Inhiscase, the righteousness 
itself was not yet manifested. He believed 
implicitly, taking the promise, with all it 
involved and implied, as true. This then 
was his way of entering into the promise, 
and by means of his faith was bestowed 
upon him that full justification which that 
faith never apprehended. Thus his faith 
itself, the mere fact of implicit trust in 
God, was counted to him for righteousness. 
But though the same righteousness is im- 
puted to us who believe, and by means of 
faith also, it is no longer the mere fact of 
believing implicitly in God’s truth, but the 
reception of Christ Jesus the Lord by faith, 
which justifies us (see vv. 23—25 and note). 
As it was then the realization of God’s 
words by faith, so now: but we have the 
Person of the Lord Jesus for the object of 
faith, explicitly revealed: hehad not. In 
both cases justification is gratuitous, and 
is by faith : and so far, which is as far as 
the argument here requires, the parallel is 
strict and complete. 4. +6 Epyalop. | 
(q. d. 7G épydrn, but the part. is used 
because of the negative 7@ ui epyat. fol- 
lowing)—to the workman (him that works 
for hire, that earns wages, compare spos- 
npyacato, Luke xix. 16) his wages are 
not reckoned according to (as a matter 


ins o bef dave DF Chr-comm,. 


of) grace (favour), but according to (as 
a matter of) debt. ‘The stress is on kara 
xap, not on Aoyi¢era, which in this first 
member of the sentence, is used hardly 
in the strict sense, of imputing or reckon- 
ing, but of allotting or apportioning :— 
its use being occasioned by the stricter 
Aoyi¢era: below. And the sentence is a 
general one, not with any peculiar reference 
to Abraham,—except that after kaTrd xdpw 
we may supply és 7@ ’ABpadu, if we will; 
for this is evidently assumed. 5.] 
But to him who works not (for hire,—is 
not an épydrns looking for his puc6ds) 
but believes on (casts himself in simple 
trust and humility on) Him who justifies 
(accounts just, as in ver. 3) the ungodly 
(‘¢mpious ? stronger than ‘ unrighteous :’ 
—no allusion to Abraham’s having formerly 
been in idolatry,—for the sentence follow- 
ing on ver. 4, which is general and of uni- 
versal application, must also be general,— 
including of course Abraham: aoéBera is 
the state of all men by nature),—his faith 
is reckoned as righteousness. Kare 
xdpw is of course implied. 

6—8.] The same is confirmed by a passage 
Jrom David. This is not a fresh example, 
but a confirmation of the assertion involved 
in ver. 5, that a man may believe on Him 
who justifies the ungodly, and have his faith 
reckoned for righteousness. The applica- 
bility of the text depends on the persons 
alluded to being sinners, and having sin 
not reckoned to them. aoeBeis and 
Aoyilopat are the two words to be illus- 
trated. The Psalm, strictly speaking, says 
nothing of the imputation of righteousness, 
—but it is implied by Paul, that the remis- 
sion of sin is equivalent to the imputation 
of righteousness—that there is no negative 
state of innocence—none intermediate be- 
tween acceptance for righteousness, and re- 
jection for sin. 6. Ady. TOV pak. | pro- 
nounces the blessedness, ‘the congratu- 


ABCD 
KLNa 
cedfg 

klm 


017 


4—l1. 


IIPOS POMAIOTS. 349 


x mS , ®@ ‘ 
X wakaptopov Tod avOperou @ 6 Beds 'Aoylferar Sixaroav- * here bis. 


al. iv. 15 


y a : 
vnv ™ ywpis Epyov, 7 Maxdpio av "adpéOnoay ai ° avopiar , 2%," 


ye , 

Kal ov ? érexadvdlnoay ai dpaptiat. 
>? \ / 

ov 41) oyiontar KUpLos auapriav. 


8 / Bi. *% @ m™ ch. iii. 21 reff. 
AKaAPLOS aV @ n= Matt. vi. 
Me li NP Ce 12. xii. 31. 
Acts viii. 22. 
Isa. xxii. 14. 
PsA. xxx 


ac5 i er) 
oO MaKkaplo Los OU) 


Lo q b] ne \ 4 Y BN \ q > \ \ s 2 | 
ovTos Yemt THY TeplTo“nv, *7 Kal Tem THY * aKpORUR= o = Matt. vii. 


aTiav ; Néyowev yap OTe 'édoylcOn TO ARpadp 1) Tiatis 
leis Suxasocvynv: 10 ras ody 1édoyloOn » ' ev TeEpLTOUA phere omy 


” cg s 2 B , e > 
OVTl, 1) €V akpo VOTLA ; OUK 


SaxpoBvotia. |! Kal“ onuetov éXaBev * TepiTtomhs, Y obpa- 


reff. Mark ix. 12,13. Heb. vii. 13. 

iii. 19 reff. u = Matt. xxvi. 48. 
apposit., Acts iv. 22. 2 Cor. v. 5. . 2 
ii. 19. Rey. v.1all2.) only. (Hagg. ii. 24.) 


7. for emer., exadudénoay B?. 


1 Cor. xiy. 22. 
Col. iii. 24. Winer, edn, 6, } 59.8. a, 


23. xiii. 41. 
ch. vi. 19 al. 
Exod. xxxiy. 


. ? 
c. Gen. 


[ho a b) EJ ae zi i 
CYS ihe vii. 19 A Ed- 
a ant! arr sv vat. (B def.) 
(-uppa, 
1 Pet. ii. 16.) 
; q = Acts iy. 33 
r 1 Cor. ix. 8 reff. s ch. iii. 30 reff. — chs 


GEN. xvii. 11. v constr., gen. of 


w =1Cor, ix. 2 (2 Tim. 


8. for 6, of [so Lxx-ABN!] BD!GN?: txt [so zxx-edd 834] ACD3FKLN? rel. 


Aoyioerat Kn 17. 


9. aft weprrouny ins povoy D harl!(not am demid fuld) Ambrst Pelag. 


em, eis C: om 29. 33: om em THY A. 
ins aft Sicaoc. 17. 62. 


for 2nd 


om om: BD'!. om 7 tmiotis K: 


10. om ovr: F vulg(not fuld!) D3-lat Cyr Ambrst Pelag Aug. 
11. repitounvy AC! syrr Orig-schol Eus Cyr-jer Chr, Cyr, Procop Damase: txt 
BC2DFEKLR® 17 rel latt copt Orig-e Chr, Cyr, Thdrt Th] Cc. 


lation :’ in allusion perhaps to the Heb. 


form, ‘yx ‘(O) the blessings of, ...-. 

It is very clear that this righteousness 
must be xwpls pywy, because its imputa- 
tion consists in the remission and hiding 
of offences, whereas none can be legally 
righteous in whom there is any, even the 
smallest offence. 8.] od py Aoyion- 
Tat, as the same construction usually in 
the N. T., is futwre (Winer, edn. 6, § 56. 
3), and must be referred to the great final 
judgment. Or we may say with Olsh. that 
the expression is an O. T. one, regarding sin 
as lying covered by the divine long-suffer- 
ing till the completion of the work of 
Christ, at which time first real forgiveness 
of sins was imparted to the ancient be- 
lievers ; compare Matt. xxvii. 53 ; 1 Pet. iii. 
18. In this last view the future will only 
refer to all such cases as should arise. 

9—12.] This declaration of blessedness 
applies to circumcised and uncircumcised 
alike. For Abraham himself was thus 
justified when in UNCIRCUMCISION, and 
was then pronounced the father of the 
faithful, uncireuncised as well as cireun- 
cised. pakaptopds of course includes 
the fact, on account of which the con- 
gratulation is pronounced,—the justifica- 
tion itself. 9. émi] sc. Aéyerat, see 
reff. The form of the question, with 7 
«al, presupposes an affirmative answer to 
the latter clause ; which affirmative answer 
is then made the ground of the argumenta- 
tion in vy. 10, 11, 12:—On the uncir- 
cumcision (-cised) also. For we say, 


&e, The stress is on t6 “ABpadp, not on 
4 Tiotts: for we say that Tro ABRAHAM 
faith was reckoned for righteousness. 

10.] w@s, under what circum- 
stances? ‘The interval between the re- 
cognition of his faith (Gen. xv. 6) and his 
circumcision, was perhaps as much as 
twenty-five, certainly not less (Gen. xvii. 
25) than fourteen years. 11.] And he 
received (from God) the sign (token, or 
symbol) of circumcision (gen. of apposition, 
see reff. The reading wep:touny appears 
to have been an alteration on account of 
oppayida following), a seal (the Targum 
on Cant. iii. 8, cited by Tholuck, has the 
expression, ‘the seal of circumcision,’ and 
in Sohar, Levit. vi. 21, it is called ‘a holy 
sign.’ So also Baptism is called in the 
Acta Thome, § 26, 7 oppayls Tod Aovtpod, 
and elsewhere in the Fathers simply 4 
oppayls. Grabe, Spicil. Patr. 1.333) of the 
righteousness (to stamp, and certify the 
righteousness) of the faith (gen. of apposi- 
tion [but not im appos. with 51x. by con- 
struction |,—* of the righteousness which 
consisted in his faith,’ —not, ‘ of his justi- 
fication by faith:’ the present argument 
treats of faith accounted as righteousness) 
which was (or, ‘which he had:’ tis may 
refer either to dix. or to rior.,—but better 
to the former, because the object is to 
shew that the righteousness was imputed 
in uncircumcision) during his uncircum- 
cision. In literal historical matter of fact, 
Abraham received circumcision as a seal of 
the covenant between God and him (Gen. 


350 


x Acts iii. 19. 

vii. 19. ver. 
18. ch. i. 11, 
20 al. 

= ch.ii. 27 


° 
- 
° 
= 

hh 
‘al 
- 
o 


TIPO POMAIOTS. 


ry 


yida THS Sixcavoovns THs ¥ wiatews Ths * ev TH * dxpoBvatia, mk 

*els TO elvat avTor TaTépa TaVTwOY TV TioeTEvoYT@Y * dL AS & 

SaxpoBvatias, *eis TO! oyicOAvae [Kal] avdTois THY Si- 017 
/ C a a 

rel «© Kavoouvny, Kat twatépa Tepttouhs Tols ovK ” ex © Tepe- 


fol / > ral ral a 

d Acts xxi.2. TOMAS MOvOY, GAA Kat ToOIs 4 aTOLYoODTLW Tots °iyverw 
Gal. y. 25. 
18. Bhi a t 2 s J “ / af \ ¢ fal f? / = 
ioe ee axpoPvotia tiatews Tod ' ratpos nuav *’ ABpadw 
Eccles. xi. > \ t (ie / an? \ os , 
iiysbut 23 ov yap Sua vomov 7» érayyeria TO ABpadp 1 TO ® o7rép- 
not =. 

e2 Cor. xii. 18. 1 Pet. ii. 21¢. Sir. xxi.6. tyvn THs aAnGelas, Polyb. iv. 42. 7. (dat., ch. xiii. 13.) f Acts 

vii. 2 reff. g ch. i. 3 reff. 
aft oppayida ins dia F: trys wepirouns L. om t7s bef dix. A. om 77 


DF b c o Proeop Damase. 


om «at ABN? a demid tol Orig-schol Cyr Damasc: 
om tv C2D'N: for tyv, es A d 32. 114-24 Syr Cyr, ad justi- 
tiam vulg D3-lat G-lat Ambrst Pelag Aug. 

12. om Trois oun ex wepitouns (homeot) &\(ins X-corr?). 
Bvoria, with D°KL rel Chr Thdrt Th] Ge, : 


Thdrt Th! Ge. 


for 5, dca AD'F K(e sil) L: txt BCD?*N rel. 


ins CDFKLN? 17 rel latt syrr eth 


rec ins T7 bef axpo- 
om ABCD!FX a! ec f h 1 m n Procop 


Damase (e,.—rns mor. Ths ev Tn axpoB. DKLabefghk1no 17 vulg(not am fuld 
harl?) Thdrt Thl-sif (Ke, lat-ff: om motews N}(ins X-corr'). 


13. om 7 N}(ins X-corr!). 


xvii. 1—14). But this covenant was only 
a renewal of that very one, on the pro- 
mise of which Abraham’s faith was exer- 
cised, Gen. xv. 5, 6,—and each successive 
renewal of which was a fresh approval of 
that faith. The Apostle’s point is,—that 
the righteousness was reckoned, and the 
pr omise made, to Abraham, not in cir ‘cum 
cision, but in uncircumceision. cis TO 
elvat....| In order that he might be 
(not ‘so that he is;” see Gal. ili. 7) the 
father of all that believe in uncircum- 
cision (5:d, see reff..—‘ conditionis’). 
Abraham is the father of the faithful. 
But the triumph and recognition of that 
faith whereby he was constituted so, was 
not during his circumcision, but during his 
uncircumcision :—therefore the faithful, 
his descendants, must not be confined to the 
circumcised, but must take in the uncir- 
cumcised also. On rarépa in this sense, 
Tholuck compares the expression Gen. iv. 
20; 1 Mace. ii. 54 (@ivets 5 warhp jay 
ev TG (roa GjAov), and Maimonides, 
*Moses is the father | of all the prophets 
who succeeded him.’ * See also our Lord’s 
saying, John viii. 37, 39. The Rabbinical 
book Michlal Jophi on Mal. ii. (Thol.) has a 
sentiment remarkably coincident with that 
in our text: “ Abraham is the father of all 
those who follow his faith.” eis TO 
doy. k.7.A.] (is in fact parenthetical, whe- 
ther brackets are used or not ; for otherwise 
the construction from the former to the 
latter marépa would not proceed) in order 
that the righteousness (which Abraham’s 
faith was reckoned as being,—the righte- 
ousness of God, then hidden though im- 
puted, but now revealed in Jesus Christ) 
might be imputed to them also. 


12. Kat 


(cis 7d elvat aitoy) marépa 
mepitopys ....] And (that he might be) 


father of the circumcision (the circum- 
cised) to those (dat. commodi ‘for those,’ 
‘in the case of those’) who are not only 
(physically) of the circumcision, but also 
who walk (the inversion of the article 
appears to be in order to bring out more 
markedly tots é« mepir. and tots oTo1xX.,— 
who are not only of é« mepir., but also of 
oro.xovvres ....) in the footsteps (reff.) 
of the faith of our father (speaking here as 
a Jew) Abraham (which he had) during 
uncircumcision. (The art. would make it 
‘during his uncireumcision,—but the 
sense is better without it, the word being 
generalized.) 13—17.] Not through 
the LAW, but through THE RIGHTEOUSNESS 
OF FAITH, was THE INHERITANCE OF THE 
WORLD promised to Abraham: so that not 
only they who are of the law, but they who 
follow Abraham’s faith are HEIRS OF THIS 
PROMISE. 13.] ydp, strictly for. 
The argumentation is an expansion of 
matépa wavT. Tav motevdvtav above. If 
these believers are Abraham’s seed, then 
his promised inheritance is theirs. 

81a vopov |] not, ‘wnder the law,’—nor, ‘ by 
works of the law :-—nor, ‘ by the righteous- 
ness of the law:’ but, through the law, 
so that the law should be the ground, or 
efficient cause, or medium, of the promise. 
None of these it was, as matter of histori- 
cal fact. For not through the law was 
the promise (made) to Abraham, or (# in 
negative sentences answers to kal in affirm., 
see Matt. v. 17) to his seed, viz. that he 
should be heir of the world, but by the 
righteousness of faith. This specifica- 
tion of the promise has perplexed most of 


12—16. 


> lal h x. i , LP wus.’ C2 , 
pate avTov, "To ‘kXAnpovoxoy avTov eivat KocpoU, 
8 \ 8 4 Ul 14: > \ c b2 re i , 3. 

ta Sixatoovrns Tiatews, | ef yap ot » éx vomou ‘ KAnpovo- ; * > 

; i 
prot, JxexévwTtat ) Tlotis Kab *KaTHpyntar 1) érayyedia. 
15 6 yap vopos |opynv ™ catepyaverat. 


vomosS, ovdé ™ TapaBaats. 


xiv. 2. xv. 9 only.) k ch. iii. 3 reff. 
8,13. 2Cor.iv.17. Jamesi. 3 al. 

ii. 2. ix. lb only. Ps.c.3. Wisd. xiv. 31 only. 
iii. 20, 30 al. 


TIPO] POMAIOTS. 


16 Sua TodTO °é« Tictews, Wa 


w. gen., ch, ii. 23. 


35] 


anna h 70 w. inf., 
1 Thess. ili. 


it. iii. 7. 
eb. i. 2. 

Vir UY. sein. 
James ii. 5, 
Micah i. 15. 
=i} Corsi. tie 
ix. 15. 2 Cor. 


e \ b] ” 
ov 6€ OUK €OTW , 


ix. 3 (Phil. ii. 
7) only. (Jer. 

m = ch, y. 3. Vii. 
1 Tim, ii. 14. Heb. 
o=ch. 


1= ch. ii. 5, 8 reff. 
n absol., ch. y. 14. Gal. iii. 19. 
2 Mace, xy. 10 only. 


ree ins Tov bef kocpuov, with KL17 rel Thdrt Thl He: om ABCDFX d Damase. 
for dia Sixaocvyys, Sikarocvvyny F. (Staxatoovyns G}.) 


15. for ov, mov G!. 


rec (for de) yap (see note), with DFKLN3 rel latt syrr 


Chr(or: o vou. for o yap v. above) Cyr ec Ambrst Aug, Bede: txt ABCN?! syr-mg copt 


Thdrt Thl Julian Ambr Ruf. 


the Commentators. The actual promise, 
Gen. (xii. 2, 3) xiii. 14—17; xv.18; xvii. 
8, was the possession of the land of Ca- 
naan. But the Rabbis already had seen, 
and Paul, who had been brought up in their 
learning, held fast the truth,—that much 
more was intended in the words which 
accompany this promise, ‘In thee (or in thy 
seed) shall all families of the earth be 
blessed,’ than the mere possession of Ca- 
naan. They distinctly trace the gift of the 
world to Abraham to this promise, not to 
the foregoing. So Bemidbar Rabb. xiv. 
202. 3 (Wetst.),—‘ Hortus est mundus, 
quem Deus tradidit Abrahamo, cui dictum 
est, “et eris benedictio”’’ (see other citations 
in Wetst.). The inheritance of the world 
then is not the possession of Canaan merely 
(so that xéououv should yiis) either 
literally, or as a type of a better posses- 
sion,—but that wltimate lordship over the 
whole world which Abraham, as the father 
of the faithful in all peoples, and Christ, 
as the Seed of Promise, shall possess: the 
former figuratively indeed and only im- 
plicitly,—the /atter personally and actually. 
See ch. viii. 17; Matt. v. 5; 2 Tim. ii. 
12; 1 Cor. xv. 24. Another difficulty, 
that this promise was made chronologically 
before the reckoning of his faith for right- 
eousness, is easily removed by remembering 
that the (indefinite) making of the promise 
is here treated of as the whole process of its 
assertion, during which Abraham’s faith 
was shewn, and the promise continually 
confirmed. aitdév includes his seed. 

14.| The supposition is now made which 
ver. 13 denied,—and its consequences 
shewn. For if they who are of the law 
(who belong to the law, see reff.: not, 
‘who keep the law,’ nor is 8dfxator to be 
supplied) are inheritors (i. e. inherit 
‘ejus rei causi,’ by virtue of the law: 
they may be inheritors by the righteous- 
ness of faith, but not quoad their legal 
standing), faith is (thereby) made empty 


mapaBacers (ttacism) AF. 


(robbed of its virtue and rendered use- 
less), and the promise is annulled (has 
no longer place). Howand why so? The 
Apostle himself immediately gives the rea- 
son. 15.] For the law works (brings 
about, gives occasion to) wrath (which 
from its very nature, excludes promise, 
which is an act of grace,—and faith, which 
is an attribute of confidence) ;—but where 
(or, for where; but I should regard yap 
as introduced to suit the idea of the second 
clause rendering a reason for the first) 
there is no law (lit. ‘where the law is 
not’), neither (is there) transgression. 
‘We should rather expect (says De W.) 
the affirmative clause, “And where the law 
is, there is transgression:” but the negative 
refers to the time before the Mosaic law, 
when there was no transgression and there- 
fore alsono wrath.’ Yes; but not because 
there was no transgression then ; the pur- 
pose of the Apostle here is not to deny the 
existence of the law of God written in the 
heart (which itself brings in the knowledge 
of sin) before Moses, but to shew that no 
promise of inheritance can be by the law, 
because the property of the law is, the more 
it is promulgated, to reveal transgression 
more,—not to unfold grace. So that com- 
paratively (see notes on ch. vii.) there was 
no transgression before the law of Moses ; 
and if we conceive a state in which the law 
whether written or unwritten should be 
altogether absent (as in the brute creation), 
there would be no transgression whatever. 

But observe (see ch. v. 12—14) that this 
reasoning does not touch the doctrine of the 
original taint of our nature in Adam,—only 
referring to the discrimination of acts, 
words, and thoughts by the conscience in 
the light of the law: for wapéPacis 
is not natural corruption, but an act of 
transgression: nor does the Apostle here 
deny the former, even in the imaginable 
total absence of the law of God. 16. ] 
For this (viz. the following) reason it (the 


352 


TIPO> POMAIOTS. 


iv 


P / 
prer-4-ellips. Pata yapw, eis TO elvar *BeBalay thy * érayyediav 


Gal. ii. 9. v 
13 


q ver. 11 reff. 

r 2 Cor. i. 7. 
Heb. ii. 2. 
ili. (6 v. r.) 
14. vi. 19. ix. 
17. 2 Pet.i. 
10, 19 only +. 
Wisd. vii. 23 
only. 

s Acts i. 4 reff. 

t = ver. 13. 

u ch. ii. 8 reff. 


vy GEN. xvii. 5 w =1 Tim. ii. 7. 


2 Tim. i. 11. 


mavtt To ‘oméppatt, ov TH “Ex TOD VOMOU LO ira 
( puatt, ov TO “Ex TOD vOo“oU pmovoy, aa 
Kal TO “ex tiactews ‘ ABpadp, 65 éotw ! ratHnp TavT@V 
padu, np 
r ry \ r cal 
fhyov 17 (kabeos yéypartar *éTe Twatépa Today eOvav 
w éQ / x / y e 3 / fal r r Zz 
TéeuKa oe) * katévayts Y ov étriatevocev Oeod, TOU * Swo- 
TOLovVTOS TOUS VEKpO’s Kal *KaNOdVTOS Ta fu) OVTA ws 


Heb.i.2. 2 Pet. ii.6. Jer.i.5. x = 2 Cor. 


ii. 17. xii. 19 (Mark xi. 2); L.[Mt. and Matt. xxvii. 24, v. r.] xii. 41. xiii. 3) only. Exod. xxxii. 11 A. (Num. 


xxv. 4.) y attr., Luke i. 4. 
xy. 22 al. 4 Kings vy. 7. 
€is 70 elvat, Philo de Creat. Princ. $7, vol. ii. p. 367. 


16. aft miorews ins moov D}(and lat). 


povoy and ka F(and lat) 91 D-lat: om «a fuld harl!. 


Winer, edn. 6, $ 24. 2. b. 
a see note, and Isa. xli. 4. xlviii. 13. 4 Kings viii.1(?). Ta sn OvTa éxaAecev 


z John y. 21. ch. viii. 11. 1 Cor. 


aft wa ins 7 A 45. 80 arm, om 


aft vouov ins eorw D4, 


17. emotevoas F, credidisti vulg-mss(demid flor fuld tol, besides F-lat) D-lat Syr 
Ambrst Vig Pelag; credent eth: emorevoay D!-gr. 


tnheritance,—not the promise; the pro- 
mise was not strictly speaking é« mlatews : 
—nor must we supply they, meaning the 
heirs, who although they might fairly be 
said to be é« wicrews [compare of éx vduou 
above, and reff.] could hardly be without 
harshness described as being kata xdpuv) 
was by faith that it might be (strictly 
the purpose;—not, ‘so that it was’) 
according to grace (free unmerited favour. 
As the law bringing the knowledge of 
guilt, works wrath,—so the promise, 
awakening faith, manifests God’s free 
grace,—the end for which it was given) ; 
in order that the promise might be sure 
(not, ‘so that the promise was sure :’ this 
was the result, but the Apostle states this 
as the aim and end of the inheritance being 
by faith,—quoad the seed of Abraham,— 
that they all might be inheritors,—as the 
manifestation of God’s grace was the higher 
aim and end) to all the seed, not only to 
that (part of it) which is of the law (see 
ver. 14), but to that which is of the faith 
(walks in the steps of the faith, ver. 12) of 
Abraham (it is altogether wrong to make 
?ABpadu depend on omépuat: expressed 
or understood, as @cum., Koppe, and 
Fritzsche). The part of the seed which 
is of the law here is of course confined to 
believing Jews; the seed being believers 
only. ‘This has been sometimes lost sight 
of, and the whole argument of vv. 13—16 
treated as if it applied to the doctrine of 
justification by faith without the works of 
the law, a point already proved, and now 
presupposed,—the present argument being 
an historical and metaphysical one, pro- 
ceeding on the facts of Abraham’s history, 
and the natures respectively of the law and 
grace, to prove him to be the father of all 
believers, uncircumcised as well as circum- 
cised. és tori TWaThp TavTwey Hpov] 


By the last declaration, the paternity of 
Abraham, which is co-extensive with the 
inheritance, has been extended to all who 
are of his faith ; here therefore it is reas- 
serted: 7u@v meaning Téy moTevdyTwv. 
17. xa0as yéyp.] The words (ref.) are 
spoken of the numerous progeny of Abra- 
ham according to the flesh : but not with- 
out a reference to that covenant, according 
to the terms of which all nations were to 
be blessed in him. The Apostle may here 
cite it as comparing his natural paternity of 
many nations with his spiritual one of all 
believers : but it seems more probable that 
he regards the prophecy as directly an- 
nouncing a paternity far more extensive 
than mere physical fact substantiated. 
These words are parenthetical, being 
merely a confirmation by Scripture tes- 
timony of és éorw mat. mdvt. ju., with 
which (see below) the following words are 
immediately connected. KaTévavTt 
ot ériotevoev Geo | The meaning appears 
to be, ‘ Abraham was the father of us all, 
—though not physically, nor in actuality, 
seeing that we were not as yet,—yet in 
the sight and estimation of God,—in 
his relation with God, with whom no 
obstacles of nature or time have force.’ 
The resolution of the attraction 
must be katévayvtt @Oeov, KaTrevayTt ov 
érlaorevoevy, as in ref. Luke, before 
God, in whose sight he believed. [Chry- 
sostom’s interpretation (and _ similarly 
Theodoret, al.),—@omep 6 Oeds ovK Eore 
bepixds Oeds, GAAG TavTwY TaTHp, otTw 
kal avtds .... 7d yap ‘KaTrévavTt” Spotws 
éort,—does not fall in with the context, 
and is certainly a mistake. ] 
Tov Cwor. +. vexp.| Who quickens the 
dead,—a general description of God’s 
almighty creative power (see 1 Tim. vi. 
13), applied particularly to the matter 


ABCD) 
KLNa 
cedfg 

kim) 
017 


17—19. 


dvta 18 Os ° arap’ édrrida ° én 


TlPOS> POMAIOTS. 
© €rrrids 4 


/ ee N / lal nr i 
yevéoOar avtov Tatépa TodA@Y eOVOY KaTa TO! eipnwevOD ¢ Kits 1.36 


353 


eT Cty ) b= Acts xviii. 
E€TTLOTEVCEY, ~ ELS TO 13. ch. i. 26. 
1 


: * from Ps, xv. 

£Os, ” wd , 19 \ \ hi 2 , Py gNe create 
Odtws dealga omepua cov, 19 Kal pip dodeviicas om Sor 
miotel, [ov] *xatevonoev To éavtovd cama [dn] | veve- Hoes he?” 

dw. dat. of 
thing, Luke xxiv. 26 only. e ver. 11 reff. f Acts xiii. 40 reff. - Gusice 5. 
h = 2 Cor. xi. 21. xiii. 9, ch. xiv. 2,21. 1 Macc. xi 49, i ch. xiv. 1] only. k = Heb. x. 
24. Isa. lvii. 1. 1 Col. ili.5. Heb. xi. 12 only +t. 


18. ep. eAmd: C!DIF. 


yevaca: F(but not G). 
have been written twice, and the first erased.] 


[in & cara seems to 
at end add ws ai acrepes Tov 


ovpavov Kat TO aupov THs Oararons F vulg-sixt(with flor F-lat al) some lat-ff, simly 
106-8 marg Thl; sicué stelle coli harl' G-lat ; sicut arena maris fuld mar, sicut arena 


que est in litore maris tol. 


19. ins ev bef tn more: D'F vulg-sixt(with F-lat) D!-lat G-lat Syr copt Julian Bede. 
om ov (see notes) ABCN am fuld-corr Syr copt Chr, Damasc Julian: ins DFKL 


rel latt syr Chr, Thl ce Ambrst Bede. 


om 757 BF am(and demid harl) old-lat 


Syr eth Chr Epiph Ruf: ins ACDKLN rel syr-w-ast Thdrt. (vulg [with fuld] Bede 


in hand—the deadness of generative phy- 
sical power in Abraham himself, which was 
quickened by God (but vexpovs is a wider 
term than vevexpwuevoy, the genus, of 
which that is a species). The peculiar 
excellence of Abraham’s faith, that it 
overleaped the obstacles of physical ineapa- 
city, and nonenity, and believed implicitly 
God’s promise. Compare 2 Cor. i. 9. 

Kal Ka. Ta py) OvTa ws dvta| Much diffi- 
culty has been found here: and principally 
owing to an idea that this clause must 
minutely correspond with the former, and 
furnish another instance of God’s creative 
Almightiness. Hence Commentators have 
given to kaAety the sense which it has in 
reff., ‘to summon into being,’ and have 
understood @s évra as if it were eis Td eivat. 

Thus, more or less, and with various 
attempts to escape from the violence done 
to the construction, Chrys., Grot., Elsn., 
Wolf, Fritzsche, Tholuck, Stuart, De 
Wette, al. I see however in this latter 
clause not a repetition or expansion of 
the former, but a new attribute of God’s 
omnipotence and eternity, on which Abra- 
ham’s faith was fixed, Who calleth 
(nameth, speaketh of) the things that are 
not, as being (as if they were). This He 
did in the present case with regard to the 
seed of Abraham, which didnot asyet exist: 
—the two key-texts to this word and clause 
being, év *Ioadk KAnOycetat co omepua 
ch. ix. 7 (see note there), —and Acts vii. 5, 

exnyyelharo dovvat avT@ eis Kar doxeow 
auThy Kal TE omepuatt avTov peT avdTdv, 
ovK dvTos aiT@ Tékvov. These Téxva, 
which were at present in the category of 7a 
py) dvta, and the nations which should 
spring, physically or spiritually, from him, 
God éxdAe &s bvta, spoke of as having an 
existence, which word Abraham believed. 
And here, as in the other clause, the kadezy 
Ta wh dvTa ws byte is not confined to the 

Vou. II. 


case in point, but is a general attribute of 
all God’s words concerning things of time, 
past, present, and future, being to His Om- 
nipotence and Omniscience, all one. His 
purposes, when formed, are accomplished, 
save in so far as that evolution of secondary 
causes and effects intervenes, which is also 
His purpose. This also Abraham appre- 
hended by his faith, which rested on God’s 
absolute power to do what He had promised 
(see below). 18—22.|4 more detailed 
description of this (Abraham’s) faith, as 
reposed on God’s Omnipotence. 18. ] 
Who against hope (where there was no- 
thing to hope) believed in (emi, with dat., 
in its literal import signifying close ad- 
herence, is accordingly used to connect an 
act with that to which it is immediately 
attached as its ground or accompaniment, 
Thus here, the hope existed as the neces- 
sary concomitant and in some sense the 
condition of the faith) hope, in order to 
his becoming the father of many nations 
(i. e. as a step in the process of his becom- 
ing, and one necessary to that process going 
forward. He would never have become, &c., 
had he not believed. To render eis 7d yer. 
‘that he should become,’ and connect it 
with érforevcev [ Theophyl., Beza, all., De 
Wette] is against Paul’s usage, who never 
connects morevw with a neut. inf.,—and 
not justified by Phil.i.23; 1 Thess. iii. 10. 
The mere consecutive sense, ‘so that he 
became,’ here, as every where, is a weaken- 
ing of the sense [see however note on 
ch, i, 20},—and besides, would introduce 
an objective clause in a passage which all 
refers subjectively to Abraham). 
ovtus | viz. as the stars of heaven: see l.c., 
—and compare Ps. exlvii. 4. 19.] The 
reading (with or without od?) must first be 
considered. Reading ov, the sense will be, 
And not being weak in faith, he paid 
no attention to, &c. Oeietine ov, ‘ And 
A 


5354 


m here only. 
Gen. xvi. 17 
only. 

n of time, here 
(Heb. ii. 6. 
iv. 4) only. 

o Acts viii. 16 


reff. 

p 2 Cor. iv. 10 
only +. 

q Luke ii. 23 


(from Exod. 
xiii. 2) only. 
Gen. xx. 18. 
r constr. [Acts 
xxv, 20), 
Soph. Ant. 
372. s Acts i. 4 reff. 


F.) only. w Luke xvii. 18. John ix. 24. 


ii. 9. a ver. 3. 


utapxet D!. 


join it with exatoyr.) 
adda B. 


20. om de F xth. 


TIPO] POMAIOTS. 


, / \ fol 
YérnyyeATat Suvatos éoTw Kal Tomoat. 
A é 
*édoyicOn avT@ *els Sixatocbynv. 
> \ , ef a > / > na 94, > \ \ : e Qn 

avTov povov OTe *éXoyicOn ad’Td, * adda Kal SV jas, 
t = Acts x. 20 reff. 

of Paul, otherwise Paul (Eph. vi. 10 al4.) only, exc. Heb. xi. 34. 


Acts xii. 23. 
y = sign. act., Heb. xii. 26 only. pass., Gal. iii. 19. 2 Macc. iv. 27. 1 aor., James i. 12 al. 


IV. 20—25. 


/ m e / n 0 t / \ \ p ’ 
Kpwpeévov, ™ éxaTovtaétns "Tov °Brapywv, Kal THY P vé- 
fol / \ 
Kpwow THS Iuntpas Ldppas, 29" eis b€ Tiv § emayyEediav 
Tov Geod od * dvexpiOn TH ™ amiatia, AAW ¥ évedvvaywobn TH 
mistet, “ dovs * do€av TO Ged, *! Kat * rAHpodopybels Stu 6 


222 $10 [7 cai] 
9 s A ’ 
3 odk éypadn Sé ou 

uch. iii. 3 reff. v Acts ix. 22 

Ps. li. 7 (9). Judg. vi. 34 AB(not Ed-vat. 


Josh, vii. 19. x= ch. xiv. 5 reff. only. 
z = (ch.i. 24) Phil. 


for eved., eSuvauwbn F. 


21. om Ist kat (as unnecessary : but the repetitions of xa are characteristic) D4F 


latt. 


22. om xa: BD!F Syr copt: ins ACD3KLN rel vulg syr Thdrt Thl @e Ambrst 


Julian Sedul. 
23. uovoy bef &: avrov DF latt. 


at end ins es dicaroovvny D* vulg(not am) 


Syr Chr Cyr Thart(prefixing 4 mors) Thl Ruf Ambrst Sedul. 


not being weak in (his) faith, he was well 
aware of, &c.— but did not, &e. Of these, 
the second agrees the better with eis 5€ tv 
ex. ver. 20,—but the first very much better 
suits the context; the object being, to extol 
Abraham’s faith, not to introduce the new 
and somewhat vapid notice of his being 
well aware of those facts of which it may be 
assumed asa matter of course that he could 
not be ignorant. The Apostle does not want 
to prove that Abraham was in his sound 
senses when he believed the promise, but 
that he was so strong in faith as to be able 
to overleap all difficulties in its way. The 
erasure of od seems to have been occasioned 
by the use of «af instead of od5€ before 
thy véxpwow. And the following 5¢, with- 
out being strongly adversative, falls well 
into its place—He took no account of, &c. 
Giessen The rendering, ‘And he did 
not, being weak in faith, take account of, 
&e,’ (omitting od, and making wv the ruling 
neg. particle of the clause), is ungrammati- 
cal: ob would be required. Abraham 
did indeed feel and express the difficulty 
(Gen. xvii.17), but his faith overcame it, and 
he ceased to regard it. But most probably 
Paul here refers only to Gen. xv. 5, 6, where 
his belief was implicit and unquestioning. 

éxatovt.| Abraham’s own ex- 
pression in I. c., where he also describes 
Sarah as being 90. His exact age was 99. 
Gen. xvii. 1, 24 20.) On 5é, see 
above. But with regard to (ref.) the 
promise of God he doubted not through 
unbelief—(De Wette thinks from the 
analogy of morevew els t1,—that ets r. 
éx. is perhaps the immediate object of 
SiaxpivecOar: gq. d. ‘did not disbelieve 
in the promise of God’), but was strong 


(lit. ‘was strengthened,’ ‘shewed himself 
strong,) in faith (dat. of reference, ‘ with 
regard to faith’? ty ar. and tq zlor., 
because both are here strictly abstract, 
being set against one another as oppo- 
sites). Sots 86f. tH 0.] viz. by re- 
cognizing His Almighty power (see reff., 
especially Luke). 21.] mAnp., see ch. 
xiv. 5, being fully persuaded. erty- 
yeArat is not passive (nor 6 nom.), but 
middle, and ‘God’ the subject; that, 
what He has promised, He is able also 
to perform. 22.) 86, on account of 
the nature of this faith, which the Apostle 
has now since ver. 18 been setting forth ;— 
because it was a simple unconditional cre- 
dence of God and His promise. If we read 
kat, it imports besides being thus great 
and admirable, it was reckoned to him for 
righteousness :—éAoyio6n, viz. Td mored- 
gat T@ Oe. 23 —25.| Application 
of that which is said of Abraham, to all 
believers on Christ. 23. | éypady, was 
written, not the more usual yéyparra, 
‘is written :’ similarly in the parallel, 1 
Cor. x. 11; and in our ch. xv. 4. The aorist 
asserts the design of God’s Spirit at the 
time of penning the words: the perfect 
may imply that, but more directly asserts 
the intent of our Scriptures as we now find 
them. Now it was not written on his 
account alone (merely to bear testimony 
to him and his faith) that it was imputed 
to him,—but on our account also (for our 
benefit, to bear testimony to us of the effi- 
cacy of faith like his. Observe that d:d in 
the two clauses has not exactly the same 
sense,—‘on his account’ being = (1) fo 
celebrate his faith,—and (2) on our account 
=for our profit; see on ver. 25), to whom 


ABCDE 
KLNa 

edfg) 

kimn 
017 


we ts 


TIPO POMAIOTS. 


555 


L / a 
ois pédret * royiler@at, Tois » mictevovaw ” ert TOV dyer.5 reff, 


? a ns - 4 

Séyeipavta “Inooty tov Kvpiov hudv °éx vexpov, 5 dg , rf. 
£ \ , a 

‘mrapedoOn Sia Ta °TaparToOpata Huav Kat ! HyépOn dia 


\ g 8 / ¢e na 
THY § OLKALWOLY NOV. 


V. 1 Accawbevtes obv * éx rlatews * eipnuny * évwpev 


12. Ezek. xviii. 26. 


h ch, iii. 20 reff. i = ch. ii. 10 reff. 


24, eveipovta A. 


f = Acts x. 40 reff. 


c 1 Cor. xv. 12 


= ch. viii. 32, 
1 Cor. xi. 23. 
Gal. ii. 20. 
Eph. v. 25. 
Isa, lili. 12, 

e ch. v. 15, &e. 
Matt. vi. 14. 
Gal. vi, 1. 

Ps. xviii. 
gch.v. 18 only}. Levit. xxiv. 22 only. 

k John xvi. 33. Acts ix. 31 only. 






25. for dixawow, Okaocwnr(sic) D4, dieacocvyny a 17. 73-7. 89'. 93 lectt-13-14 Syr 


Chron. 


Cuap. V.1. ree exouev, with B? F-gr &-corr! rel Syr(Etheridge: see also Mehring 
p 457 ff) syr Did Epiph Cyr, Ambrst, Sedul: txt AB!(sic: see table) CDKLN! fh! m 
17 latt(including F-lat) Syr copt Chr Cyr Thdrt Damase Thl (ic Ruf Pelag Oros Aug 


Cassiod. 


it (i.e. 7d morevew TH Beg, as ver. 22) 
shall be imputed (for righteousness :— 
méAAet Aoy. is a future, as ch. iii. 30; 
v. 19 (Thol.),—not, as Olsh. al., spoken as 
from the time and standing of Abraham), 
namely, (to) us who believe on (this spe- 
cifies the juas: and the belief is not a mere 
historical but a fiducial belief) Him who 
raised Jesus our Lord from the dead 
(the central fact in our redemption, as the 
procreation of the seed of promise was in 
the performance of the promise to Abraham, 
see ch. i. 4; 1 Cor. xv. 14 ff.; and resembling 
it in the (wororqoa Tovs vexpods). 

24.] é« vexpav is almost (see Col. ii. 12. 
1 Thess. i. 10.) always anarthrous, as in- 
deed vexpol sometimes is (for ‘the dead’) 
in classic writers, e.g. Thucyd. iv. 14. ; v. 
10, end: and see Winer, edn. 6, § 19. 1. 
The omission may in this phrase be ac- 
counted for by the preposition (Middleton, 
ch. vi. 1): but I suspect Winer is right in 
looking for the cause of the absence of the 
article after prepositions rather in the usage 
of the particular substantive than in any 
idiom of general application. 25. | Here 
we have another example of the alliterative 
use of the same preposition where the mean- 
ings are clearly different (see above, vv. 23, 
24). Our Lord was delivered up (to death) 
for or on account of our sins (i.e. because 
we had sinned) :—He was also raised up 
(from the dead) for or on account of our jus- 
tification (i. e.not because we had been, but 
that we might be justified). This separate 
statement of the great object of the death 
and resurrection of Christ must be rightly 
understood, and each member of it not un- 
duly pressed to the exclusion of the other. 
The great complex event by which our justi- 
fication (death unto sin and new birth unto 
righteousness) has been made possible, may 
be stated in one word as the GLORIFICA- 
TION of Christ. But this glorification con- 
sisted of two main parts,—His Death, and 


His Resurrection. In the former of these, 
He wasmade asacrifice for sin; in the latter, 
He elevated our humanity into the partici- 
pation of that Resurrection-life, which is 
also, by union with Him, the life of every 
justified believer. So that, whentaking the 
two apart, the Death of Christ is more 
properly placed in close reference to for- 
giveness of sins,—His Resurrection, to jus- 
tification unto life everlasting. And thus 
the Apostle treats these two great events, 
here and in the succeeding chapters. But 
he does not view them respectively as the 
causes, exclusively of one another, of for- 
giveness and justification : e.g. (1) ch. v. 9, 
we are said to be justified by His blood, 
and 2 Cor. v. 21 God made Him sin for us, 
that we might become the righteousness of 
God in Him: and (2) 1 Cor. xv. 17, if 
Christ is not raised, we are yet in our sins. 
So that, though these great events have 
their separate propriety of reference to the 
negative and positive sides of our justifica- 
tion, the one of them cannot be treated 
separately and exclusively of the other, any 
more than can the negative side of our jus- 
tification, the non-imputation of our sin, 
without the positive, the imputation of 
God’s righteousness. It will be seen 
from what I have said above that I cannot 
agree with Bp. Horsley’s view, that as our 
transgressions were the cause of Jesus being 
delivered up, so our justification must be 
the cause of His being raised again. Such 
a pressing of the same sense on éud is not 
necessary, when Paul’s manifold usages of 
the same preposition are considered: and 
the regarding our justification (in the sense 
here) as a fact past, is inconsistent with the 
very next words, SicawOévres ex mlaTews, 
which shew that not the objective fact, but 
its subjective realization, is here meant.— 
In these words (of ver. 25) the Apostle in- 
troduces the great subject of chaps. v-—V11., 
—DEATH, as connected with SIN,—and 


AA 2 


or 

356 

1 = Acts ii. 
47. xxiv. 16. 
2 Cor. vii. 4. 


bagi, ili, 21. 


IIPO> POMAIOTS. 


Vi. 


1 \ \ \ \ a / Me ots) A) lol a 
mpos tov Oeov dia Tov xupiou Hye “Inoob pier, 
2 80 ob Kal THV ™ mposayaryny eoxnKkapev eis THY * xapuv cafe 


mbphiiis. TaUTyY ev 4 °éoTHKapev, Kal ? Kavya@peOa er EdridL TIS o 


iii. 12 only 
(in both places, w. art.)+t. n = vy. 17, 
xy.l. 2 Cor. i. 24. 


a 20, 21. ch. vi. 1 al. fr. 
p ch. ii. 17 reff. w. ém¢ and dat. here only. 


o = John viii. 44. 1 Cor. 
Ps. xlviii. 6. 


2. rec aft ecxnkamey ins Tn moTeEt (marginal gloss), with CKLN! rel vulg syr copt 
wth-pl Chr, Thdrt (ic lat-ff: ev ty more: AN-corr!(but ev erased) 93. 124 fuld Syr Tit 


Chr, Thl: om BDF old-lat 2th-rom Ambrst, Hil Aug. 


xapr(sic) m. for er, ep DIF. 
LIFE, as connected with RIGHTEOUS- 
NESS. The various ramifications of this 
subject see in the headings below. 

Cuap. V. 1—11.] The blessed conse- 
quences of justification by faith. 1] 
It is impossible to resist the strong manu- 
script authority for the reading €yemev in 
this verse. For indeed this may well be 
cited as the crucial instance of overpower- 
ing diplomatic authority compelling us to 
adopt a reading against which our subjec- 
tive feelings rebel. Every internal con- 
sideration tends to impugn it. Ifadmitted, 
the sentence is hortatory. ‘Being then 
justified by faith, let us have peace with 

God’ (This is the only admissible sense 
of the first person subjunctive in an af- 
firmative sentence like the present. The 
usage is an elliptical one: Zwmev, ‘that we 
go, i.e. ‘it is time, or in an address, 
‘permit, &e. that we go.’ Thus Od. x. 77, 
ZrSwuev ava worv: Il. x. 450, wp’, ari’ 
épya reétuxta. See other examples in 
Kiihner, Gramm. § 463. The delibera- 
tive sense, attempted to be given by Dr. 
Tregelles {see Kitto’s Journal of ‘Bibl. 
Lit. No. xiv. p. 465 ff.] can only have 
place in an interrogative or dubitative 
clause, and every example given by Mr. 
Green, whom he cites for his supposed 
sense, as well as by Kiihner [§ 464], is of 
this kind. Besides, to call the sense ‘ we 
ought to have,’ deliberative, seems a mis- 
nomer.) But how can man be exhorted 
to have peace with God? To be recon- 
ciled to God, he may, 2 Cor. v. 20: but 
of this there is no mention here, and 
having (been allowed to believe in and 
enjoy) peace with God, depends on, not 
our reconciliation to Him, not any thing 
subjective in ourselves, but the objective 
fact of His reconciliation to us. If, as 
some say, ¢xwuev = katéxwper, Heb. x 
23, the article would be required before 
eiphvnv, and (perhaps) before wpbs or did. 
Besides which there are two objections in 
the form of the sentence to this reading : 
(1) &. is coupled by kat (5? ob Kal) to 
éoxhkaper, and this connexion necessitates, 
in my view, that the first verb should asser¢ 
a fact, as the second undoubtedly does. 


for xapiw, xapay A d!: 


With the former verb in the subjunctive we 
should hardly have expected the caf where 
itis. (2) If €xaper be hortatory, cavxa- 
#e0a, in verse 2, must be so likewise: (for 
if we were exhorted to the lesser degree 
of confidence, eiphyny éxew, such exhorta- 
tion can hardly be founded on the existence 
already of the greater degree, kavxacbat 
«.T.A.) Which, both as to sense and con- 
struction, is very improbable. I believe 
(but see below) an account of the reading 
may be sought, as in 1 Cor. xv. 49, in a 
tendency of those who transcribed some of 
our MSS. to give such assertions a horta- 
tory, or, where interrogative, a deliberative 
form: thus we have cw8nodpeba in some 
MSss., ver. 10,—(howmer, ch. vi. 2,—m0- 
Tevwmey OY MisTEVTwmEY, ANd cuYCjowmeED, 
ch. vi. 8,—traxovcate, ch. vi. 17,—7pos- 
eviwuat (bis), 1 Cor. xiv. 15,—7et@wper, 
2 Cor. v. 11,—morevwpuev, John iv. 42,— 
cuv(howpmey and cuuBacirciowuev, 2 Tim. 
ii. 11, 12:—or perhaps the whole ground 
of the account to be given of the @ is 
better shifted to a more general habit of 
the MSS. (even the greatest and best, see 
instances in prolegg. to Vol. I. ch. vi. § i. 
36, 37) to confound o and @: so that in 
very many cases, such variation can hardly 
be called a different reading at all. 

The whole passage is declaratory of the 
consequences flowing from justification by 
Saith, and does not exhort, but assert. Nor, 
would it seem, does the place for exhortation 
arrive, till these consequences have been in 
the fullest and freest manner set forth,—in- 
deed so fully and freely, that the objection 
arising from their supposed abuse has first 
to be answered. Being therefore justified 
(‘having been justified :’—it is an act past 
on the Christian, not like sanctification, an 
abiding and increasing work) by (as the 
ground) faith, let us (believers in Christ : 
I render the existing text) have peace 
(‘reconcilement ;’ the opposite of dpyf, 
see ver. 9) with (‘in regard of,’ see reff.) 
God through (by means of) our Lord 
Jesus Christ. With regard to the nature of 
this peace (= state of reconciliation, ‘no 
morecondemnation,’ as ch. vili. 1) see above, 
on the reading éxwuev. 2} Through 


2—6. 


4 80Ens Tov Oeod. 


ITPO>, POMAIOTS. 


357 


3 Tod wovov é,'adrAa Kal P eavycpevor a =oh, fi. 7 


reff. 
Péy tais seapele eloores OTL 1 Orinfres t Hrropovny * ch. vii. 23. 


ewarcpyaterat, 4 


édmrida: 5 8€ dais ov "Katara ives, OTe 9) * ayarn TOU 


2 re viii. 19 


» Oe tUrropovn Y Son ymyy, a S€é Y Sone «Mire. xiii 


21. Acts vii. 

10, llal. 

2 Kings xxii. 
Nah. it 


Geod ¥ €xxexurar éy Tals Kapdiats nav * dia * Ted pars ‘eae 


ayiov tov do0évtos piv: 


fal Yj X 
*acbcvav Ett Kata Kaipoy °vTép YaceBav aréOaver. 


onlyt. Ps. Ixvii. 31 Symm. 
x = ch. viii. 39. a Cor xiii, 13. 


reff. = 1Cor, ix. 22. 
eit 23. (joka y.4.) see Num. ix, 13, 
al. fr. d = ch. iy. 5 reff, 


3. aft ov povoy Se ins Trouvro D!. 


w ch. ix, 83 & x. 11 (from Isa. xxviii. 16). 
= Acts ii. 17 (from Joel ii. 28) al. 
see 1 Cor. iy. io. Proy. xxii. 22. 


u ch. iv. 15 reff. 


e el ye YplaTos OVTWY 1 LOV v here bis. 


2 Cor. ii. 9. 
viii. 2. ix. 
13. xiii. 3. 
Phil.ii. 22 
2 Cor. vii. 14 al. 
z Acts xi. 28 
Ps. evi. 12. b = here only. Num. 
c = John vi. 51. x. 15. xi, 51,52. Luke xxii. 19 


rec kavxwucda (mechanical repetition from 


preceding ver), with ADFK L(-o-) & rel Tit Chr Thdrt Thl @e Cypr: txt BC Orig, 


Tert. 
5. for nuwy, vuwy XN}. 


6. rec (for et ye) ete yap, with ACD!3KX rel Syr Epiph, Chr Thdrt Damase Ruf : 


es TL yap D?F: 
ec de L. Syr; txt B. 
latt Isid-ms Damase Iren-int Faustin. 


whom we have also (so 6d [kat], ch. i. 
24; iv. 22, where xal, if read, serves 
to shew the coherence and likelihood 
of that which is asserted —answering 
almost to our ‘as might be expected’) 
had our access (the persons spoken of 
having come to the Father by Christ, 
—see Eph. ii. 18,—the access is treated 
of as a thing past. tH lore: and ev 
7 mlorer appear to have been glosses, 
explanatory of the method of access. The 
access would normally take place at bap- 
tism) into this grace (namely, the grace of 
justification, apprehended and held fast sub- 
jectively [from what follows]; not, 7d rav- 
Twy emitvxely TOV bia Bamwtiomaros aya- 
@év | Chrys. al.], which is inconsistent with 
ev H éoTHK.: not, ‘the Gospel’ [Fritz.], 
for the same reason; not, ‘hope of blessed- 
ness’ { Beza], for that follows: least of all 
‘the grace of the apostolic calling’ {Sem- 
ler], which is quite beside the purpose) 
wherein we stand (see parallels in reff. 
1 and 2 Cor.; i. e. abide accepted and ac- 
quitted with God; see also 1 Cor. x. 12, 
and ch. xi. 20); and (couple to eiphy. Exw- 
pev, not to év 7 EoTHK.) triumph in the 
hope (kavxdoua i is found with ert, ev, zrept, 
brép, and {| Thol. | with an ace. of the object. 
In Heb. iii. 6 we have 7d katxnua Tis 
éAridos) of the glory of God (of sharing 
God’s glory by being with Christ in His 
kingdom, John xvii. 24, see reff.). 

3.] And not only so (not only must we tri- 
umph in hope, which has regard to the fu- 
ture), but triumphing in (not amidst; the 
6X. is the ground of triumph) tribulations, 
knowing (because we know) that (our) tri- 
bulation works endurance (supposing, i. e. 
we remain firm under it), and our endu- 


ut quid enim latt Iren-int Faustin: 
rec (aft ac@evwv) om et, with D?KL rel: 


e. yap fuld! copt Isid Aug: ec h: 
ins ABCD!FX 


rance, approval (of our faith and trust, 
2 Cor.ii.9; ix.13: not, ‘proof’ [Soxmacta |, 
as Grot.; nor ‘experience, as KE. V.,.— 
‘Soxiun est qualitas ejus, qui est Sdxmos.’ 
Bengel,—the result of proof), and (our) 
approval (fresh) hope; and (our) hope 
(but for aitn # éAm. as Olsh.) shames 
(us) not (by disappointing us; ‘mocks 
us not’); because God’s love (not ‘the 
love of God, i.e. man’s love for God, 
—as Theodoret, and even Aug., misled 
by the Latin; see reff., and comipare the 
explicit thy éavrod ayarnyv eis Tuas, 
which answers to this in ver. 8) is (has 
been) poured out (‘effusa,’ not ‘ diffusa’ 
[Vulg.], which latter word perhaps misled 
Aug., owing to whose mistake the true in- 
terpretation was lost for some centuries, al- 
though held by Orig., Chrys., and Ambrose. 
See Trench on St. Augustine, ch. v. p. 89:— 
i.e. ‘richly imparted’ )inour hearts (ev may 
be taken pregnantly, exkéx. eis nal péver 
ev,—or better, denotes the locality where 
the outpouring takes place,—the heart 
being the seat of our love, and of appre- 
ciation and sympathy with G‘od’s love) by 
means of the Holy Spirit (who i is the Out- 
pourer, John xvi. 14; 1 Cor. ii. 9,10) who 
was given to us (Olsh. rightly refers the 
aorist part. to the Pentecostal effusion of 
the Holy Spirit). ‘ Prima hee est in hac 
tractatione Spiritus Sancti mentio. Nimi- 
rum ad hune usque terminum quum per- 
ductus est homo, operationem Sp. Sancti 
notanter denique sentit.? Bengel. 

6.] The text here is in some confusion,— 
see var. readd. The whole may perhaps 
have arisen from an ecclesiastical portion 
having begun xpiorbs dvtwy judy acbe- 
vav ét.,.. When this found its way 


358 IIPOS POMAIOT®S. 
‘ \ lal 
cActsxiv.1s. 7° gods yap °bmép Sixalov tis atroavetrat. 
xxvii. 7,5, na? a , \ \ x SS aA 
Pet. iv. f . 
6. Peis cop ayabod ‘raya Tis Kal © TOAMa aTrobaveiv 
Prov. xi. 31) 
only. 
tPbilem, a : > = ¥ e = \ 
yt. sd. 
only Wisd. TOA@Y GVTOV NLOV XPUTTOS 


19 only 


We 


° bmrep yap 


\ \ a , f t 
iotnow S€ Thy éavToD ayarny eis Huds, OTe Ere ‘ dpap- 


e e A e Le] > , 
uTéep nuav atréBaver. 


gw itor v1 2 ¥7OAN@ odv * waddov | dixaiwOevtes viv lev TO aipate 


reff. 
h ch. iii. 5 reff. i ch. iii. 7 reff. 
ll. Phil. i. 23. ii. 12) only, exc. Matt. vi. 30. 
iv. 4. vi. 11. Gal. ii. 17. i. 11. v. 4. 


7. poyis N'(txt R-corr!). 


Mark x. 48 || L. see Heb. xii. 9, 25. 


1 Cor. xii. 22. 2 Cor. iii. 9, 
1 Acts xiii. 39. 1 Cor. 


k Paul (here &c., four times. 


om 2nd yap L 2. 32. 62. lect-18: de 238. 


8. rec aft nuas ins o Geos (supplementary insertn, as is shewn by the variations in 


its position), with ACKX rel copt Chr He: 
Thdrt Thl Iren-int Aug: bef de arm : 
109 Dial: for eri, «« Syr Chr: 
Ambrst. nuwv bef ovtwy L Chr. 


9. om ovy D'F fuld copt arm Dial Iren-int Cypr. 


erased) X}. 


into the text, @r: was repeated. This of- 
fended the transcribers: but the first ér: 
could not be erased, because yap followed; 
it may then have been conjecturally emended 
to ei (and yap to yé as in B, or 5€ as in L), 
or eis tf, —some retaining €7: in both places. 
The place of @7: is often, in the case of ab- 
solutes, at the beginning of a sentence, with 
the subject of the sentence between it and 
the word or words to which it applies; so 
@rt av’tov Aadovytos, Matt. xii. 46,—éri 
5é abrod paxpay amréxovtos, Luke xv. 20, 
&c. On reconsideration, however, seeing 
that if we follow the most ancient Mss., 
we must either repeat étt, which seems 
very unltkely to have been originally writ- 
ten, or adopt the reading of B, I have 
taken the latter alternative. If, that is 
(on et ye, see note, 2 Cor. v. 3, and Eph. 
iii. 2), Christ when we were yet weak 
(‘powerless for good ;’—or even stronger 
than that :—there seems in this verse to 
be a tacit reference to Ezek. xvi. See 
especially vv. 7, 8 of that chap. in the 
LXX,—od 8€ jo8a yuurh Kai Goxnmovovca 
kal d:7A00v Sia cov Kal tov oe, kal idov 
kaipds gov... Kal duewetaca Tas mrépuyds 
pov em) oé, kal endrvya Thy aoxnuocvynv 
gov, Kal &mood gor xal eisjABov ev Sia- 
O4Kn meTa cod, Ayer KUpios), at the ap- 
pointed time (compare reff. and Gal. iv. 4, 
and kaipés in the quotation above) Christ 
died for (‘on behalf of,’ see reff.) ungodly 
men (not irtp Hpav, because the Apostle 
wishes to bring out fully by this strong 
antithesis, which he enlarges on in the 
next verses, the greatness of the divine 
Love to man). 7.| The greatness of 
this Love, of Christ’s death on behalf of 
the impious, is brought out by shewing 
that there is none such among men, nay 
that such a self-sacrifice,—not unexampled 
where a good man, one loving his fellow- 
men and loved by them, is to be rescued,— 


transp freely Syr Faustin: om B. 
e. ert D2D(and lat!) F tol Cypr Hil Aug, Ruf Pelag 


bef es nuas, DFL latt syr Dial Chr-ms, 
om eT 


aft S:catw0evres ins ev (but 


is hardly found to occur on behalf of the 
pious and just. For hardly will any one 
die on behaif of a just man (masc.,—not 
neuter, ‘for justice’ or ‘righteousness sake,’ 
as Jer., Erasm., Luth., al.: for the matter 
in hand is Christ’s death on behalf of 
persons)—for (this second ‘for’ is ex- 
ceptive, and answers to ‘but I do not 
press this without exception,’ understood) 
on behalf of the good man (the art. as 
pointing him out generally, as in the ex- 
pression, ‘the fool,’ ‘the wise man,’ ‘the 
righteous,’ ‘the wicked’) perhaps (téxa 
opens a possibility which «dacs closes) one 
is even found to venture (the pres. implies 
habituality—it may occur here and there) 
to die. The distinction here made be- 
tween dikaios and ayaéds, is also found in 
Cicero, de Of. iii. 15, ‘Si vir bonus is est 
qui prodest quibus potest, nocet nemini, 
recte justum virum, bonum non facile re- 
periemus.’ (But some edd. read ‘istum vi- 
rumbonum.’) The interpretation which 
makes S{xa:os and dyads refer to the 
same man, and the second clause = ‘I do 
not say that such a thing may not some- 
times occur,’ is very vapid, and loses sight 
of the antithesis between dixatos, and 
&iicos (= aoeBhs = auaptwrds). 

8.) But (as distinguished from human 
examples) He (i.e. God. The omission of 
6 eds, which critical principles render 
necessary, is in keeping with the perfectly 
general way in which the contrast is put, 
merely with tls, not av@pérwy ris. The 
subject is supplied from 7 aydrn Tod Bbeod 
ver. 5) gives proof of (‘establishes’ (reff.) ; 
—not ‘commends’) His own love (own, 
as distinguished from that of men in ver. 7) 
towards us, in that while we were yet 
(as opposed to vow in the next verse) sinners 
(= acbevav = aoeBay, and opposed to 
dikaos and aie ig ver. 7) Christ died 
for us. 9—11.] The Apostle further 


Shoup-cdfg 


7—12. 


IIPOS POMAIOTS. 


359 


avtod ™awOnoopcba Sv adtod aro THs “opyhs: 19 ef yap m= matt, i.2r. 


b] \m» ° / fal lal \ fo) / fa] 
€xOpoi dvtes °KaTNrAXAynwev TO Ved Sia Tod Oavatov Tod 
cn > fal > an = lal / / 
viod avtov, *7o\X@ * wadXov ° KaTadrayéerTes ? cwONTO- 
peOa Pév tH fan adtod: 11Tovd povoy 4é, 


Acts ii. 40. 
Jer. xxxvii. 
xxx.) 7. 

n Matt. iii. 7. 
ch. i. 18. iii. 


r2 \ , 5. : 
ANAA Kal ° (=) here bis. 


1 Cor. vii. 11. 
i E - BS “- y ier tele Need ~ 2 Cor. v. 18, 
Sxavyopevor Sév TO Oe Sia Tov Kupiov Anudv “Inood jy.% only$. 
od, Ov ov viv THY t KaTadXayV Na Bopev {xiviit 1 39.) 
Xivill. . 
Xplor Ys lt ou By THV Ka as als ! Me ; ay 
2 Ava todto @strep “Se Evos avOpa@7rou 1) dwapTtia ¥ eis yi. Mt 
= Acts xi. 14 
reff. q = 2 Cor. iv. 10, 11, 12. r ver. 3: 8 ch. ii. 17 reff. s pes ch. 
xi. 15. 2 Cor. v. 18,19 only}. (Isa. ix.5.) 2 Macc. v. 20 only. u — Acts xxiv, 2 reff 


vy = Wisp. xiy. 14. (?) see Johni. 9. 


10. A omits from Tw 0ew to Tw Oew ver 11. 
11. aft ov wovoy Se ins rovro D!¥F fuld! arm Ambrst. 
om xpiorou B. 


h m latt arm Thl: kavyouey F. 


shews the blessed fruits of justification, 
viz. salvation, both from wrath, and with 
life. The argument proceeds from the 
beginning of the chapter: but the con- 
nexion, as so frequent with St. Paul, is 
immediately with the parenthetical sen- 
tences just preceding. Much more then 
(if He died for us when sinners, a fortiori 
will He save us now that we are righteous 
by virtue of that His death) having now 
been justified by His blood (see remarks 
on ch. iv. 25) we shall be saved by Him 
from the wrath (to come, or of which we 
know : force of the art.). 10.| The 
same is substantiated in another form: 
‘we were enemies (see below) when He 
died and reconciled us: much more now 
that we have been reconciled, and He 
lives, shall we by His life be saved.’ For 
if, being enemies (€x@poi may either be 
active, as Col. i. 21, ‘haters of God; so 
ex Opa, ch. viii. 7; Eph. ii. 15: or passive, 
as ch. xi. 28,—‘hated by God.’ But here 
the latter meaning alone can apply, for the 
Apostle is speaking of the Death of Christ 
and its effects as applied to all time, not 
merely to those believers who then lived: 
and those unborn at the death of Christ 
could not have been éx@pol in the active 
sense), we were reconciled (kataAAdooeo~ 
Oat tut also may be taken of giving up 
anger against any one,—see ref. 1 Cor., 
and Jos. Antt. vi. 7, ob yap édpa Tov Bedy 
diaAAaTTouevov,—or of being received into 
favour by any one,—see 1 Kings xxix. 4, 
ev tivt diadAayhoeTat ovTos TH Kupi 
avrov; and Jos. Antt. v. 2. 8, diadvoa- 
fevos Tas peuers, KaTaAAdTTeTaL mpds 
avthv,—the latter of which meanings, 
were received into favour with God, must 
for the reason aboye given be here adopted) 
to God by means of the Death of His Son 
(this great fact is further explained and 
insisted on, in the rest of the chapter), 
much more, having been reconciled (but 


om Ist tov F(but not G). 
kavxwmcOa Lb (cd -o-) 


here comes in the assumption that the 
corresponding subjective part of reconcilia- 
tion has been accomplished, viz. justifica- 
tion by faith: compare 2 Cor. vy. 19, 20, 
Beds jv ev xpioTe koopov Kkatahhdoowv 
€auT@.... SeducOa brEp XpioTOv, KaTa- 
Adynte TO Ve@. Both these, the objective 
reception into God’s favour by the death of 
Christ, and the subjective appropriation, 
by faith, of that reception, are included), 
we shall be saved by means of His Life 
(not here that which he now does on our 
behalf, but simply the fact of His Life, 
so much enlarged on in ch. vi.: and our 
sharing in it). 11.] A further step 
still—not only has the reconciled man con- 
fidence that he shall escape God’s wrath, 
but ¢riumphant confidence, —joyful hope in 
God. But (aber) not only so, but (fonz 
dern) making our boast in God (particip. 
not as the finite verb, but in every case 
either the consequence of an anacoluthon, 
or finding its justification in the construc- 
tion: so here ‘not only shall we be saved,” 
but that in a triumphant manner and frame 
of mind. See Winer, edn. 6, § 45. 6) 
through our Lord Jesus Christ, through 
whom we have now (not in contrast with 
the future glory, ‘even now,’ as Thol., for 
that would be more plainly expressed,—but 
as in ver. 9) received (our) reconciliation 
(to God). 12—VIII. 39.] Tue 
Power oF Gop (ch. i. 16) Is SET FORTH 
AS FREEING FROM THE DOMINION OF 
SIN AND DEATH, AND ISSUING IN SAL- 
VATION. 12—19.] The bringing in 
of RECONCILIATION and LIFE by CHRIST 
in its analogy to the bringing in of SIN 
and DEATH by ADAM. 12.] This verse 
is one of acknowledged difficulty. The two 
questions meeting us directly are (1) To 
what does dia todro refer? (2) dszep, 
‘like as,’ may introduce the first member 
of a comparison, the second being to be 
discovered ; or may introduce the second, 


360 


ITTPOS POMAIOTS. 


Ve 


fol \ A fol e / © Fd 
w= Acts vis. TOV YKOopoV ‘ eisHAOev, Kal dia THs apaptias 6 OavarTos, 


xvii. 33. 
xxviii. 14. 
ch, xi. 26. 
1 Cor. xi. 28. 
xiv. 25. 

x 2 Cor. i. 16 
reff, 


y 2Cor. v.4. see Matt. xix. 9. 


Ld lol 
Kal “ oUTws * eis mavtas avOp@Trous [6 Oavatos] * duprOev 
Yeh’ @ TavTEes tpwapTov 
ep @ TaVTES HuapTov. 
Acts iii. 16. 


13 zt \ / ig U A 
aypt yap vosov awapTia Hv 


z= ch.i.13 al. 


12. es tov kocuoy bef y apapria DF latt(am fuld &c though not vulg-ed) Ambr. 

rec aft av8pwmous ins 0 Oavaros (marginal gloss specifying the subj of dimrOev, 

as is shewn by the varr), with ABCKLX® rel vulg Thl Ee Augaiiq; aft SunA@ev Syr arm 
Chr Thdrt: bef es 7. a. syr-w-ast: om DF harl Augsepe Ambr Pac, Leo Bede. 


the first having to be discovered. I shall 
endeavour to answer both questions in con- 
nexion. (1) I conceive 6:4 rodro to refer 
to that blessed state of confidence and hope 
just described: ‘on this account,’ here 
meaning, ‘que cum ita sint:’ this state of 
things, thus brought about, will justify the 
following analogy.’ Thus we must take 
step, either (a) as beginning the com- 
parison, and then supply, ‘so by Christ in 
His Resurrection came justification into 
the world, and by justification, life; or (8) 
as concluding the comparison, and supply 
before it, ‘it was,’ or ‘Christ wrought.’ 
This latter method seems to me far the 
best. For none of the endeavours of Com- 
mentators to supply the second limb of the 
comparison from the following verses have 
succeeded: and we can hardly suppose such 
an ellipsis, when the next following com- 
parison (ver. 16) is rather a weakening than 
a strengthening the analogy. We have ex- 
ample of this use of észep, in Matt. xxv. 14, 
and of xa@dés, Gal. iii. 6. Consequently 
(the method of God’s procedure in intro- 
ducing life by righteousness resembled the 
introduction of death by sin: ‘it was’) 
like as by one man (the Apostle regards 
the man as involving generic succession 
and transmitting the corrupt seed of sin, 
not the woman: but when he speaks of 
the personal share which each had in the 
transgression, 1 Tim. ii. 14, he says, ‘Adam 
was not deceived, but the woman being de- 
ceived was in the transgression’) sin (as a 
POWER ruling over mankind, see ch. iii. 9, 
and ver. 21,—partly as a principle which 
exists in us all, and developes itself in our 
conduct, partly as a state in which we are 
involved ; but the idea here must not be 
confined [Caly.] to original sin, as it 
reaches much wider, to sin both original 
and actual: nor to the habit of sinning [as 
Olsh.}: nor is it merely the propensity to 
sin “i Rothe}: nor is sin personified 
merely as in ch. vii. 8, 11) entered into 
the world (not ‘esse ccepit,’ ‘primum com- 
missa est,’ as Reiche, Fritz., and Meyer: 
but literally,—‘ entered into,’ ‘ gained ac- 
cess into,’ the moral world,—for sin in- 
volves moral responsibility. So Gal. iii. 23, 
apo Tov 5& éXOetv thy lori, ‘before the 


faith came in’), and by means of sin (as 
the appointed penalty for sin, Gen. ii. 17; 
iii. 19) death (primarily, but not only, 
physical death: as auapria, so @dvaros, is 
general, including the lesser in the greater, 
i.e. spiritual and eternal death. See ch. 
vi. 16, 21; vii. 10; viii. 6; 2 Cor. vii. 10), 
and thus (by this entering in of sin and 
death; i.e. in fact, by this connexion of sin 
and death, as appears by ed 6 mdvtes 
ijuaptov) death (whether 6 @dv. be genuine 
or not, death is the subject of d:jAéev) 
extended to all men (see reff. De W. 
well says that mdvr. avOp. differs from 
kéopoyv, as the concrete part from the ab- 
stract whole, and d:épy. from eisépxecbat, 
as the going from house to house differs 
from the entering a town. Obs., 
that although the subject of d:7A@ev is 
plainly only death, not sin and death, yet 
the spreading of sin over all men is taken 
Jor granted, partly in the ofrws, partly in 
the following clause), because (é¢” ¢, lit. 
of close juxtaposition: and so ‘on ground 
of,’ ‘on condition that, which meaning, 
if rightly applied, suits the case in hand. 
Life depended on a certain condition, 
viz. obedience: Death on another, viz. dis- 
obedience. Mankind have disobeyed: the 
condition of Death’s entrance and diffusion 
has been fulfilled: Death extended to all 
men, as a consequence of the fact, that,— 
posito, that, = because, all have sinned. 

Orig., Aug., Beza, and Estius render it as 
Vulg., ‘in quo’ [Adam]: Chrys., Theo- 
phyl., Ge., Elsner, ‘propter quem: Grot., 
“per quem’) all sinned (see ch. iii. 23 :— 
not ‘were sinful, or ‘were born in sin? 
as Calvin would restrict the meaning: sin, 
as above remarked, is here, throughout, 
both original and actual: in the seed, as 
planted in the nature by the sin of our 
forefather: and in the fruit, as developed 
by each conscious responsible individual in 
his own practice. So that Calvin’s argu- 
ment,—‘hie non agi de actuali peccato, 
colligere promptum est: quia si reatum 
quisque sibi arcesseret, quorsum conferret 
Paulus Adam cum Christo?’ does not 
apply, and the objection is answered by 
Paul himself, where he says, distinguishing 
between the rapdérrwua and the xdpiona 


18, 14. 


TIPO POMAIOTS. 


361 


3 , Le / 6e > a2 Lal \ ” U 
€V KOOL@, apapTia O€ ovK *EXAOYELTAL MN OVTOS VOMOV, ahere only. 


~yav, Philem, 


14 arra ” éBacirevoev 6 Odvatos avo ’Adaw “péyxpt Bony. 


— Ta af ey 
ch. vi. 12. 


\ \ e VA nr 
Maveéws kai © éri Tovs pn Guaptncavtas ° él Te, ys, 


27. Gen. xxxvii. 8. 


e Luke i. 59. Ezra ii. 61. Neh. vii. 63. 


; p xix. 14, 
d of time, Matt. xi. 23. Acts x, 30. xx.7. 1 Tim. vi. l4al. Ps. civ. 19, 


18. cAAoyatro AN-corrl-marg: eAAoyertw f, evedoyerto (tmputabatur) &1 52. 108 
vulg(but not am) G-lat syrr copt eth lat-ff: AcAoyiora lect-19: evdoyerra 71-7. 


14. [addAa, so BD.] 
latt Iren-int Jer. 


below, vv. 15, 16, 7d 5& xdpiocua é« trod- 
AGv wapatTwpdtev cis Sixalwua. The 
mapanrrwua was not only that of one, the 
original cause of the entry of sin, but 
the often repeated sins of individual men: 
—nor, ‘ suffered the punishment of sin,’ 
as Grot. and Chrys., @vntol yeyévact). 
Observe how entirely this asser- 
tion of the Apostle contradicts the Pela- 
gian or individualistic view of men, that 
each is a separate creation from God, 
existing solely on his own exclusive re- 
sponsibility,—and affirms the Augustinian 
or traducian view, that all are evolved 
by God’s appointment from an original 
stock, and though individually responsible, 
are generically involved in the corruption 
and condemnation of their original. 
13.] How, consistently with ch.iv.15, could 
all men sin, before the law? This is now 
explained. For up to (the time of) the 
law (= amd °Ad. wéxpt Move. ver. 14: 
not ‘during the time of the law,’ as Orig., 
Chrys.,—rod vdpov do0évtos,.... Ews 6 
véuos 7v,—Theodoret,—an allowable ren- 
dering of the words, but manifestly incon- 
sistent with the sense ;—nor, ‘as far as 
there was law, there was sin,’ as Dr. Bur- 
ton,—which is both inadmissible from the 
phéxpt Mavoéws following, and would not 
answer to the simple matter of fact, 7 év 
xéouq@) there was sin in the world (‘ men 
sinned,’ see Gen. vi. 5—13; committed ac- 
tual sin: not, men were accounted sinners 
because of Adam’s sin; the Apostle reminds 
us of the historical fact, that there was sin 
in the world during this period): but sin is 
not reckoned (as transgression) where the 
law is not. é\Xoyetrar has given rise 
tomuch dispute. Very many Commentators 
(Aug., Ambr., Luth., Melanc., Calv., Beza, 
Rickert, Tholuck, Stuart, al.) explain it of 
consciousness of sin by the sinner himself, 
as in ch. vii. 7: but (1) as De Wette ob- 
serves, this is not the natural sense of the 
word, which implies Two parties, one of 
whom sets down something to the account 
of the other (ref.): (2) this interpretation 
would bring in a new and irrelevant ele- 
ment,—for the Apostle is not speaking in 
this chapter at all of subjective human con- 


for 2nd em, ev B Chr Thdrt, in similitudine (or -nem) 


Sciousness, but throughout of objective 
truths with regard to the divine dealings : 
and (3) it would be altogether inconsistent 
with the declarations of ch. ii. 15,—where 
in this sense the éAAoyiopds of sin by the 
vouov wi éxovres is distinctly asserted. 

Iam persuaded that the right sense of éAa. 
is, reckoned, ‘set down as transgression, — 
‘put in formal account,’ by God. In the 
case of those who had not the written law, 
auaptia is not formally reckoned as wapd- 
Baois, set over against the command : but 
in a certain sense, as distinctly proved ch. 
ii. 9—16, it is reckoned and they are con- 
demned for it. Nor is there any inconsis- 
tency, as Tholuck complains, in this view. 
Other passages of Paul’s writings support 
and elucidate it. He states the object of 
the law to be, ch. vii. 13, va yévnra: nad? 
brepBoAty apuaprwrds % auaptia did Tis 
evtoAjjs. The revelation of the law erag- 
gerated, brought into prominent and formal 
manifestation, the sinfulness of sin, which 
was before culpable and punishable, but in 
a less degree. With this view also agree 
Acts xvii. 30; ch. ii. 12, 600: dvduws Huap- 
Tov, Gvouws Kal amroAovvTa,—and iii. 25, 
in so far as they state an analogous case. 
The objection to taking ov« éAdoye?rat 
relatively, ‘is not fully reckoned,’ will 
hardly be urged by those who bear in mind 
the Apostle’s habit of constantly stating 
relative truths as positive, omitting the 
qualifying particles: see e.g. ch. vii. 7, 
where with Guapriay and with ok fdew 
both, we must supply qualifications (see 
notes there). 14.] But (notwith- 
standing the last assertion that sin is not 
fully reckoned where the law is not) death 
reigned (was a power to which all suc- 
cumbed) from Adam to Moses (uéxp: 
Mwvo. = axpi véuou above): i.e. although 
the full eAdoyisuds of sin did not take 
place between Adam and Moses, the uni- 
versality of deathis a proof that all sinned, 
—for death is the consequence of sin :—in 
confirmation of ver. 12. Kal émi T. 
py Gp.) even (notwithstanding the dif- 
ferent degrees of sin and guilt out of, and 
under, the law) over those who sinned 
not according to the similitude (reff.) 


362 IITPOl POMAIOT®. V. 
favs Ff 6uowmpate THs § mapaBdcews “Addu, 6s éotw ™ TUTTO ABCDY 
g ch. iv. 15 a ji ErX, 15 rr. > ¢ \ k , ov KLNa 
rel. Tob ‘pedNovTos, 1° GAN oby os TO KrapdmT@pa, ODT@S cate) 
h = 1 Cor. x. \ \ , > \ a ne , Imn 
Re an, Kal TO lyapiopa’ eb yap TO TOU evos * TapaTT@paTL 017 


32. Acts 


xxiv. 25 al. Wisd. xix. 1. k ch. iv, 25 reff. 


15. om Ist ca B. 


of the TRANSGRESSION of Adam. (1) én 
7@ du. belongs to auapt. and not to éBact- 
Aevoev (as Chrys., Theophyl., Bengel, Elsn., 
al.),—for that would bring in, in the words 
TOUS wy auapThoavtas, an absolute con- 
tradiction to é~ @ mayTes jjuaptor, by 
asserting that there were some who did 
not sin. (2) The emphasis lies on wapa- 
Baots, as distinguished from Gpapria. 
Photius (in De W.),—é6 pév (Ad.) dpio- 
pevnv kK. vouoberncioay evToAhy mapeBy 
K. faptev’ of 5 judpravoy tov avto- 
Sldaxtov THs piaoews Adyov evuBplCorTes. 
They had all sinned: but had not, like 
Adam, transgressed a positive revealed 
command. (3) There is no reference here, 
as some Commentators (Beza, al.) have sup- 
posed, to the case of children and idiots,— 
nor (as Grot., Wetst.) to those who lived 
pious lives. The aim is to prove, that 
the seed of sin planted in the race by the 
one man Adam, has sprung up and borne 
fruit in all, so as to bring them under 
death ;—death temporal, and spiritual ;—of 
these, some have sinned without the law, 
i.e. not as Adam did, and as those after 
Moses did: and though sin is not formally 
reckoned against them, death, the conse- 
quence of sin, reigned, as matter of his- 
torical fact, over them also. It is most im- 
portant to the clear understanding of this 
weighty passage to bear in mind, that the 
first member of the comparison, as far as 
it extends, is this: ‘ As by Adam’s trans- 
gression, of which we are by descent in- 
heritors, we have become (not by imputa- 
tion merely, but by propensity) sinners, and 
have thus incurred death, so K&e.’... .. (see 
below). és éotiv TUtros T. peAA. | Who 
is a figure (or type: not thus used by LXX, 
see Umbreit’s note) of the future (Adam). 
This clause is inserted on the first mention 
of the name Adam, the one man of whom he 
has been speaking, to recall the purpose for 
which he is treating of him,—as the figure 
(ref.) of Christ. rod péAX., not ‘qui futu- 
rus erat,’ as Beza, Reiche; but spoken from 
the Apostle’s present standing, ‘ who is to 
come.” The fulfilment of the type will 
then take place completely, when, as 1 Cor. 
xv. 22, ev T@ xpioTg@ mavres Cwororn- 
Ohoovrat. Still less, with Koppe, can és 
be taken by attr. for 6, and tov méAAovTos 
be interpreted ‘of that which is to come,’ 


aft m0AAw ins ovy A Syr. 


= ch. vi. 23. xi. 29. 


om ev F-gr. 


viz. life and salvation: see 1 Cor. xv. 45. 

Many suppose these words és éor. Tur. 
T. “EAA. to be the apodosis of ver. 12: but 
see there. 15—17.] Though- Adam 
and Christ correspond as opposites, yet 
there is a remarkable difference, which 
makes the free gift of grace much more 
eminent than the transgression and its 
consequences, and enhances the certainty 
of its end being accomplished. But not 
(in all points) as the act of transgression 
(of Adam, as the cause inducing sin and 
death on his race), so also is the gift of 
grace(i. e. justification : not a direct con- 
trast, as trakon in ver. 19: the Apostle 
has more in mind here the consequence of 
the maparr., and to that opposes the 
xdpisua. De W.). 15. ei yap K.7-A. | 
Distinction the first, in DEGREE :—and in 
the form of a hypothetical inference ‘a 
minori ad majus.? For if by the trans- 
gression of the one | man | the many [ have] 
died, much more did the grace of God, 
and the gift abound in (by means of) the 
grace of the one man Jesus Christ to- 
wards the many. (1) The first question 
regards 7oAA@ paAdAov. Is it the ‘a for- 
tiort’ of logical inference, or is it to be 
joined with érepiocevcey as quantitative, 
describing thedegree of abounding? Chrys. 
(TOAAG yap TovTo evAoyéTepov), Grot., 
Fritz., Thol., adopt the former, and pro- 
vided only the same thing is said here asin 
ver. 17, the usage there would decide it to 
be so: for there it cannot be quantitative. 
But I believe that not to be so. Here, the 
question is of abounding, a matter of degree, 
there, of reigning, a matter of fact. Here 
(ver. 16) the contrast is between the judg- 
ment, coming of ove sinner, to condem- 
nation, and the free gift, of (see note below) 
many offences, to justification. So that I 
think the quantitative sense the better, and 
join ToAAG paddov with ereplowevoer, in 
the sense of much more abundant (rich 
in diffusion) was the gift, &c. (2) xapts, 
not the grace working in men, here, but 
the grace which is in, and flows from, God. 
(3) ev xdpiti TH TOD. ..., not to bejoined 
(Thol.) with 7 dwped, as if it were 7 év 
xap. (which would be allowable), but with 
éxepiag. The grace of our Lord Jesus 
Christ (His self-offering love, see 2 Cor. 
viii. 9) is the medium by which the free gift 


15—17. 


IIPOS POMAIOTS. 


363 


e \ , a a a =y a 
™ 9¢ Todo aTréBavov, ™ TOAAD ™ wadXOV 1) Yapis TOU Deod ™Z “Er! ds 


\ - °6 \ bd] / lal nr | > 0 , aL fo) 
Kat 7 °dwpead €v yapiTte TH TOD évds avOpemov ‘Incod 
xXplaTov Peis ™ TOs TodAOVS 4 érrEepioceveD. 
@s ou évos apaptyocavtos TO * Sopnuar TO pev Yyappa 
8 tal ee c fee, u ? Vv 4 \ \ l / 2 
Kpima *é& évos “els Yearaxpysa, To be !ydpiopa 

ay lal k , u ? Ww P>) / 
Toh\vAov * tapartT@patov “ eis ixalopa. 


tive. 
u=ch. i. 5. xvi. 26. 
iii. 9. vii. 3.) 


r James i. 17 only +. 
1 Pet. i. 22. 


ch. xii. 5. 
: Cor. x. 17, 


A ano vy. 9, 10 reff. 
18 ai oby Mie, 
h. viii, 18. 

t ge 4 ch. ah 7 al. 
constr., Eph. 


> N 1.8. 2Cor. 
7 e¢ yap ix.8, mut 
‘ Tep, transi- 
s see l Pet.iv.17. Rey. xx. 4. t ch. ii. 29 reff. 
v here bis. ch. viii. l only+. (-vewv, ch. ii. 1. -ows, 2 Cor. 


w = here only. see note and ch. i, 32 reff. 


16. for awaptnoavros, owaptnuatos D(and lat!) F fuld!(not am harl! al) Syr Thdrt 


Aug,(txtsepe) Ruf Pelag Ambr-comm Sedul: awaprntos(sic) X}. 
at end add (ws D1(and lat!) fuld! th. 


45 lect-19, syr has it w-ast. 


is imparted to men. (4) The aorist érepicc. 
should here be kept to its indefinite his- 
torical sense, and not rendered as a per- 
fect, however true the fact expressed may 
be: both are treated of here as events, their 
time of happening and present reference 
not being regarded. 16.]| Distinction 
the second, in KIND. The former differ- 
ence was quantitative: this is modal. 
And not as (that which took place) by 
one that sinned, so is the gift. It isa 
question whether any thing, and what, is to 
be supplied before 60 évds auapr. Réthe, 
Meyer, and Tholuck (and so E. V.), would 
supply nothing, and render, ‘ And not as 
by one having sinned, so is the gift... But 
(De W.) this has against it, (1) that since 
the yap following gives the reason for this 
sentence, this must contain implicitly all 
that that next expands in detail; which is 
not merely the distinction between spring- 
ing from one man and out of many offences, 
but much more: and (2) that thus dé 
would = é« or vice versa, whereas 5:¢ cha- 
racterizes the bringer in, and éx the occa- 
sion. Others have supplied 7d «piua (Ben- 
gel, Kéllner): 7d katdxpyua (Theophyl., 
Reiche): 6 @dvatos eisjA@evy (Grot., Hs- 
tius, Koppe) :—but inasmuch as it is pur- 
posely left indefinite, to be explained in the 
next verse, it is better to supply an inde- 
finite phrase which may be thus explained: 
e.g. Td yevouevoy, ‘ that which took place 
by one,’ Ke. TO pev yap K.7.A. | 
For the judgment (pronounced by God 
upon Adam) was by occasion of one 
man (having sinned,—supply auaptjoar- 
Tos: Tapantépuatos would be hardly al- 
lowable, and would not help the sense, in- 
asmuch as many simners, as well as many 
sins, are implied in 7oAA. zapamr. below), 
unto condemnation (its result, in his own 
case and that of his posterity: supply, asin 
ver. 18 is expressed, [ éyeveto] eis mavtas 
avOpérous); but the free gift was by 
occasion of many transgressions (where 


1" * 
om yap F-gr 


sin abounded, ver. 20, there grace much 
more abounded: the existence of the law 
being implied in waparr.) unto justifica- 
tion. The only difficulty here is the sense 
of Sikatwpa. The ordinary meaning of 
the word is 7d éravép@wua Tod Gdikhuatos, 
‘the amendment of an evil deed :’ so Aris- 
totle, Eth. Nicom. v. 10, diapeper 5¢ 7d 
adiknua kal To &dicov, cal 7d Sixalwua 
kal 7d Sixowovs &dixov mey ydp eort TH 
pioe 7 Taker Td avTd 5E TodTO Bray 
mpaxO7, Gdixnud eotr mply d& mpaxOjvat 
ovTw, GAN BSicoy. duolws dé kad Sixalwuar 
KaAeirat 5€ Kal Td Kowdy paAAoY SikaLo- 
mpdynua, Sikatwua 5€ Td eravdp0wua Tov 
Gdixnquatos. But this, which Aristot. in- 
sists on as the proper, but not perhaps 
usual sense of the word, is not to be 
pressed in the N. T., and does not, though 
upheld by Calv., Calov., Wolf, and Rothe, 
suit the context as contrasted with kard- 
kpwa. Other renderings are, ‘an abso- 
lutory sentence’ (Meyer, Fritz., al.): ‘a 
righteous act, as in ver, 18; Baruch ii. 
19; ‘righteousness, as in Rey. xix. 8 
(where see note) : ‘a righteous cause,’ or 
plea (UXX, Jer. xi. 20): ‘justification’ 
(E. V., Luth., De Wette, al.). The first 
seems to me to be right, as standing most 
exactly in contrast with kard«piywa; the 
use of the -ua being partly perhaps ac- 
counted for by the alliteration of the ending 
marking more strongly the antithesis. 
Thus as kard«piuaisa sentence of condem- 
nation, 80 Sixatoua will be a sentence of ac- 
quittal. This in fact amounts to justifiea- 
tion. 17.] Distinction the third, also in 
KIND; that which came in by the oze sin- 
ner, was the reign of DEATH: that which 
shall come in by the One, Jesus Christ, will 
be @ reigning in LiFE. For (carrying on 
the argument from ver. 15, but not so as 
to make parenthetical [ Rothe ] ver. 16—for 
dikatoovvns presupposes dixaiwua) if by the 
transgression of the one man (the read- 


. 


ing ev [7G] él mapartépart goes with 


5364 


x ver. 14 reff. 

y 2 Cor. viii. 2. 
x. 15. James 
i. 21 only. 
Eccles. i. 3 al. 
= Matt. xvul. 
8,9. John vy. 
29 al. fr. > 

a=1Cor. iv.8, € 
Rey. vy. 10. 


16, 18. xiv. 
(12) 19. Gal. 
vi. 10 al3, P. 
c = ver. 12, 
d = Rey. xv. 
4 only. 
Baruch ii. 19. see note on ver. 16. 
ii. 2 only+. (-oVetv, Matt. xviii. 17.) 


19 strep yap Sia Tis 


ITPO> POMAIOTS. 


18 b”Apa Potv ws 60 évos 

F; ’ \ 

*e avOpw@trous “els YKaTaxpima, oTws Kat Ov Eévos 4 diKat- 
/ fol 

@pmatos °eis Tavtas avOpwrrouvs “els © dikalwow Cis 


ech. iv. 25 only}. Levit. xxiv. 22 only. 


Wi 


aA - 3 
TO ToD évos *tapattwOpate 6 Oavatos * éBaclirevoev 
dia Tov vos, "TOAA@ 


lal e \ / fol 
MadXOV ol THY ¥ TEpLaTELaY TIS 


xyapitos Kal TAS °Swpeds THs Sixatocvvns NapBavovTes 
an fal £4 > “ lal 
“wn *Bacirevcovow Sia Tod évos ‘Inood ypiorod. 


’ 
KqapaTT@pmatos °els TaVvTas 


f rf na es’ > fa} vd 
TApaKons TOV €EVOS av p@7mrov 
f2 Cor. x. 6. Heb. 


17. for tw Tov evos, ev evi AF; ev Tw ev: D-gr: ev evos 47 am(with demid al) Orig, : 


tw 44: txt BCKLX vulg D-lat Syr Chr Thdrt Thl He Aug. 


om T7s dwpeas B 


49 Iren-int Orig, Chr-comm Augyepe Bede: tyv Swpeav 672 Thl Ruf: add ca: 63 vulg 


syrr Chr-2-mss Cyr Isid Thdrt (ic-comm Ambrst Pelag. 
ins Ty bef (ay L k 17. 93. 

xp- bef inoov B Orig,(agst Orig, Iren-int). 
18. aft evos ins av@pwrov XN} (3 disapproving). 


Orig. 
Orig Chr,. 


37. 46. 


auapthuatos for auapthoartos in ver. 16: 
both have evidently been corrections) 
death reigned by means of the one man, 
much more (logical—a@ fortiori) shall 
they who receive the abundance of the 
grace and of the gift of righteousness 
(ver. 15: beware of the shallow and weak- 
ening notion, that it is “for 77s ducaoobyns 
dedwpnuevyns”’) reign in life (eternal) by 
means of the one (Man) Jesus Christ. 
mepiooeta answers to éerepiacevaer, ver. 15: 
THs xdpitos, to 7 xX. Tov Geov; only here, 
as at ch. i. 5, the word signifies not only the 
grace flowing from God, but the same grace 
implanted and working in man :—dapeas, 
to dwped there, but qualified by 77s dixcato- 
civns, answering to dicalwua in ver. 16. 
The present AauBavoytes, instead of 
AaBdvres, isnot merely used in a substan- 
tive sense, receptores (as Fritz. and Meyer), 
but signifies that the reception is not one 
act merely, but a continued process by 
which the mepicoela is imparted. (So 
Rothe, De W., Thol.) év Coq Bac. | 
“ Antithesis to 6 @dvaros éBac. Weshould 
expect 7) (wh BaoiAedoe:, but Pauldesignedly 
changes the form of expression, that he may 
bring more prominently forward the idea of 
free personality. ¢@# is not only corporeal 
(the resurrection), but also spiritual and 
moral,—as also in @dvaros we must include 
51a THs Guaptias ver.12. Baoiredoovory is 
brought in by the antithesis: but it is else- 
where used (see reff.) to signify the state of 
blessedness, partly in an objective theocratic 
import (of the reign of the saints with 
Christ), partly in a subjective moral one,— 
because reigning is the highest development 
of freedom, and the highest satisfaction of 


om Ts dixator. C 70} 
BaoiAevovow 0 17. 47. 77. 91 copt 


maparTwua E( per unius delictum) 


for dikaiwuatos, To dixaiwua DG; Kat dixaiwua F( per unius justitiam). 


all desires.” De Wette. 18.] Recapi- 
tulation and co-statement of the parallel 
and distinctions. Therefore (&pa ody, see 
reff., is placed by Paul at the beginning of 
a sentence, contrary to classical usage) as 
by means of one trespass (not, ‘ the trans- 
gression of one, as Erasm., Luth., Calv., 
Koppe, Fritz., Thol., which is contrary to 
usage, and to ver. 17, where that meaning 
is expressed by t@ Tod évds wapamTéuatu. 
In this summing up, the Apostle puts the 
antithetical elements as strongly and 
nakedly as possible in contrast; and 
therefore abridges the ‘trespass of one’ 
and ‘the righteousness of one’ into ‘one 
trespass ’ and ‘ one righteousness ”) it came 
upon (¢yévero, indefinite, being supplied) 
all men unto condemnation,—so also by 
means of one righteous act (the Death of 
Christ viewed as the acme of His Obe- 
dience, see Phil. ii. 8 = 7 draxoh rod Evds 
below ; not as in ver. 16,—nor Righteous- 
ness, as Thol., which would not contrast 
with waparr., a single act) it came upon 
all men (in extent of grace,—in posse, not 
in esse as the other) unto justification of 
(conferring, leading to) life. 19.] 
For (in explanation of ver. 18) as by the 
disobedience of (the) one man the many 

= mavtes &vOpwror above, but not so ex- 
pressed here, because in the other limb of 
the comparison wavr. &@p. could not be 
put, and this is conformed to it: see there) 
were made (not ‘were accounted as’ 
(Grot. al.]: nor ‘became by imputation’ 
teow Bengel]}: nor ‘were proved to be’ 

Koppe, Reiche, Fritz.]: see reff) sinners 
(not bmevOvvor KoAdoet, as Chrys., Theo- 
phyl.: ‘actual sinners by practice, is 


18—20. 


TIPO POMAIOTS. 


365 


8 apapToro. » KatectaOncav ‘ot moddol, oUTws Kal Sud ch, 7 rH 


7s * dtraxons tov évos Sixavot 


qTOAXOL. 


h 


= 2 Pet..i. 8: 
3 Mace. iii. 5. 
Deut. xxviii. 
13 


/ i c 
Kcatactabncovtat + ot 


, a _ 13. 
20 youos Sé !trapeshrOev, iva ™ wrEovaon TO i Xe rel 


k ch. i. 5 reff. 
Gal. ii. 4 


n , a by m 2 , ee / os / 1 
TAPATTWMA., OV OE ™ ETAEOVATEY 1) AMAPTIA, ° UTTEPETTEPLT= only. 


AdOpa vuKtos Evros THY TELXHV, Poly. ii. 55. 8. 


al4.) only, exc. 2 Pet. i. 8. 
Mark vii. 37.) 


2 Chron, xxiv. 11, 


mapersnrAde 
m Paul (here bis. ch. vi.1l. 2 Cor. iv. 15 
n ver. 15. o 2 Cor. vii. 4 only +. (-@s, 


19. aft 2nd evos add av@pwmrov D'F Iren-gr Cyr, Aug,(omaiiq) Ambr, Bede.—rov evos 


av@p. bef vrakons F. 
20. for Ist de, yap L. 


meant, the disobedience of Adam having 
been the inlet to all this: compare é?’ @ 
mayTes Huaptov ver. 12 and the notes, on 
the kind of sin spoken of in this whole 
passage, as being both original and actual), 
so also (after the same manner or analogy 
likewise) by means of the obedience (unto 
death, see on last verse) of (the) One man 
shall (future, because, as in ch. iii. 30, 
justification, as regards the many, is not 
yet completed. De W.) the many (= 7oA- 
Aot, compare Matt. xxvi. 28; Mark x. 45, 
but thus expressed because moAAof would 
not have answered in the other limb of 
the comparison. Jn order to make the 
comparison more strict, the mavres who 
have been made sinners are weakened to 
the indefinite of woAAol, the woAAol who 
shall be made righteous are enlarged to the 
indefinite of roAAo!. Thus a common term 
of quantity is found for both, the one ea- 
tending to its largest numerical interpreta- 
tion, the other restricted to its smallest) be 
made (see above) righteous (not by zmpu- 
tation merely, any more than in the other 
case: but ‘shall be made really and actually 
righteous, as completely so as the others 
were made really and actually sinners.’ 
When we say that man has no righteous- 
ness of his own, we speak of him as out of 
Christ: but in Christ and united to Him, 
he is made righteous, not by a fiction, or 
imputation only of Christ’s righteousness, 
but by a real and living spiritual union with 
a righteous Head as a righteous member, 
righteous by means of, as an effect of, the 
righteousness of that Head, but not merely 
righteous by transference of the Righteous- 
ness of that Head; just as in his natural 
state he is united toa sinful head as a sinful 
member, sinful by means of, as an effect of, 
the sinfulness of that Head, but not merely 
by transference of the sinfulness of that 
Head). See the whole question respect- 
ing mayres and of moAAol treated in Tho- 
luck’s Comm. in loc. 20.| How the law 
(of Moses) came in, in the divine economy. 
But (i. e. the two things spoken of ver. 19 
did not simply and immediately happen) 


for ov, oov F. 


the law (of Moses: not Jaw, in the ab- 
stract, nor ‘the law of nature, as Dr. 
Peile,—nor even the law of G'od in its gene- 
ral sense, as often in ch. i. ii. ;—but here 
strictly THE LAW OF MosEs, as necessi- 
tated by vv. 13, 14 in this same argument) 
came in besides (besides the fact of the 
many being made sinners, and as a transi- 
tion point to the other result: formed a 
third term, besides these two, in the sum- 
mary of God’s dealings with man: com- 
pare mposeréOn, Gal. iii. 19:—not mpds 
katpoy €560n, Theophyl.: not, came in be- 
tween Christ and Adam [the fact, but not 
the enterpretation |,as Theodoret and Caly.: 
—not = eismA@ev merely),—in order that 
(TeAtks, its design,—not merely exBatikas, 
its result, as Chrys., al. ;—here, and every 
where else. So of ver. 21) the trespass 
(created by the law; for where no law, 
no transgression, ch. iv. 15:—not merely 
the knowledge of sin, but actual transgres- 
sion) might multiply (in actual fact: not 
‘be abundantly exhibited,’ or any such 
evasive sense). No possible objection can 
be taken to this statement by those who 
view the Law as a preparation for Christ. 
If it was so, then the effect of the Law, 
the creating and multiplying transgression, 
was an end in the divine purposes, to bring 
out the necessity of One who should de- 
liver from sin and bring in righteousness. 
«Those who weaken this telic tva into ‘so 
that,’ in order to guard the Apostle from 
what seems to them a doctrine unworthy of 
God, overlook equally his firm standing on 
the acknowledged ground of historic fact 
and actuality, as the humility with which 
here, as ever (ch. xi. 33, 34), he bows before 
the mystery of the oixovoula tod Geod.” 
Umbreit. But (this terrible end, the mul- 
tiplying of transgression, was not, however, 
God’s ultimate end: He had a further and 
gracious one) where (‘when,’ De Wette, 
after Grot., al.: but Tholuck justly remarks 
that instances of this meaning of od in 
prose ave wanting. In verse it seems to 
occur, Eur. Iph. Aul. 96, but even there 
may be rendered ‘in the case where’) sin 


366 TIPO> POMAIOTS. V. 21. 
€ / 91 ¢/ 4 p ’ if id ig ‘ S 

pre ret. evoev 9) XaptS, *! iva ddsmrEp €Bacievoev 7) Guaptia év ABCDP 

16 reff. : a 
rch to Oavdtw, ovTws Kai H yadpis ? Baoikevon Sia SiKato- cafe) 
23 Col. i ; A = a kimn 
23. 1 Tin. avrns Seis Sonv atwviov dia “Inood ypictod tod Kupiov o17 
vy gh Ch er oe 
(exc. John een 
(exe. 3 LOU. 
(exc Sait) as T lr ie. ae eS s2 L ne , A G 
39 B.) VI. 17 T< ovv * épodpev ; * emipéevwpev TH apapria, iva 1) 


t ch. v. 20 reff. 
u ch. iii. 4 reff. 
v Acts x. 41 
reff. 
w=and 
constr., Gal. ee 
ii. 19. (ver. 10. ch. xiv. 8.) w. @7F0, Col. ii. 20. 
y = Col. (ii. 20.) iii. 7 only. 


21. om tw F. 


z= ch. ii. 4. iii. 29, 


for BaciAevon, -cet KL cP 0 77. 115-6-21-2. 


A 
yapis trdeovacn ; 2" pH yévorto.  ottwves * ameOavopev 
an e / x an v y , y b > lel a 3 Z x a > lal 
Th apaptia, * mas ere ¥ Gyoopev ¥ ev avtH; * *% * wyvoeite 


x =ch.iii.6. 1 Cor. xv.12. Gal. iv. 9. Gen. xxxix. 9 


a ch. i. 13 reff. 


xp- bef inc. B. 


Cuap. VI. 1. ree emmevouuev, with rel Chr Thdrt Gennad-c Diod-c Thl Ge Tert 
Augsepe, permanebimus vulg G-lat: emmevouey KN 1. 57. 68. 109 lect-13 copt Gild : 


emimervwpev L 93.124: txt ABCDF b! m 0 17 Syr Damase. 


peccato \att. 


2. aft ovrwes ins yap F latt syrr (not Tert). 


(the generic of the specific napdrrwpa) 
multiplied, (God’s) grace exceedingly 
abounded (not ‘did much more abound,’ 
as E. V.: for words compounded with iép 
have a superlative, not a comparative 
signification, e. g. ref. brepAlay, brepyiKdw, 
brepupdw, k.T.A.,—and Paul often uses these 
compounds. The E. V. has likewise de- 
stroyed the force of the comparison by ren- 
dering the different words mAcovd¢w and 
mepiacetw both by one word ‘ abound’). 
21.| The purpose of this abounding 
of grace:—its ultimate prevalence and 
reign, by means of righteousness, unto life 
eternal. That, as sin reigned (the historic 
indefinite past, because the standing-point 
of the sentence is, the restitution of all 
things hereafter) in death (év, of that in 
and by which the reign was exercised and 
shewn: death was the central act of sin’s 
reign. He does not here say, ‘death reigned 
by sin,’ as in vy. 12—14, because sin and 
grace are the two points of comparison, 
and require to be the subjects), so also 
grace may reign by means of (not év 
here, though it might be so, if dinatoc. 
applied to our being made righteous: but 
as it applies to the Righteousness of Christ 
making us righteous, it is 5:¢) righteous- 
ness, unto (leading to) life eternal through 
(by means of) Jesus Christ our Lord 
(‘Jam ne memoratur quidem Adamus, 
solius Christi mentio viget.’ Bengel). 
Cuar. VI.—VIII.] Tne morat Fr- 
FECTS OF JUSTIFICATION. VI. 1—14.] 
No encouragement given hereby (see ch. 
v.20) to alife in sin: for the baptized are 
dead to sin, and walk in a new (vv. 1—7) 
life, and one (vv. 8—11) dedicated to God. 
1.) What then shall we say ?— 
the introduction of a difficulty or objection 
arising out of the preceding argument, and 


ins ev bef rm A, in 


(nownev CFL 17 Diod Chr-ms,. 


referring to ch. v. 20. See ch. iii. 5. 

émtpévapev, ‘must we think that we 
may persist, —the deliberative subjunc- 
tive. So efmwuev 7) ory@uev, Eur. Ion 758: 
mapéA@w Sduous, Med. 1275. See Kiihner, 
Gramm. § 464, and note on ch. y. 1. 
May we persist in (our natural state and 
commission of) sin, that (God’s) grace 
may multiply (ch. v. 20) ? 2.) pn yev. 
(see reff.), used of some inference in itself 
abhorrent from reverence or piety, or pre- 
cluded by some acknowledged fact incon- 
sistent therewith. The latter is here the 
ground of rejection. An acknowledged fact 
in the Christian life follows, which pre- 
eludes our persisting in our sin. We 
who (ofrives describing quality, not merely 
matter of fact) died (historic aorist, not 
perf. as in E. V.: the time referred to 
being that of our baptism) to sim (reff. 
and examples in Wetst.:—became as 
separate from and apathetic towards sin 
as the dead corpse is separate from and 
apathetic towards the functions and stir 
of life: wévew axlynroy domep Toy vexpdr, 
Chrys. ‘Sin,’ tH au.= as above), how 
any longer shall we live in it (=mepi- 
mateiv év—but not, as De W., Gv with a 
dative: Civ €v ru is a further step than 
(jv tw, implying introition, and not 
merely sympathy) ? 8.) Or (sup- 
posing you do not assent to the argu- 
ment in the last verse, see reff.) are ye 
ignorant (the foregoing axiom is brought 
out into recognition by the further state- 
ment of a truth universally ackowledged) 
that all we who were (i.e. all of us, 
having been) baptized into Christ Jesus 
(‘into participation of,’ ‘into union with,’ 
Christ, in his capacity of spiritual Master- 
ship, Headship, and Pattern of conformity) 
were baptized into (introduced by our 


VI. 1—5. 


IIPO> POMAIOTS. 


5367 


S f lal ’ \ sae 
6re door »€BarrricOnuev eis ypiotov “Incodv, "eis Top » Acts viii 16 


‘ > Col) ed / . 4, c / os > A 
Gavarov avrov » éBarticOnuev; *° cvvetadnuev ody avT@ 


c Col. ii. 12 
only +. 
d 1 Cor, xv. 12 


Py by A / > ‘ @ / ivA A d > / 6 
ta ToU Barticpwatos eis Tov OavaTor, iva wstrep 1 HyépOn | ref. 


xptatos ex 4 


XN e lal b] f 
Kab NMELS EV 


, atest Vee / a / a 
hovdutoe yeyovawev TO ‘omorbpate TOU Oavatou avTod, 


Ka\rAa Kab THs } 


13. Zech. xi. 2 only. i ch. i. 23 reff. 


i, 22 reff. 


e see John xi. 


al \ a / n , ied 
vexpoav dia THS © ddEns TOD TaTpos, OUTS ¢ dn: vii.6 only. 


Ezek. xlvii. 


KawwoTnte Cons § wepiT@atnowpev. % Eb yap only. 
& 


= Acts xxi 
21. w. ev, 
2 Cor. iv. 2 


5) t Sie 6 6 aA Vi reff, 
aAVaCTADGEWS ED OME a, TOUTO YlV@o KOV- h here only f. 


Amos ix. 


k = 1 Cor, iy. 15 reff. Hom. Il. a. 81, f, 1= Acts 


3. om imoovy B 31-9. 73. 109-18-20-24 lect-8 Chr Thdrt Thl Ambr, : ino. bef xpior. 


80 Syr eth. 
4. om tov DIF k!. 
5. for aAAa, aua F latt. 
6. ins kat bef touto B: Tooto 5¢ 179. 


baptism into a state of conformity with and 
participation of) His Death? The Apostle 
refers (1) to an acknowledged fact, in the 
signification, and perhaps also in the man- 
ner (see below) of baptism—that it put 
upon us (Gal. iii. 27) a state of conformity 
with and participation in Christ ;—and (2) 
that this state involves a death 77 auapria 
even as He died TH aapria (ver. 10) ;— 
the meaning being kept in the background, 
but all the while not lost sight of, that the 
benefits of His Death were likewise made 
ours by our introduction into the covenant. 
4,| A further explanation of the 
assertion in the last verse proceeding (odv) 
on its concession by the reader. We were 
then (not the temporal but inferential 
‘then : q.d. “ You grant my last position: 
Well then,”...) buried with Him (a@dmep 
éy Tit tadw TO VOaTi KaTadudyTwY Nuay 
Tas Kepadds 6 maAdads UvOpwros OdmTeTaL, 
xad KaTadv’s KdtTw KpimTeTat OAws Kabdsraé, 
Chrys. on John iii. Hom. xxv. 2, vol. viii. 
p. 151) by means of our baptism into 
(His) death (rod Bamr. cis thy Odvarov 
belong together, not cuverdp. eis T. 0., 
which would hardly bear any sense. The 
absence of the art. before eis is no objec- 
tion to this ;—it is unnecessary, because 
no distinction from any other baptism is 
brought out, and 7d Bdmr.-eis-Tdv-Ody. is 
connected as one idea); in order that, as 
Christ was raised from the dead by the 
glory (Sdéa and Svvauis are cognate ideas ; 
compare the import of the Heb. 1) and the 
LXX in Ps. Ixviii. 35 [Ixvii. 34 LXX], 
Isa. xii. 2: and 7d «patos tis Sdéns in 
Col. i. 11. The divine 8dééa includes all 
that manifests the Creator to the creature: 
and hence also his Almightiness. Tholuck. 
The renderings ‘in Dei gloriam’ | Beza, 
Bretschneider], and ‘because He is the 
image of the Father’ { Dr. Burton, altern. ], 
are inadmissible for 5a with a gen.) of the 


for d:a, vro D}(appy). 
aft avaor. ins avtov F Syr arm. 


Father (Theodoret makes 7 Séta Tod 7a- 
tpds = 7 oikela Oedtns of the Son, which 
is manifestly wrong), thus we also should 
walk in newness of life (not = ‘a new 
life ;>—nor are such expressions ever to be 
diluted away thus: the abstract rawdtnrT1 is 
used to bring the quality of newness, which 
is the point insisted on, more into promi- 
nence, compare 2 Thess. ii. 11; 1 Tim. vi.17; 
Winer, edn. 6, § 34. 3. The comparison 
is not only (as Stuart) between our Lord’s 
physical death and resurrection, and our 
spiritual; but reaches far deeper: see notes 
on vy. 10, 11). 5. | The Apostle con- 
firms the last verse by a necessary sequence 
that those who are united to Him in His 
Death, shall be also in His resurrection. 
For(confirmatory) if we have become united 
with the likeness of His Death (ciugutos 
= either (1) ‘congenital,—as 81a thy 
ctiuputoyv Sicaoctvnv, spoken of Samuel, 
Jos. Antt. vi. 3.3,—or (2) ‘cognate,’ of like 
nature, — or (3) ‘arising simultaneously,’ — 
or (4) ‘grown together,’—or (5) ‘planted 
with,’ ‘consitus.” The rendering of Syr., 
Vulg., Luth., E. V., ‘ planted together, is 
inadmissible, -puros being not from @uredw, 
but from vw: as also is that of Erasm. 
and Calv.,—‘ insititii.’ The fourth mean- 
ing, ‘grown together,’ ‘intimately and pro- 
gressively united,’—‘ coaluimus,’ as Grot., 
—seems here to apply best. Obs. cing. 
is to be connected with 76 d6u., not with r@ 
Xpto7r@ understood, as in ver. 6: in which 
case we should have to supply 7@ éuodmart 
again before tis avactdcews, which would 
be not only grammatically difficult, but 
would not correspond to the sense: for 
Christians, it is true, partake of the like- 
ness only of Christ’s death, but of His 
actual Resurrection itself, as the change of 
construction shews: see below), so shall we 
be also (a4AAd after a hypothetical clause 
serves to strengthen the inference: see 


568 


m Eph, iv. 22. 
Col. iii. 9. 
see 1 Cor. v. 
75/8. 

n Matt. xxvii. 
44 | Mk. J. 
Gal. ii. 20 
only t. 

o ch. lii. 3 reff. 


P By 
vi. 24. ch. vii. 6 al. Deut. xii. 4 A. 


katapynon A eth. 


reff., and Hartung, Partikellehre, ii. p. 40) 
with His Resurrection (a change of con- 
struction; because it could not well have 
been said ciuduto: Tod dpmommmatos 7. 0. 
above, the gen. after adjectives compounded 
with ovy denoting the thing actually par- 
taken [ef. Kiihner, § 519, and Bernhardy, 
Syntax, p. 171: who cites examples in 
atvtpopos, Soph. Philoct. 203,—avvvouos, 
Eur. Hel. 1508,—od’ugwvos, Aristoph. Av. 
658,—avudvis, Plato Legg. iv. p. 721,— 
cuvfns, ib. v. p. 739,—avunvngos, Cratyl. 
p- 398}, and hardly the mere figure or like- 
ness of it,—and similarly it could not well 
here be said ciud. TH avacrdoe:, because 
the dat. would not be strong enough to 
denote the state of which we shall be actual 
partakers. The future is used perhaps 
because of the inference, as a logical se- 
quence,—‘If, &e., . . . .A shall = B?—- 
but more probably with a deeper meaning, 
because the participation in His Resurrec- 
tion, however partially and in the inner 
spiritual life, attained here, will only then 
be accomplished in our entire being, when 
we ‘shall wake up after his likeness’). 

6.| Knowing (recollecting) this, 
that our old man (former self, personality 
before our new birth—opposed to kaivds 
or véos &vOp., Kavh Kriots,—see Col. iii. 
10; 2 Cor. v.17; Eph. iv. 22—24,—not 
merely the guilt of sin, nor the power of 
sin, but the man. ‘The idea is not Jewish, 
as Tholuck has shewn: the passage quoted 
from the Sohar-chadasch not bearing the 
meaning commonly given to it,—and if it 
did, that book itself being a production 
probably of the sixteenth century) was (at 
our baptism) crucified with Him (the 
great key to our text is ref. Gal. As the 
death of the Lord Jesus was by erucifizion, 
the Apostle uses the same expression of our 
death to our former sinful self, which is not 
only by virtue of, but also in the likeness 
of, Christ’s death,—as signal, as entire, as 
much a death of cutting off and putting to 
shame and pain), in order that (the aim 
and end of the cugravpwéjva) the body 
of sin might be annulled (‘76 cap. THs 
apap. belongs together, and ris auapr. 
is not to be joined with karapy. as being = 
am) Tis Guapr. [Theodoret, Wahl | ;—nor is 
7d op. T. Gp., ‘the totality of sin’ (Orig. 


TIPO POMAIOTS. 


gen., = ch. vii. 23, 24. viii. 13. Col. ii. 11. 
i s Acts xiii. 39 only. 


VE 


res, OTe & ™aradaws Hudv ™ dvOpwros ™ cuvertavp@bn, 

iva °KatapynOh TO Podpwa Ths Pdpaptias, ToD pyKére 
s rn fol c a 

tSourevew Huds TH auaptia’ 76 yap amobavev * debi- 


q 1 Cor. x. 13 reff. r Matt. 


Sir. xxvi, 29. 


2, Theophyl. 1, Grot.]; nor ‘ the substance 
or essence of sin,’ after the Heb. [Rab- 
binical] usage of oxy and Aa [Schéttg.]; 
nor, ‘the mass of sin’ ['Thol. 1.]; —nora 
mere figure to carry out the idea of being 
crucified with Christ [Calov., Wolf, Reiche, 
Olsh., Stuart 2, al.];—nor = 7 odpt r. 
Guapt.; but ‘the body, which belongs to 
or serves sin,’ in which sin rules or is ma- 
nifested, = 7a méAn, ver. 13, in which is 
6 vduos Tis Guaprias, ch. vii. 23,—7d c@pa 
7. Oavdrov, ch. vii. 24,—ai mpaters tod 
odéparos, ch. viii. 13,—1d cdua Tis capKds, 
Col. ii. 11.” De Wette: with whom agree 
Orig. 1, Theophyl. 2, Beza, Bengel, Meyer, 
Tholuck, Stuart 1, al. But as De W. 
further remarks, we must not understand 
that the body is the seat of sin, or at 
all events must not so understand those 
words as if the principle of sin lay in the 
body, which is not true, for it lies in the 
will). katapynoy, might be rendered 
powerless (annulled as far as regards ac- 
tivity and energy. The word occurs twenty- 
five times in Paul’s Epistles [elsewhere, 
Luke xiii. 7, Heb. ii. 14 only], and does 
not appear to signify absolute annihilation, 
but as above. Gregory of Nyssa has gone 
into the meaning in his discourse on 1 Cor. 
xy. 28, vol. i. p. 1325), that we should no 
longer serve (be slaves to) sin (i.e. that the 
body should no longer be under the do- 
minion of sin, see below, ver. 12). 7.) 
The difficulty of this verse arises from the 
Apostle having in a short and pregnant 
sentence expressed a whole similitude, 
joining, as he elsewhere does in such cases, 
the subject of the first limb of the com- 
parison with the predicate of the second. 
Fully expressed, it would stand thus: 
‘For, as a man that is dead is acquitted 
and released from guilt and bondage (among 
men: no reference to God’s judgment of 
him): so a man that has died to sin is 
acquitted from the guilt of sin and re- 
leased from its bondage.’ I express dedi. 
by this periphrasis in both cases, because 
I believe that all this is implied in it: 
‘is acquitted, ‘has his quittance,’ from 
sin, so that Sin (personified) has no more 
claims on him, either as a creditor or as 
a master: eannot detain him for debt, 
nor sue him for service. A larger refer- 


foe oD «de ii 


7—12. 


IIPO> POMAIOTS. 


369 


£ 2 BEX 
KaiwTat Sato THS apaptias. 8 et dé tameOdvowev ody t=? Orr. v.15. 


Lal 4 Lal 
XploT@, “ miatevouev “Ott Kal Y cuvEjncopev avTa, % eiddTes 
4 i > Mt a , 

OTL yplaTos “ éyepOels ex “vexpa@v ovK ere aTroOvncKer’ 
, n / 
Gavatos abtod ovK éru * Kuptever. 
TH “apaptia améBavey *éparrak YO 5é &H, Sh tO ed. 

ic4 \ a lol 
1 ottws Kal teis °AoyiLecOe “éavtods °vexpods mev TH 
e , b a N lal - 3 m2 la) 
apaptia, »favtas S€ TO Dew ev xpioTt@ “Incod. 


iii. 16. 


Phil. iii. 13. 
see ch, vii. 8. 


constr., ch. xiv. 14. 
here only. 


8. for de, yap F tol(and F-lat): ovy Syr. (G-lat has autem aut enim.) 


4 y acc. of object, Gal. ii. 20. Rev. xviii. 7. 
a = Heb. vii. 27. ix. 12. x. 10 (1 Cor. xv. 6) only +. 
Wisd. xv. 15. 


u Matt. ix. 28. 
Mark xi. 23. 
Acts ix. 26 al. 
see Acts xv. 
11 reff. 

v 2.Cor. vii. 3. 
2 Tim. ii. 11 
only +. 

w ver. 4. 

x here bis. 
Luke xxii. 
25. ch. vil. 1. 
xiv. 9. 2 Cor. 


10¥6 yap améaver, 


9 \ i. 24. 1 Tim. 

12 7) vi. 15 only. 

b.Pa Gens 
z dat., Col. iii. 23 al. 
b= Gal. ii. 19. 1 Pet. ii. 24. c = and 
d 2nd pers., 2 Cor, vii. 11 reff. e constr., 
rec (for 


ovv¢.) ov¢., with B?CKL rel: txt AB'DFN n 17.—wpuev CK h Thi: cvv¢noopeba F. 
for avtw, tw xpiorw D'F latt(not demid fuld tol) Syr Aug, Bede. 
11. rec aft vexpous wey ins evar, with KL? rel vss Did Thdrt Hil: bef vexp. wey, 


BCN! Cyr Damase: om ADF 17 copt «th Chr-ms Tert,. 


rec at end adds tw 


kuptw nuwy, with CKLN rel copt Syr(but pref to xp. mo.) Chr Thl Ambrst Ruf: om 
ABDF demid flor harl tol eth syr Bas Cyr Thdrt Thl-comm (c-comm Tert, Hil Aug 


Pelag Sedul Bede. 


ence is thus given to dedic. than the pur- 
poses of the present argument, which is 
treating of the power, not the guilt of sin, 
required: but that it is so, lies in the 
nature of dmaptia, the service of which is 
guilt, and the deliverance from whose ser- 
vice necessarily brings with it acquittal. 
8—11.] This new life must be 
one dedicated to God. 8.] Now 
(continuing the train of argument) if 
we died with Christ, we believe that 
we shall also (the future as in ver. 5,— 
because the life with Him though here 
begun, is not here completed: and the 
mortevouey used more of dogmatic belief, 
than of trust, though the latter meaning is 
not altogether absent) live with Him. 
9.] This and the following verse explain 
what sort of a life with Christ is meant, 
by what we know of the Resurrection-life 
of Christ himself. The only difficulty 
here is in ovK €tt Kvptevet, as implying that 
Death had dominion over Christ, which we 
know it Aad not: see John x. 17,18; ii. 
19; Acts ii. 24. But this vanishes, when 
we remember that our Lord, by submitting 
to Death, virtually, and in the act of 
death, surrendered Himself into the power 
of Death. Death could not hold Him, and 
had no power over Him further than by 
his own sufferance : but power over Him it 
had, inasmuch as He died. 10.] For 
(the proof of the foregoing) the death 
which He died (not ‘in that He died, as 
E. V., nor is 8 for xaé’ 6, either here or in 
ref. Gal., but the accus. objective, governed 
by the verb. So also of 6 5& (7 below, 
unto sin He died (De Wette well remarks 
that we must in expressing this verse abide 
by the indefinite reference to sin in which 
Worn 1 l 


the death of Christ is placed; if we attempt 
to make it more definite, ‘for sin,’ or ‘to 
that state, in which He suffered the punish- 
ment of sin,’ we shall lose the point of com- 
parison, which lies in ‘¢o stn’ and ‘to 
God. If we are to expand the words 
‘died to sin,’ we must say that our Lord 
at death passed into a state in which He 
had ‘no more to do with sin’—either as 
tempting Him [though in vain], or as re- 
quiring to be atoned for {this having been 
now effected], or as met by Him in daily 
contradiction which He endured from sin- 
ners) once for all (so that it is not to be 
repeated : see reff.); but the life which 
He liveth (see above) He liveth unto God 
(indefinite again, but easily filled up and 
explained : to God,—as being glorified by 
and with the Father, as entirely rid of con- 
flict with sin and death, and having only 
God’s [properly so called] work to do,—as 
waiting till, in the purposes of the Father, 
allthings are put under Him: —and éo [for ] 
God, as being the manifestation and bright- 
ness of the Father’s glory). 11.] An 
exhortation to realize this state of death 
unto sin and life unto God with Christ. 
Thus. (after the same manner as Christ) 
do ye also (imperative: Meyer only holds 
it to be indic.) account yourselves (better 
than ‘infer yourselves to be,’ as Chrys. and 
Beza,—see reff. and on ch. iii. 28) dead 
(indeed) unto sin (as ver. 2 and following), 
but alive unto God in Christ Jesus (i.e. 
‘by virtue of your union with Him ? not 
through {8a | Christ Jesus ; in this chapter 
it is not Christ’s Mediatorship, but His 
Headship,which is prominent.— év xp-'Ino., 
is not [Reiche, Meyer, Fritz. ] to be joined 
with both vexp. 77 Gu. and 2 7. 6, but 
B 


370 


ren. 


g ch. viii. 11. 
~ 1 Cor. xv. 53, 
54. 2 Cor. 


iv. ll. v.4 
only. Job . : 
xxx. 23. 
h ch. iv. 11 reff. anra 
ich. i. 24 reff. 
k here &c. 
(5 times). 
Luke ii. 22. 
ch. xii. 1. 
s. v. 3. ' > \ earn s 
1 Paul (here VOMOV, GANA °UTTO yap. 
bis. ver. 19 


bis. 1 Cor. Vi. 15 (3ce) al22.) only, exc. Matt. v. 29,30. James iii. 5, 6. iv, 1. Exod. xxix.17 al. 
2 Cor. vi. 7. x.4only. Jer. xxi. 4. 


bis. John xviii. 3. ch. xiii. 12. 


12. exaxovew F. 


IPOD POMAIOTS. 


Vi 


fel a , 

=cuvt opp fBacirevétTo 7 duaptia ev TO ® OvnTo tuav copati, ABCD 
heig TO Umaxovew Tais ‘émiOvuiais avtov. 13 pndéca 
k / \ ] Ls ig rn m [<4 a) / iol e / 1 

TAPLOTAVETE TA MEAN VULWY ™ OTTAA GOLKLAS TH ApapTLa, 017 
Kqapagtycate “éavTovs TO Yew wsei EK VEKPaV 
tavtas, kal Ta | wérAn tuov ™ OTAAa Sixavocvyvns TO Dee. 
14 Guaptia yap vuav ov *Kupietcer’ ov yap eoTE ° UTrO 


m here 


n ver. ll. o 1 Cor, ix. 20 reff. 


rec avTn ev Tats em10. avtov (appy a combination of the two 


readings), with C3KL rel syr Chr Thdrt Thl Ge: avrn, omg the rest, DF spec Iren-int 
Tert Vict-tun: txt ABC'N vulg(not F’-lat) D?-lat Syr coptt eth arm Orig, Epiph Antch 


Damase Jer Aug Sedul Bede. 


13. rec (for wser) ws, with DFKL 17 rel Chr Thdrt Thl Ee: txt ABCX Epiph Damase. 


Cwytes DIF. 


om ta [bef 2nd wean] B. 


14. for 1st ov, ovxets X'(marked for erasure by N% but the marks erased). 


[aAAa, so BCDIFR!.} 


only with the latter, next to which it stands, 
and of which it is literally and positively, 
whereas of the other it is only figuratively 
[T@ duoimp., ver. 5] and negatively true). 
12, 13.] Hortatory inferences from 
ver. 11: from ph to 77 apaptia, negative, 
answering to vexpovs TH ap.,—then posi- 
tive, answering to (@vtas T@ beg. 
12.] Baotdevérw answers to the imagery 
throughout, in which Sin is a master or 
lord. It is hardly right to lay a stress on 
it, and say (as Chrys.) od« elre uh ody 
Citw 7 Tapk unde evepyeltw, GAN, | Gpmap- 
tia wh BacidevéTo. ov yap Thy plow 
HAdev avedAciv, GAAG Thy mpoalpeaw S.0p- 
@éoa:: it is no matter of comparison be- 
tween reigning and indwelling merely, but 
between reigning and being deposed. 
But why 7¢ 9vnT@ bu. cdyati? Orig., al., 
explain it ‘dead to sin,’ which it clearly 
cannot be. Chrys., Theodoret, Grot., and 
Reiche suppose the word inserted to re- 
mind us of the other life, and the shortness 
of the conflict, or (Theophyl.) of the short- 
ness of sinful pleasures ; Kédllner,—to point 
out that it is dishonourable to us to serve 
Sin, whose reign is confined to the mortal 
body ; Fritzsche, ‘quoniam, qui peccato 
ministrum se prebet, adhucin mortali cor- 
pore herere nec nisi fragilis vitae meminisse 
videtur;’ De Wette, Tholuck, al., that the 
Apostle wishes to keep in view the con- 
nexion between sin and death on the one 
hand, and that ouvv¢iv which is freed from 
death on the other. This last view seems 
the most probable. See 2 Cor. iv. 11 and 
note. There is considerable uncertainty 
in the reading of the latter part of this 
verse. That which I have adopted is sup- 
ported by the primary Mss. and has the 
approval of Lachmann, Tischendorf, Meyer, 


and De Wette. 13.] Nor render (see 
reff. ;—as a soldier renders his service to his 
sovereign, or a servant to his master) your 
members (more particular than ‘ your bo- 
dies ;’ the individual members being instru- 
ments of different lusts and sins) as instru- 
ments (or, ‘ weapons,’ as Vulg., most of the 
Greek expositors, and Luth., Caly., Beza, 
Tholuck, which latter defends this render- 
ing by Paul’s fondness for military simili- 
tudes, and by the occurrence of dpana 
below, ver. 23 ;—but as De W. observes, the 
comparison here is to servitude rather than 
soldiership, of unrighteousness to sin; 
but render (the present imperat. above 
denotes habit,—the exhortation guards 
against the recurrence of a devotion of 
the members to sin: this aorist imperat., 
on the other hand, as in ch. xii. 1, denotes 
an act of self-devotion to God once for all, 
not a mere recurrence of the habit) your- 
selves (not merely your members, but your 
whole selves, body, soul, and spirit) to 
God, as alive from having been dead (as 
in vv. 4 ff. and Eph. ii. 1—5), and your 
members as instruments (see above) of 
righteousness to God (dat. ‘ commodi,’ as 
indeed is tH Guapt. above, the dat. after 
mapior. being there left to be supplied, 
because of 77 au. following). 14.] An 
assurance, confirming (by the ydp) the pos- 
sibility of the surrender to God commanded 
in the last verse, that sin shall not be able 
to assert and maintain its rule in those 
who are not under the law but under 
grace. The future kupievoe: cannot be 
taken asa command or exhortation, which 
use of the future would if not always, yet 
certainly here, require the second person,— 
and would hardly suit a personification like 
Guaptla. The second part of the verse 


13—16. 


IIPO> POMAIOTS. 


371 


15 / 2 . C / 4 ? > \ o £ Ss f ass 
PT? ovv ; awaptnowper, OTL OvK eopev ° UTO VOMOV Bee eB 


> \ 
GANA °UTO yap; Ir) yévolTo. 


16 ox oldaTE OTL G@ 1°: iii. 4 reff. 
“ 
h. v. 16 reff. 


a Tc 
<qapiatavete » éavtovs Sovdous * els § UraKonv, SoDAOL EOTE * eh. i. 5 ref. 


constr., Matt. 


> ¢ ee Mv ig 3 fol < 
*@ vumaKoveTe, 7TOL amwaptias "eis Oavatoy 1) StmraKons Be 


15. rec avaprnocomey, with rel Chr Thdrt, Thl Ee: nuaprnoayer F, peccavimus am 


harl D3-lat G-lat: txt ABCDKLN ec mn 17 Clem. 
16. ins 7 bef ove D!F demid flor harl! sah Sedul Bede. 


Syr sah arm-zoh(1s05) Aug. 


refers back to ch. v. 20, 21, where the law 
is stated to be the multiplier of trangres- 
sion,—and accords with 1 Cor. xv. 56, 
% Sdivauis THs auaptias, 6 vduos. The 
stress is on kuptevoer: q. d. ‘ Your efforts 
to live a life of freedom from the tyranny 
of sin shall not be frustrated by its after 
all tyrannizing over you and asserting its 
dominion: for ye are not under that law 
which is the strength of sin, but under that 
grace (here in the widest sense, justifying 
and sanctifying,—grace in all its attributes 
and workings) in which is no condem- 
nation,’ ch. viii. 1. It will be seen from 
the above, that I interpret xupievoe: rather 
of the eventual triumph of sin by obtaining 
domination over us, than of its reducing us 
under its subjection as servants in this life. 
This is necessary, both to fit this verse into 
the context, and to suit the question which 
arises in the next. See Calvin’s masterly 
note. So also Tholuck and De Wette. 

The discussions (in Stuart and al.) as 
to whether vdu. is the moral or ceremonial 
law, and as to whether we are bound by the 
former, are irrelevant here: the assertion 
being merely that of the general matter of 
fact, about which there can be no question, 
that we (Christians) are not under the law, 
placed in a covenant of legal obedience, but 
under grace,—placed in a covenant of justi- 
fication by faith and under the promise of 
the indwelling Spirit—subjects of a higher 
law—even the law of the spirit of life in 
Christ Jesus, ch. viii. 2. Whether we are 
bound by the law, and how-far, depends on 
how far the law itself spoke the immutable 
moral truth of God’s government of the 
world, or was adapted to temporary observ- 
ances and symbolic rites now abolished,— 
the whole of which subject is not under 
consideration here. I make these remarks 
to justify myself for not entering into those 
long and irrelevant discussions with which 
many of our commentaries are interrupted, 
and the sense of the Apostle’s argument 
confounded. 15—23.] The being 
under grace (free from the condemnation 
of sin) and not under the law, is no en- 


[aAAa, so BCFN?. ] 
om ets Gavatrov DE 


couragement to sin: for (vv. 16—19) we 
have renounced the service of sin, and 
have become the servants of righteous- 
ness: and (vv. 20—23) the consequences 
of the service of sin are terrible and fatal, 
whereas those of the service of righteous- 
ness are blessed and glorious. 15. | 
ti ovv (sc. eoriv); = Tl obv époduer; 
Vers: Gpaptyowpev| Must we 
imagine that we may sin? may we sin ?— 
the aor. because he is speaking of com- 
mitting acts of sin: on the deliberative 
subjunctive, see ver. 1. This question is 
not, any more than that of ver. 1, put into 
the mouth of an objector, but is part of 
the Apostle’s own discourse, arising out 
of what has preceded, and answered by 
him in the following verses. 16. ] 
‘You are the servants either of God or of 
sin,—there is no third course.’ The former 
part of the verse as far as brakoveTe re- 
minds them merely of an universal truth,— 
that the yielding ourselves servants for 
obedience to any one, implies the serving, 
being (in reality) the servants of such per- 
son. ‘Then this is applied in the form of a 
dilemma, implying that there is no third 
service, q. d. ‘Now this must be true of 
you with regard either to sin or to God.’ 
Know ye not, that to whom ye yield 
yourselves servants with a view to obe- 
dience, his servants ye are to whom ye 
obey, (and in this case) either (7#7o1.—7 
only occurs here in N. T. #70 in alter- 
natives is exclusive, cf. Herod. i. 11, did5wpur 
alpeow, dkotépny BovAcat tpamwécOa .. . 
To. Kewvdv ye Toy Tad’Ta BovrAcioavTa 
def GrdrAdAvoOa, H oe Thy Eue.... Isocr. 
ay7id. p. 317, HAVE by Fro Karnyophrwy 
}) kaTapaptuphowy, and see Hartung, Par- 
tikellehre, ii. 355 f.) (servants) of sin, 
unto death (‘with death as the result,’— 
not physical death merely, nor eternal 
death merely, but DEATH [by sin] in its 
most general sense, as the contrast to [life 
by ] RIGHTEOUSNESS,—the state of misery 
induced by sin, in all its awful aspects and 
consequences:—and so throughout this 
passage and ch. vii.), or of obedience (Tov 


B B2 


372 


u = ch. vii. 25. 
1 Cor. xv. 57. 
2 Cor. ii. 14. 


viii. 16. ix. 
15. , , a 
y Mark xii. 30, V x Mf 
v are i 9) mapedoOnre TuTroy diday7js, 
2 tim i QO THS amapTias 
22. 1 Pet.i , t \ \ 
2 Deut. @owmiwov eyo Sia THY 
Leech ? \ d , \ 
¥ pera @MSTTEP Yap TTAPETTNOATE Ta 
note. __ f2 rf) / \ a g2 / 
x Acts xxiii. akavapola Kat T1 avop.la 
25. 3 Macc. G bs < 
ili. 30. y Acts ii. A reff. 
1, 21 Ald. 2 Mace. i, 27. ii. 22 only. a Acts vii. 6 reff. 
c = 1 Cor. ii. 3 reff. Fi ver. 13. e adj. here bis only. 
i, 24 reff. g ch. iv. 7 reff. 


IPO POMAIOTS. 


le; , oy LD Age s , . 
els Suxavocvyny ; li“ yapis S€ TH Oe, 
fol e / ec o. \ 
THS auaptias, trnkovoate 6é 


4€dovAWOnTe TH SiKaocvvy. 


z John viii. 32, 36. ver. 22. ch. viii. 2, 21. 


Vi. 


Y éx Kapdias 
18 2 bavbeone ee dé 
19 > dy- 
c BJ 0é fol \ e lal 
acbéveravy THs capKos vpmav. 
4 wédn vuaov © dovrAa TH 
h ’ \ g ’ / e 
els THY Savoplav, ovTwS 
Gal. v. l only +. Sir. 


b Acts xvii. 25 reff. see ch. iii. 5. 
Wisd. xv. 7. Eur. Hec, 137. f ch. 


h ch. vy. 16 reff. Acts xi. 18 reff. 


17. ins ka@apas bef kapdias A 13. 26 Chr,-mss(txty, ;.), ex toto corde eth. 


18. for de, ovy CR’: 
19. for 5ovAa (twice), dovAcvery F latt. 


@eov, sc.—obedience to Him who alone 
ought to be obeyed) unto righteousness 
(with righteousness as its result ; not im- 
puted merely, nor implanted merely, but 
RIGHTEOUSNESS in its most general sense 
as the contrast to death,—the state of 
blessedness induced by holiness, and in- 
volving in it, as a less in a greater, eternal 
life: and so throughout this passage )? 
17, 18.| The dilemma solved for 
them by reference to the matter of fact: 
that they were once servants of sin, but on 
receiving the gospel, obeyed its teaching : 
and consequently were freed from the 
service of sin, and became the servants of 
righteousness :—and this in the form of a 
thanksgiving to God (1 Cor. i. 14) whose 
work in them it was. There is a stress 
on 7Te as referring to a state past. So 
Eph. v. 8: on account of which stress 
apparently the wév, which would naturally 
follow it, is omitted. Wis STeibecnaseie 
Si8ax7s] Attr.: the simple construction 
would be irnkovoare TO TUTH Tis 51d. Eis 
dv (or bv) mapedd0nTe, ye obeyed (im. on 
account of drakon above) from the heart 
(reff.) that form of teaching (so udppwors 
ch. ii. 20: see examples in Fritzsche, 
vol. i. p. 418; most probably used of the 
practical norma agendi accompanying the 
doctrine of the gospel; so Caly., Luth., 
Beza, Reiche:—De W. thinks it is the 
Pauline form of teaching, of justification 
by faith, distinguished from the Judaistic) 
to which ye were delivered (this inver- 
sion to the passive agrees admirably with 
TUmos, a8 a mould, exemplar, or pattern 
after which they were to be fashioned: 
80 KkaTa Ta Séyuata TuTovcba, Arrian. 
Enchir. ii. 19 [Thol.]: and Beza,—‘ hoe 
dicendi genus magnam quandam emphasin 
videtur habere. Ita enim significatur evan- 
gelicam doctrinam quasi instar typi cujus- 


om 37-9. 62 lect- 12 tol copt. 


om ers Tny avoutay B Syr Sedul. 


dam esse, cui veluti immittamur, ut ejus 
figure conformemur, et totam istam trans- 
formationem aliunde provenire.’ [Thol. | 
And Chrys. remarks, 7d rapado0jvat, Thy 
tov Ocov BonOelay aivitrerai. See on the 
construction, Winer, edn. 6, § 24. 2. b). 

18. édevd. . . . . . Stxatoo.| And (this 
verse is closely united with the foregoing ; 
Riickert, Reiche, and Meyer think that 
it might be stated as a syllogistic conclu- 
sion, of which the dilemma is the major, 
and the fact of ver. 17 the minor) being 
freed from sin, ye were enslaved (see on 
next verse) to righteousness. 19. ] 
For the expression é50vA@OyTe the Apostle 
apologizes: ‘it is not literally so; the 
servant of righteousness is no slave, under 
no yoke of bondage; but in order to set 
the contrast between the former and the 
new state better before you, I have used 
this word :’ I speak as a man (according 
to the requirements of rhetorical anti- 
thesis) on account of the (intellectual, as 
De W. and Thol.: not moral, as Meyer 
and Olsh.) weakness of your flesh (i. e. 
‘because you are capxixol and not mvevua- 
tixol, and want such figures to set the 
truth before you.’ Orig., Chrys., Theo- 
doret, Calv., Estius, Wetst., al., take these 
words in a totally different sense: ‘I 
require of you nothing which your fleshly 
weakness will not bear’): for (explana- 
tory of éedovAd6.) like as ye (once) ren- 
dered up your members (as) servants to 
impurity and to lawlessness (two divi- 
sions of auaprla—impurity, against a 
man’s self,—lawlessness against God), 
unto lawlessness (both which, axa@. and 
avou., lead to avoula, result in it: ‘qui 
justitie serviunt, proficiunt: &vopo, ini- 
qui, sunt inigui, nihil amplius. Bengel : 
not ‘from one dvoula to another, 

@cum., Theophyl., Luth., Grot., Erasm., 


OTe 7Te SovNOL ABCDF 
= KLNat 
els ov cedfgh 


kimn 
o1l7 


17—23. 


IITPO> POMAIOTS. 


373 


a / \ / a fal a 
vov ‘tapacticate Ta 4 wédn twav © Soda TH Sixatoovvn i Paul (here bis. 
yer, 22, 


ess 1s , 
els‘ dytacpov. 
érevPepor rte TH * Sixavocdvy. 


0 Ore yap SovAou TE THs duapTias, 


9 / 9 x 
*l twa ovv | Kaptov ¥, 
i.2. 2 Macc. 


t ’ e a A 
lelyere tote; “ep ols viv “émacyvverbe, TO pev yap yi... 2 


°réos Exelwwov Oavatos. * vuvi dé P éNevOepwOevtes Pamo | 


reff. 1 Cor. 
xiv, 20, 
ch, i, 13 reff. 


THS P auaptias, » dovkwOevtes SE TH Oe@, | ExeTE TOV Mg Mkt: 


a i , \ \ 
‘kaptov vwov »eis ‘ayracpov, TO bé © TéXos Lwrw aid- 


viov, %Ta yap opovua Tis 


\ s a a \ »/ b) rv it) a 9. 
5é * ydpioua Tov Oeov’ Cwi) alwvios év xpicTtS “Inood & 
17 


iii. 19. p ver. 18. 
iii, 28. xiv. 32 only. 


aft ovrws ins xa K 7 tol Syr arm Tert, Sedul. 


q Luke iii. 14. 
r=ch. v. 15, 16. xi. 29. 


47. Acts iii. 
10, 12. iv. 21. 
Jer. ii. 12. 


apaptias OQavartos, 


1 Cor. ix. 7. 2 Cor. xi. 8 only+. Esdr. iv. 56. 1 Mace. 


for 2nd SovAa, omAa A. 


21. rec om pev, with ACD3KLN! rel Clem Chr Thl ec: ins BD!FR3 syr Chr-mss 


Thdrt. for Se, Te(but corrd) NX}. 


al.: because [De W.] dvoula is not an 
act, but a principle), so now render up 
your members (as) servants to righteous- 
ness (see ver. 16) unto (leading to, having 
as its result, perfect) holiness—(contrast 
to avoula, and both embracing their re- 
spective consequences). 20—23.] As 
a further urging of the above exhortations, 
the Apostle contrasts the end of their for- 
mer life with that of their present. 
20.] yap introduces a motive for the fore- 
going: but the verse belongs to the follow- 
ing: for ver. 22 is the contrast to it. 
Meyer and Fritz. think it to be an ex- 
planation of ver. 19, but are certainly 
mistaken. For when ye were servants 
of sin, ye were free in relation to (dat. of 
regard or reference, Winer, edn. 6, § 31. 
1) righteousness. There is doubtless a 
latent irony in the use of éAevdepa: here ; 
but it must not be brought out too 
strongly : it does not appear, till the end 
of that freedom is declared. 21. | 
‘Well, then, ye were free: and what was 
the benefit?’ ovy concedes and assumes. 
There are two ways of pointing: 
(1) that of E. V., carrying on the ques- 
tion to émaoxdveobe, and supplying é7z’ 
éxelvois before ed” ois, adopted by Chrys., 
e., Vulg., Beza, Grot., Estius, Bengel, 
Reiche, Meyer, Fritz., Stuart, al. But 
this though good as far as construction is 
concerned, is inconsistent with the N. T. 
meaning of kaprés, which is ‘ actions,’ the 
Sruit of the man considered as the tree, 
not ‘wages,’ or ‘reward, the fruit of his 
actions : see below, ver. 22, and ch. i. 13, 
note. So even Phil. i. 22 (see note). 
So that I much prefer (2) the punctuation 
of Theod. Mops., Theodoret, Theophyl., 
Luth., Melancth., Koppe, Flatt, Tholuck, 
Riickert, Kéllner, Olsh., Lachm., Griesb., 


at end ins eorw F latt(not fuld). 


De Wette, al., placing the interrogation 
at rére, and making é@’ ois v. émaicyx. the 
answer. What fruit then had ye at that 
time? (Things, deeds) of which ye are 
now ashamed. TO ev yap TEX. ex. 
0.] the reason of their present shame. 
For the end (= virtually opdévia, ver. 23, 
and would be a mere repetition of kapzdés 
on the first method of punctuation above) 
of those things (those kaprof consisting 
of sinful acts) is death (death in the 
widest sense, see note on ver. 16,—phy- 
sical, which has been the end of sin, in 
which we all are involved,—and spiritual 
and eternal, which will be the end of 
actual sin if followed out). 22. | 
Contrast of your present state to that 
former one: freedom from sin as a mas- 
ter,—servitude (compare av@pémivoy A€éya, 
ver. 19) to God (a higher description than 
merely dixatootvn, the actual antithesis to 
Gpaptia, ver. 18. The devil would be 
the corresponding antithetical power : and 
not unfrequently appears in the teaching 
of Paul: but usually in casual expressions, 
as Eph. iv. 27; vi. 11; 2 Tim. ii. 26, not 
as the principal figure in a course of argu- 
ment),—fruit (see on xapmés, above, ver. 
21,—and remark toby xaprdév, your fruit, 
fruit actually brought forth, q. d. @yere 
kaptév, kal 6 Kapmds tuay ayiacuds) unto 
(leading unto perfect) sanctification,— 
and the end (governed by éxere) life 
everlasting. 23.] The ends of the 
two courses placed pointedly and anti- 
thetically, and the inherent difference, 
that whereas death (see above) is the 
wages (o.=pay, or ration, of soldiers ; 
compare the similitude in ver. 13, and 
remarks there) of sin, earned and paid 
down,—eternal life is no éWévov, nothing 
earned, but the free gift of God to His 


374 IPOS POMAIOTS. VII. 

mehivi3 TO xupio jpov. VII. 1™*H ™deyvoeire, adedpot, yuve- ABCDF 
Scleseal fg = 7 A , fal 

ach 9M gKoyol Yap VOMoOV ANAK, ™ OTL 0 vomos "Kuplevet ° TOU cdfgt 

o generic sing., kimn 


Aint. ux. 10. @VOpw@mov Pep’ Pdcov P ypovoy &; 2% yap Idmavdpos 017 


Mark ii. 27 al. 


p 1 Cor. vii. 39. 
Gal. iv. 1. 
see 2 Pet. i. 
13. Deut. 
xii. 19. 

here only. 


rc) 


yun TH Covre avdpl * déderar vou edv 5€ arobdvy oO 
avnp, * catypyntat * ard TOD vomou Y TOD avédpos. 
W oby Cavtos Tod avdpos * poryadls ¥ ypnuatioe, éav 
zavyéyntrat avopr * étépm’ éav S€ arroOavyn 6 avip, éhevOépa 


3” dpa 


9. xli. 21 

only. r = 1 Cor. vii. 27, 39. s ch. iii. 3 reff. tver.6. Gal. v. 4. u = ch, 
vi. 18, 22. 2 Cor. xi. 3. vy gen. of reference, Mark i. 4. John y. 29 bis. 2 Cor. ix. 13 al. Winer, edn. 
6, 3 30. 2. B. w ch. v. 18 reff. x here bis. Matt. xii. 39. xvi. 4||Mk. Jamesiv.4. 2 Pet. 
ii. 14 only, Ezek. xvi. 38 al. y = Acts xi. 26 only. éxpyuartice pOce Diod. Sic. xx. 53. 


z= here 3ce only. Levit. xxii. 12. 


Crap. VII. 1. yryvworovow L. 


8. aft Cwytos, add xP G. 
A copt Orig, Chr,. 


soldiers and servants;—and that in (not 
‘through,’ —true enough, but not implied 
in év, see above on ver. 11) Christ Jesus 
our Lord. VII. 1—6.] The explana- 
tion and proof of the assertion ch. vi. 14, 
ov ydp eore bmd vouov, GAAG brd xdpiy: 
the answer to the question of vi. 15 having 
occupied vi. 16—23. 1—4.| The 
Christian is dead to the law by being 
dead with Christ, and has become His. 
1.] Connect with ch. vi. 14, which 
is in fact the sentence immediately pre- 
ceding. Reiche and Meyer connect with 
vi. 23; ‘The gift of God is eternal life in 
Jesus Christ our Lord: this you can only 
doubt by being ignorant,’ &e. 
Krehl believes ch. vii. to be the expansion 
of ‘Death is the wages of sin,’—and ch. 
viii., of ‘the free gift of God is eternal 
life’ But not only does this division not 
hold, for much of ch. viii. regards the con- 
flict with sin and infirmity,—but the pro- 
minence of vduos as the subject here for- 
bids the connexion with 6Ydévia Tijs apapr. 
Odavaros. The steps of the proof are 
these: The law binds a man only so 
long as he lives (ver. 1):—e. g. a married 
woman is only bound to her husband so 
long as he lives (vv. 2, 3):—so also the 
Christian being dead with Christ and alive 
to Him is freed from the law (ver. 4). 
adeAdot| Not addressed particularly 
to Jewish Christians : see below : but gene- 
rally to the Roman church. yiwoo- 
kovoty y. vp. Aa. | For I am speaking 
(writing) to men acquainted with the 
law; i. e. the persons to whom I address 
this epistle are such as know the law: not 
“I speak to those who know the law,’ as if 
he were now addressing a different class 
of persons,—which would require rots yap 
ywookovow toy vénov TovTS put, see Gal. 
iv. 21. Nor does the knowledge of 


a Deut. xxiv. 2 (4). Jer. iii. 1. 


xpnu. bef worx. DF latt goth Jer. 
aft o aynp ins avtns DF Syr. 


ver. 23 reff. 


2. om 2nd tov F(but not G). 
add 7 yuvn 


the law here affirmed of the Romans prove 
that the majority of them were Jewish 
Christians: they may have been Gentile 
proselytes. Ste 6 vép. KUp. TOD 
avé that the (Mosaic: for of 
that, and not of any other law, is the whole 
argument) law hath power over a man 
(not 6 Yéu. Tod avOpé7ov, ‘a man’s law,’ 
and kupiever absolute, ‘has dominion,’ —as 
Hamm. and Dr. Burton, which is very 
questionable Greek and still worse sense) 
as long time as he (the man, see vv. 4 
and 6:—not the law, as Origen, Erasm., 
Grot., Estius, al., which would introduce 
the irrelevant question of the abrogation of 
the law, wherees the whole matter in argu- 
ment is the velation of the Christian to the 
law) lives. 2.] For (not merely =e. g., 
but, as Thol., the example is itself the proof) 
the married (ref.) woman is bound by the 
law to the living husband: but if the 
husband have died, she is set free from 
(lit. annulled from) the law of (‘ regarding,’ 
compare reff. and 6 véu0s Tov Aempod, Levit. 
xiv. 2) the husband (no hypallage). 

3.] And accordingly (%pa otv, ‘from the 
same consideration, it follows that’) while 
her husband lives she shall be called 
(see ref.:—and on this use of the future, 
as declaring what shall follow on a con- 
dition being fulfilled, Winer, edn. 6, § 40. 
6) an adulteress, if she attach herself 
to (become the wife of) another man: 
but if her husband have died, she is 
free from the law (rod dvdpds), so that 
(it matters little whether rod uh is the 
result or the purpose: it is better always 
to keep the latter in view, and to regard 
the result in such sentences as for the 
moment spoken of as the purpose to which 
its constituents contributed) she is not an 
adulteress, though she have attached 
herself to another man, So far all is 


Seay 6) 6. 


I—5. 


IIPOS POMAIOTS. 


375 


éotly “ato TOU voMov, © TOD M1) EL: yTHV * Aa 1 Cor. x. 13 
pov, © TOD pn Eivar avTHY * worYaNiOa ¢1 Cor. x. 


za / > \ ab € , 
ryevouevnv avopt * érépo. 


8 kaptropopnowpmev TO Geo. 


e dat., ch. vi. 10, 11. f 1 Cor. xy. 12 reff. 


only, Hab. iii. 17. Wisd. x. 7 only. (-pos, Acts xiv. 17.) 


4. rat ywers bef adeApor pov &. 
in ver 5 F. 


5. nenv D}. om Ist ev F. 


clear. But when we come to the appli- 
cation of the example, ¢iis must carefully 
be borne in mind, as tending to clear up all 
the confusion which has here been found 
by Commentators :—that the Apostle is in- 
sisting on the fact, that DEATH DISSOLVES 
LEGAL OBLIGATION: but he is not draw- 
ing an exact parallel between the persons 
in his example, and the persons in his ap- 
plication. The comparison might be thus 
made in terms common to both: (1) Death 
has dissolved the legal obligation between 
man and wife: therefore the wife is at 
liberty to be married to another :—(2) 
Death has dissolved the legal obligation 
between the law and us: therefore we are 
at liberty to be married to another. So 
far the comparison is strict. Further it 
will not hold: for in the example, the libe- 
rated person is the survivor,—in the thing 
treated, the liberated person is the dead 
person. And so far from this being an 
oversight or an inaccuracy, it is no more 
than that to which, more or less, all com- 
parisons are liable; and no more can be 
required of them than that they should fit, 
in the kernel and intent of the similitude. 
If it be required here to apply the example 
further, there is no difficulty nor inconsis- 
tency in saying (as Chrys. al.) that our 
first Husband was the Law, and our second 
is Christ ; but then it must be carefully 
borne in mind, that we are freed, not by 
the law having died to us, (which matter 
here is not treated,) but by owr having died 
to the law. It is not necessary with 
Calv. and Tholuck, to suppose that in ver. 4 
there is an euphemistic inversion, ‘ we are 
dead to the law,’ instead of ‘the law is dead 
to us; indeed such a supposition would, 
from what is said above, much weaken the 
argument, which rests on our being slain 
with Christ, and so freed from the law. 

4.] So then (inference both from 
ver. 1, the general fact, and vv. 2, 3, the 
example), my brethren, ye also (as well as 
the woman in my example, who is dead to 
the law of her husband) were slain to the 


4 ote adeAol jou, Kal wets 
* avataOnte © TH vow Sia TOU GwpaTOs TOD YpLaTOD, eis 
\ za io 8) ela ab £_/ Af i9s A £3 Oé / 
TO ™yevérBar Yuas * érépw, TO ' ex vexpanv £ éyepOevT., iva 
5 OTe yap Huev ev TH » capKi, 


pou F, 


d Matt. x. 21 
al5, in 
Gospp. ch. 
Vili. 13, 36 
(from Ps. 
xliii. 22). 

2 Cor. vi. 9. 
1 Pet. iii. 18. 
2 Chron. 
xxiii. 15. 

Matt. xiii. 23||. Mark iv. 28. Col. i. 6,10 

= ch, viii. 12 al. see note. 


g here bis. 


Kaptopoperwuev and -poperat 


law (crucified, see Gal. ii. 19, 20. The 
more violent word is used instead of az- 
eOdvere, to recall the violent death of Christ, 
in which, and after the manner of which, 
believers have been put to death to the 
law and sin,—and the historic aorist to 
remind them of the great Event by which 
this was brought about) by means of the 
(crucified) Body (compare 5:4 tis mpos- 
popas Tov ommaTtos Tov Ino. xp., Heb. x.10) 
of Christ, that you should become at- 
tached to another, (even) to Him who 
was raised from the dead (alluding both 
to the comparison in vv. 2, 3, yévnrat 
avip érépw, and to ch. vi. 4, 5, va és. 
nyép0n xpiords x.7.A.), that we should 
(here strictly final, as Thol., Meyer, De 
W., &c. Not merely ecbatic, as Fritzsche) 
bring forth fruit (alluding to kaprév, 
ch. vi. 22, and at the same time [Luke 
i. 42] carrying on the similitude of mar- 
riage. Not that this latter must be pressed, 
for there is only an allusion to it: nor on 
the other hand need the least objection 
be raised to such an understanding of the 
words, as any one conversant with St. Paul’s 
way of speaking on this subject will at once 
feel: compare 2 Cor. xi. 2; Eph. v. 30—32) 
to (dat. commodi, ‘to the honour of’) God. 

5, 6.] In the fleshly state (before 
we died with Christ) stnful passions which 
were by the Law worked in us and brought 
JSorth fruit to death: but now that we are 
dead to the law, we are no longer servantsin 
the oldness of the letter, but in the newness 
of the spirit. The Law (ch. v. 20, alluded 
to again vi. 14) was the multiplier of sin. 
To this thought, and the inferences from 
it, the Apostle now recurs, and contrasts 
the state under the law in this respect, 
with that of the believer in Christ. For 
when we were in the flesh (= virtually, 
“under the law:” see the antithesis in 
ver. 6: so almost all Commentators, an- 
cient and modern,—except Beza, Bengel, 
Reiche, and Thol., who take it to mean 
the mere fleshly state, in which the Spirit 
is not yet energizing, and Ambrst., Calov., 


i Paul, ch. viii. 
18 al7. Heb. 
ii. 9,10. x 


only fr. 
k gen. obj., ch. 
i. 26. 
1 Acts iii. 16. 
1 Pet. i. 21. 
m Matt. xiv. 2 
|| Mk. Paul, 
1 Cor. xii. 
6 all5, 
James vy. 16 
only. Isa. xli. 4. 
v. 4.) ch. i. 18. 
only. 
iii. 5 reff. 


n ch. vi. 13 reff. 
2 Thess. ii. 6. rch, vi. 6. 
tch. ii. 29. 2 Cor. iii. 6. 
w ch. iii. 4 reff. 


TPO POMAIOT?. 


Acts xx. 19 reff. 
u here only+. Eurip. Hel. 1062. (-os, ch. vi. 6.) 


Vit 


\ i / lal 1 ee lol \ 16 \ lal , m ’ 
Ta imabjpata Tov * dpapti@v ta dua ToD vopou ™ évnp- 
yelro é€y Tois ® wédkeow Huwv ° Els TO * KapTropophaat 
lol \ , ‘\ Lal , 
to Oavato 8 vuvi 5é ? KatnpyiOnwev aro Tov vopou, 
a ’ s el 
amolavovtes ev ® IKaTevyopeOa, wsTEe * SovrdevEeW HUGS 
/ / 
év SKawoTnte t rvevpatos Kal ov “ TaXaLoTnTL * ypappaTos. 
fal \ / 
7°T obv Y épodmev; 6 vomos aduaptia; * €volTo* 
P ; 


ver. 2. 
s ch. vi. 4 only. 


= {John 
Ezek. xlvii. 12 
vy ch. 


o ver. 12 reff. 


6. rec amoBavovtos (see note): Tov Oavarov DF latt Jer: txt ABCKLN rel am! syrr 


copt goth wth arm Bas Chr Cyr Thdrt Damase Tert Ruf. 


Olsh., al., who interpret it of the state of 
the unregenerate. But how does év 7H 
capki denote ‘ under the law ?’ Some say, 
on account of its carnality, as more or less 
Theodoret, (c., Hammond, Grot., al.: 
some, on account of the power of sin under 
the law,—as Chrys., Theophyl., Calv., al.: 
best of all is it to understand it, with 
Riickert, Kéllner, Meyer, Fritz., De Wette, 
as pointing to the period before death 
with Christ, in which we were sensual and 
sinful: so that éy 77 capr) eiva: forms a 
contrast with @avarwéjva. But, as De 
W. observes, it must not with Fritz. be 
rendered ‘quum viveremus,’ as this is never 
the sense of ev [rf] capkt [ivar],—not 
even 2 Cor. x. 3: nor, I may add, Phil. 
i. 24) the stirrings (‘passions of sins,’ 
objective gen., which led to sins: not by 
heudiadys for ra@ju. ayaptwAd, which, as 
always, destroys the force) of sins, which 
were by means of the law (the incite- 
ments,—not the sins, in this place, though 
ultimately it was so, the incitement lead- 
ing to the sin. The full meaning of 5:4 Tod 
véuov must be kept, ‘which were by means 
of the law Y i.e. the law occasioned them. 
Locke argues for the rendering, ‘under the 
law,’ ‘ in the time of the law,’ which would 
destroy the force of the argument connect- 
ing the law with sin, here put so strongly as 
to require the question of ver.7) wrought 
(‘energized not pass., but middle: see 
note on Gal. vy. 6) in our members (the in- 
struments of sin, ch. vi. 13) to the bring- 
ing forth of fruit (see on tod wh ver. 3: 
the xaprop. wus the finul object of their 
energizing, not the mere result. In 
kaprop. here, the allusion to progeny is very 
distant, if it exists at all. Meyer makes it 
refer to an adulterous state, and personifies 
@dvaros; but this can hardly be) unto 
death (only a verbal antithesis to 76 6c: 
—‘ whose end was death’): 6.) But 
now (opposed to dre, ver. 5) have we been 
delivered (annulled) from the law, having 
died (to that) wherein we were held 


om nuas BP. 


(the reading ao@avdévros cannot even be 
brought into discussion, as it appears to be 
only a conjecture of Beza’s, arising from a 
misunderstanding of the text [and of Chry- 
sostom’s commentary, who did not read 
it ],—see the analogy explained on ver. 1: 
the other reading, tod @avdrov, is a cor- 
rection to suit ver. 5. So that év @ either 
refers directly to véuov, amoPavdvres being 
absolute and parenthetic, or we must under- 
stand éxelyw aft. ao8. I prefer the latter, 
as suiting better the style of the Apostle 
and the whole connexion. The omission 
of the demonstrative pron. probably is 
occasioned by a desire to give especial 
prominence to the fact of amobavdyres, 
or perhaps on account of the prepos. 
ad in composition, as in ch. x. 14, mas 
oby emikadéowvTat eis Ov ovK emlaTevaay ;), 
so that we serve (not ‘should serve,’ as 
E. V.: the pres. describes the actual state : 
—understand ‘ God’ after serve) in the 
newness of the Spirit (i.e. of the Holy 
Spirit of God, who originates and pene- 
trates the Christian life :—the first men- 
tion of the Spirit so much spoken of in 
ch. viii.) and not in the oldness of the 
letter (the law being only a collection of 
precepts and prohibitions, but the Gospel 
a service of freedom, ruled by the Spirit, 
whose presence is liberty). kaiwérns and 
madkadtTns are not as in ch. vi. 4, cawdrnte 
(wis, attributes of the genitives which 
follow them, but states in which those 
genitives are the ruling elements. 

7-—25.] An explanation of the part 
which the law has in bringing out sin, by 
example of the Apostle’s own case. In 
this most important and difficult passage, it 
is of the first consequence to have a clear 
view of the form of illustration which the 
Apostle adopts, and of the reason why he 
adopts it. The former has been amply 
treated of by almost all Commentators: the 
latter, too generally, has escaped their en- 
quiry. But it furnishes, if satisfactorily 
treated, a key to the other. Iask then first, 


ABCDF 
KLN al 
cdf g) 
klmn 
o 17 


a gi 


IIPOS POMAIOTS. 


377 


>? \ \ c U yr , ” A 
adda THY apapTiay ovK * EyvaVv Et pt) Sia VOMoU' THY Y TE X 4 omitted, 


1. Gal. iv. 15. 


why St. Paul suddenly changes here to the 
Jirst person? And the answer is, because 
he is about to draw a conclusion negativing 
the question (6 véuos auapria;) upon purely 
subjective grounds, proceeding on that 
which passes within, when the work of the 
law is carried on in the heart. And he is 
about to depict this work of the law by an 
example which shall set it forth in vivid 
colours, in detail, in its connexion with sin 
in a man. What example then so apposite, 
as his own? Introspective as his character 
was, and purified as his inner vision was by 
the Holy Spirit of God, what example would 
so forcibly bring out the inward struggles 
of the man which prove the holiness of the 
law, while they shew its inseparable con- 
nexion with the production of sin? If 
this be the reason why the first person is 
here assumed (and I can find no other 
which does not introduce into St. Paul’s 
style an arbitrariness and caprice which it 
least of all others exhibits), then we must 
dismiss from our minds all exegesis which 
explains the passage of any other, in the 
first instance, than of Paul himself: him- 
self indeed, as an exemplar, wherein others 
may see themselves: but not himself zn the 
person of others, be they the Jews, nation- 
ally or individually, or all mankind, or indi- 
vidual men. This being done, there arises 
now a question equally important,—Of 
what self is it that he speaks throughout 
this passage? Is it always thesame? If so, 
is it always the carnal, unregenerate self ? 
or alwaysthe spiritual, regenerate? Clearly 
not the latter always ; for to that self the 
historical account of vv. 7—13 will not 
apply, and still less the assertion, in the 
present, of ver. 14. Clearly not the former 
always : for to that the assertion of ver. 22 
will not apply, nor that of ver. 25. Is it 
always the complex self, made up of the 
prevailing spiritual-regenerate, with the 
remains of the carnal-unregenerate ? Not 
always this : although this seems nearer to 
satisfying the conditions: for in the descrip- 
tion ver. 9, éya @(wy xwpls vduou more, and 
in éy® odpKivds eiut K.T.A. ver. 14, there is 
no complexity, but the ey is clearly the 
carnal man. ‘Therefore not always the 
same. If not always the same, where is the 
distinction? If we look carefully, the 
Apostle himself will guide us to it. Having 
carried on the éyé unqualified and unex- 
plained till ver. 18, he there has occasion to 
say ovK oike? ev euol ayabdy. But he is con- 
scious that, as he had written to the Cor. 
(1 Cor. iii. 16), 7d mvedpua Tod Beod oiKe? ev 


Winer, edn. 6, } 42. 2. 


xv. 2. xix. 
y =ch.i.26. (2Cor. x. 8. 
duty : he therefore finds it necessary to cor- 
rect himself by an explanation, what éya he 
meant, and adds to év é€uol,—rovtTéottv év 
7] capi pov. So that éyé there is equiva- 
lent to 7 odpt mov, i.e. ‘myself in my 
state of life to the law and sin, and acting 
according to the motions of sin’ Again, 
when the approval of the law of God is 
affirmed (not the mere @éAw, which I will 
treat by and by), it is not barely éydé, but to 
avoid confusion, in ver. 22 the Apostle adds 
Kata Tov €ow GvOpwrrov, and in ver. 25, 
prefixes avtds ; in both cases shewing that 
(see notes below) he speaks of the complex 
man, himself made up of an éow, and an 
tw &vOpwmos, of 6 vos and 7 odpt. Are 
we then justified in assuming, that up to 
ver. 22 the carnal-unregenerate self is 
spoken of, but after that the complex self? 
Such a supposition would not be consistent 
with the assertion of the 6éAw from ver. 15 
onwards : no such will existing in the car- 
nal unregenerate man. I believe the true 
account will be nearly as follows :—from 
ver. 7—13 incl. is historical, and the éyé 
there is the historical self, under the work- 
ing of conviction of sin, and shewing the 
work of the law; in other words, the car- 
nal self in the transition state, under the 
first motions towards God generated by the 
law, which the law could never have per- 
fected. Then at ver. 14, Paul, according to 
a habit very common to him, keeps hold of 
the carnal self, and still having it in view, 
transfers himself into his present position, 
—altering the past tense into the present, 
still however meaning by éy@ (in ver. 14), 
nj odp— wov. But, having passed into the 
present tense, he immediately mingles with 
this mere action of the law upon the natural 
conscience, the motions of the will towards 
God which are in conflict with the motions 
towards sin in the members. And hence 
arises an apparent verbal confusion, because 
the éy# e. g. in ver. 17, of whom it is said, 
ovk &r1 ey Katepya(oua aid, being the 
entire personality, the complex self, is of 
far wider extent than the éyé of whom it 
is said ovK oie? év euol Touréotw éy 7H 
capkt pov, a&ya0dv. But the latter éyé, in 
this part of the chapter, is shewn to be 
(vv. 17, 20) no longer properly éyé, but 7 
oikovoa ev euol auaptia,—and so it passes 
altogether out of sight after ver. 20, and 
its place is taken by the actual then exist- 
ing complex self of Paul, compounded of 
the regenerate spiritual man, sympathizing 
with God’s law, serving God’s law, in con- 
flict with the still remaining though deca- 


378 


z ch. i. 24 


reff. 


dent carnal man, whose essence it is to serve 
the law of sin, to bring captive to the law 
of sin. This state of conflict and division 
against one’s self would infallibly bring 
about utter ruin, and might well lead to 
despair (ver. 24), but for the rescue which 
God’s grace has provided by Jesus Christ 
our Lord. And this rescue has been such, 
that I, the airds eyd of ver. 25, the real 
self, the nobler and better part of the man, 
serve, with the voids (see there) the law of 
God: whereas it is only with the flesh, ac- 
cording to which (ch. viii. 4) J do not walk, 
but overcome and mortify it, that I serve 
(am still subject to) the law of sin. Then 
this subjection of the flesh to the law of 
sin, to the dovActa THs pbopas, is fully set 
out, in its natwre,—consequences to the car- 
nal,—and uses to the spiritual,—in ch. viii. 
Any thing like a summary of the exe- 
gesis of this passage would be quite beyond 
my limits. I must refer the student to com- 
mentaries on this epistle alone,—and espe- 
cially to that of Tholuck, where a complete 
and masterly history is given. It may 
suffice here to say, that most of the ancients 
supposed éeyé to represent mankind, or the 
Jews generally, and the whole to be taken 
chronologically,—to ver. 9 as before the 
law, after ver. 9 as under the law. This 
was once Augustine’s view, Prop. 44 in Ep. 
ad Rom. vol. iii. p. 2071, but he afterwards 
changed it (Retract. i. 23, vol. i. p. 620) and 
adopted in the main that advocated above. 
The default of a history of the exegesis 
will be found to be in some measure com- 
pensated by the account of opinions given 
under the separate verses below. 
7.| tb ov ép., see note, ch. vi. 1. 
6 v. Gpaptia ;|Is thedaw (not, as Jowett, 
“conscience, but in our case, the revealed 
law of God, which awoke the conscience 
to action) sin?—not ‘the cause of sin, 
which in one sense the Apostle would not 
have denied,—but sin, abstract for con- 
crete, sinful, or, as Bengel, ‘causa peccati 
peccaminosa.’ 6 véuos itself being ab- 
stract, that which is predicated of it is 
abstract also. The contrast is, 6 véuos 
dys, ver. 12. ‘The question itself refers 
back to ver. 5, 74 mwadhuata Tov apap- 
Tia@v Ta 51a TOU vouov. It is asked, not 
by an objector, but by the Apostle himself, 
in anticipation of an objection. adda | 
Is but here in contrast to 6 vdu. auapr., 
meaning, ‘so far from that,—or is it a 
qualification of uh yévorro, meaning ‘ but 
still it is true, that....?’ Neither ex- 
planation exactly suits the context, which 
is, by a proper elucidation of the law’s 


IITPO> POMAIOTS. 


VII. 


Yyap *ériOuplavy ovK Oew, ef pi) O vomos edeyev OvK 


working as regards sin, to prove it to be 
holy. I would rather understand aad, 
but what I mean is... .,—I say not 
that, but .... ‘here surely is no con- 
trast to 6 véu. auapria, see ver. 8. 

ovK €yvev | ‘non cognoscebam, ni... ., 
—I was living in a state of ignorance 
of sin, were it not .... This construction 
comprehends in it od« &y éyvwy as a con- 
sequence, and is therefore often said to be 
put for it; but it has its propriety, as here, 
where a historical state is being described, 
and the unconditional indicative is more 
appropriate. Tholuck makes it = ‘non 
cognoveram, ni..... ; in which case the 
indic. expresses more plainly than the con- 
junctive the absolute dependence of the 
fact on the condition. There is some 
difficulty in understanding the mutual rela- 
tion of the clauses, THy au. obk &yywv, and 
Thy Te yap em. ovk Fdev. It is well 
known that re differs from kat, in not coup- 
ling things co-ordinate, but attaching things 
subordinate, to a former. Thus Thucyd.i. 
9 begins "Ayauéuvwy Té por Sokel... ., ON 
which Poppo remarks (cited by Thol.), 
‘ Sequitur exemplum aucte Grecorum opu- 
lentia....ductum ex rebus Agamemnonis 
et causis expeditionis Trojanz;? an ew- 
ample being a subordinate verification of a 
general categorical statement. The yap 
also shews that the second clause is subor- 
dinated to, and alleged in substantiation of 
the first. Then what is GQpaptria? Is it 
sin in act, or sin in principle,—the prin- 
ciple of sin? Not stm in act, so that au. 
ov« €yv. should mean, ‘I had not known 
sin, i.e. ‘had not sinned :’ as Fritz.: for 
then the law would have truly and actually 
been the cause of sin: nor, sin in act, so 
that the meaning were, ‘ Z had not known 
the nature of a sinful act :’ for this would 
not agree with the subordination of ém6v- 
pla below: the ém@. being more general 
(xaoav é7.,) than the particular acts 
which it induced. But the reference must 
be to sin in principle, the principle of sin: 
I had not recognized such a thing as 
sin, but by means of the law. So Calv., 
Melancth., Calov., Riickert, Kélln., Olsh., 
Thol., De Wette. The law here is in 
the full sense of the Mosaic law as regarded 
himself,—not excluding the wider sense on 
which I have insisted in the former part of 
the Epistle when applied to others. 

Tv Te yap ...| For neither (‘neque 
enim’) had I known (by experience: 
‘known any thing of’) concupiscence (the 
motions of the flesh towards sin,—whether 
acted on or not,—whether consented to or 


> 


ABCD] 
KLNa 
cdfg 

kimn 
o1l7 


8, 9. 


a ériOvpnoets: 8» abopuny Sé AaBodoa } auwaptia Siva ° THs TF 

©éyronns “ KatTnpyacato év éuol © tacav * ériOupiav 

f \ ~ / € ‘ g id 9 BJ \ be h ” f \ 
xYepls yap vowov duaptia &vexpa. 9% éyw dé" Ewv * ywpis 


IIPOS, POMAIOTS. 


379 


a Exon. xx. 
DEvT. v. 
21. absol., 
ch, xiii. 9. 

1 Cor. x. 6. 
James iv. 2. 
2 Kings 


. x re LA a ili. 15. 
vouwou imoré. *édOovans dé “THs ° evTOAHs 1) dpapTia vver. ir. Cor. 
vy. 12. xi. 


12 bis. Gal. v.13. 1 Tim. vy. 14 only. P. Ezek. v. 7 only. 


d ch, iv. 5 reff, 
h (subjective) here only. 


7. om te F latt. 
8. om de D(and lat!). 
ins 7 bef auaptia N3. 
Ambrst Ruf-txt Pel. 
9. envy B: eCouy 17. 


e = Acts xx. 19 reff. 


not :—this motion he would not have per- 
ceived, because he was simply moving with 
it) if the law had not said, Thou shalt 
not desire (reff. Exod. Deut.). ‘ Desire,’ 
in the above sense. The Apostle omits 
all the objects there specified, and merely 
lays hold of the idea contained in ém:6uun- 
oes. And it may well be said and strictly, 
that the ‘desire’ there spoken of would 
lead to all kinds of sin—therefore murder, 
adultery, &c., if carried out: and that the 
prohibition of desire there serves as an ex- 
ample of what the law actually forbids else- 
where. 8.] But (proceeding with the 
development of sin by means of the law) 
sin (the sinful principle or propensity, but 
without any conscious personification on 
the part of the Apostle,—see some excellent 
remarks on personification in Tholuck) 
taking occasion (apopun, as its derivation 
shews, means more than mere oppor- 
tunity,—it indicates the furnishing the 
material and ground of attack, the where- 
with and whence to attack. The words 
here are not to be joined, as Luth., Olsh., 
Meyer, with 8a +. évroAjs:— for (1) 
&popu. AaBeiy Sa would not express 
whence the apopun is taken, as mapd or 
éx, but only by what means some 4®. is 
taken from some source,—which would not 
here suit the Apostle’s meaning, seeing that 
the source itself was the commandment,— 
and (2) ver. 13, 51a Tov ay. katepy., decides 
the matter here,—but absolutely, as fre- 
quently, see Wetst.) by means of the com- 
mandment (not = Tod véuou, but the tenth 
commandment, the prohibition in ques- 
tion) wrought in me (not ‘ wrought out,’ 
‘brought into action,’ but ‘ originated’) 
all (manner of) concupiscence ; for with- 
out the law sin is (not ‘was:’ the omission 
of the verb substantive shews the sentence 
to be a locus communis,—and compare 
ch. iv. 15) dead (powerless and inactive: 
compare 1 Cor. xv. 56, 7 ddvauis 7. Gpuap- 
tlas dvduos). This deadness of sin with- 
out the law must not be understood as 
meaning that sin was committed but not 


i = John ix. 13. ch. xi. 30 al. 


for 2nd vomos, Aoyos L. 
rec Kateipyacato, with AB2CFKLN rel: txt B1D d. 
aft vexpa ins qv FK latt Syr Jer Aug Sedul 


ec = Luke xxiii. 56. 1 Tim. vi. 14. 
f ch. iii. 21 reff. g = James ii. 17 al. 
k = but objective, Gal. iii. 23, 25. 


emOuunons K. 


recognized, the conscience being not in- 
formed nor awakened: such a statement 
would be true, but would not touch the 
matter argued here. Erasmus (Thol.) well 
explains the vexp¢d,—‘ Quum ante legem 
proditam (but see below) quedam peccata 
nescirem, queedam ita scirem, ut mihi tamen 
licere putarem, quod vetita non essent,— 
levius ac languidius sollicitabatur animus 
ad peccandum, ut frigidius amamus ea, 
quibus ubi libeat potiri fas sit. Caterum 
legis indicio proditis tot peccati formis, 
universa cupiditatum cohors irritata prohi- 
bitione ccepit acrius ad peccandum sollici- 
tare.’ Compare also Prov. ix. 17, and 
(Wetst.) Ovid. Amor. ii. 19. 3, ‘Quod licet 
ingratum est, quod non licet acrius urit :’ 
and ib, iii. 4. 17, ‘Nitimur in vetitum 
semper, cupimusque negata :’ and .Seneca, 
de Clem. i. 23 (Thol.), ‘ Parricidze cum lege 
ceeperunt, et illis facinus poena monstrayvit :? 
and a remarkable passage from Cato’s 
speech in Livy xxxiv. 4, ‘ Nolite eodem loco 
existimare, Quirites, futuram rem, quo fuit, 
antequam lex de hoc ferretur. Et hominem 
improbum non accusari tutius est, quam 
absolvi, et luxuria non mota tolerabilior 
esset, quam erit nunc, ipsis vinculis, sicut 
fera bestia, irritata, deinde emissa.’ 

9.] It is a great question with Interpreters, 
of what period Paul here speaks. Those 
who sink his own personality, and think 
that he speaks merely as one of mankind, or 
of the Jews, understand it of the period be- 
fore the law was given: some, of Adam in 
Paradise before (?) the prohibition: those 
who see Paul himself throughout the whole 
think that he speaks,—some, of his state as 
a Pharisee: this however would necessitate 
the understanding the legal death which 
follows, of his conversion, which cannot 
well be: some, of his state as a child, be- 
fore that freedom of the will is asserted 
which causes rebellion against the law as 
the will of another: so Meyer, Thol., al. 
Agreeing in some measure with the last 
view, I would extend the limits further, and 
say that he speaks of all that time, be it 


580 


1 Luke xv. 24 
(32. ch. xiv. 
9. Rev. xv. ¢€ 
5 v.r.) only t. 7) 

m = 1 Cor. iv. 
2 reff. 

n ellips., ver. 5. 

o = Matt. xix. 


PS) > > ial s > / 
17. Deut. 6 QUTNS * ATTEKTELVEV, 


IIPO> POMAIOTS. 


Vif 


1 avé€noev, 10 eyo b€ » aréPavov: Kai ™ eipéOn joe 1) evTOX;) 
"els ° anv, avtn "els ? Oavatov. 
1apopunv ANaBovoa Sia Ths évTodAs * eEnwatyncéy pe, Kal 
22 @ste o * wév vopos aywos, Kal 7) 


11) yap apaptia 


xxx. 15. 2 \ / \ / ee , xt ie > \ 
p=ch.v.12, 4 €ytodn Yayla kal duxala kai ayaby. 13 °'TO obv ¥ ayabov 
q ver. 8 reff. 

r ch, xvi. 18. ye eee A fal J ek far A Piet 2, {Ee ! @. 
icor iii,  €6@OL EyeveTo Cavatos ; “ wn yevotTo’ GAN  apapTia, wa 
18. 2 Cor. 

xi. 3. 2 Thess. ii. 3. 1 Tim. ii. 14 only. P. Exod. viii. 29 B only. Susan. 56 Theod. s = 2 Cor. iii. 6. 
t weév solitar., Acts i. 1 (and note). iii. 13. Col. ii. 23. Heb. xii. 9 al. Winer, 3 63, i. 2. e. u 2 Pet. ii. 12. 
v ch, ii. 10 reff. w ch, iil. 4 reff. 


10. om 2nd 7 L m!' 48. 77. 100 Chr-ms. 


13. rec for eyeveto, yeyove (corrn, the historic aor not being understood), with KL 


rel Chr Cyr-c Gennad-c Thdrt @c Thl: om F: txt ABCDX Meth Damase. 


mere childhood or much more, before the 
law began its work within him,—before 
the deeper energies of his moral nature 
were aroused (see on éA\8ovons below). 

But (€(wy opposed, but only formally, to 
vexpa, and so having 65€: so Meyer and 
De W.) I was alive (not merely ‘lived,’ 
‘went on,’ but emphatic, ‘ vivus eram,’ as 
Aug., i. e. ‘lived and flourished,’—con- 
trasted with are8avov below) without the 
law (the law having no recognized place in 
my moral existence) once; but when the 
commandment (above, ver. 8) came (purely 
subjective; not ‘was enacted,’ ‘came in, — 
but ‘came to me,’ as we say, ‘came home 
to me, ‘was brought home to me’), sin 
sprung into life (not ‘revived : however 
true it may be that sin was merely dor- 
mant, the idea insisted on here, is, that 
it was dead and came to life, began to 
live and flourish :—but this is not to be 
compared with avéBAeva in John ix. 11; 
see note there), 10.] but I died (ceased 
to live-and-flourish as before,—fell into 
that state of unhappiness, which even after- 
wards under the gospel he calls @avatos, 
ver. 24, ch. viii. 2): and (not an 
additional particular, but = ‘and _ 50,’ 
—merely changing the subject from ‘I,’ 
to ‘the commandment’) the command- 
ment which was for (tending to) life 
(compare ch. x. 5, 6 moihoas aita &vbpw- 
mos Cyoerat ev avtois, and reff. there: 
the life is one of prosperity primarily, 
but capable of, and indeed requiring [ x. 5 ] 
a higher interpretation), this (very com- 
mandment) (airy directs attention in a 
marked way to the antecedent subject: so 
frequently airés and éxetvos: see Matt. 
xxiv. 13: Winer, edn. 6, § 23. 4) was 
found (subjective —obk elrev bri 4 evToA} 
yéyové wor Odvaros, GAA’ edpéby, 7d Kat- 
vov kal mapddotov tis atomlas obtws 
épunvetwy, Chrys.) by me (to be) unto 
(tending to) death (explained on a7éé. 
above). 11.] For (explanatory how 


[ aaa, 


ver. 10 happened) sin (the sinful prin- 
ciple within me) taking occasion (absol. 
as in ver. 8, where see note),—by means 
of the commandment deceived me (there 
is a plain reference to the Tempter deceiy- 
ing Eve, which was accomplished by means 
of the commandment, exciting doubt of 
and objection to it, and lust after the for- 
bidden thing: see reff. 2 Cor., 1 Tim.), 
and by it slew me (i. e. brought me 
into the state of misery and death, men- 
tioned in ver. 10 ;—but there is an allusion 
again to the effect of the fall as the act of 
the Tempter). 12.| So that (seeing 
it was not the law in general, nor this par- 
ticular commandment, that wrought concu- 
piscence in me, but the sinful principle in 
me taking advantage of these, which them- 
selves were given eis (wyv and not eis 
Oavarov) the law (indeed) is holy (uév, 
as understanding a 5¢ to follow—‘ but it 
was sin,’ &c.: which does follow in an ex- 
panded form, in ver. 13), and the com- 
mandment (ov« émiOuunoess, ver. 8) holy 
and just and good (Theodoret thus ac- 
counts for the epithets: aylav mposnyé- 
pevoey ws Td Seoy Siddtacav" Sixatayv dé, 
@s 6p0@s Tots mapaBarats Thy Wipoy ék- 
eveyKovoay’ ayabry 5é, ds (why Tois puAdT- 
Tovow evTpemiCovcay. See also 1 Tim. i. 
8). 13.] Did then the good (= ‘ that 
which was good,’ i.e. 7 évroAy, but made 
abstract for the sake of greater contrast) 
become death (so 6 véu., apaprla, ver. 7) 
tome? Was it, after all, the command- 
ment itself that became to me this death 
of which I speak ? Far from it: but 
(it was) sin (that became death to me. 

The construction adopted by Vulg., Luth., 
al., GAAG 7 Guaptia, va havi au., did 7. 
ay. por KarepyaCouevn [Hv] Odavaroy, is 
hardly admissible) ;—that it might appear 
(be shewn to be) sin, (by) working death 
to me by means of the good (that which 
was good: see above. The misuse and 
perversion of good is one of the tests 


10—15. 


TIPO} POMAIOTS. 


381 


par apaptia, dua ‘rod % ayabod pot * karepyatopevn x ch. i 9rem 


Gavatov, iva Yyévnta * Kal ™ btrepBornv » duapTwros 1) 


ch, iii. 4. 
xi. 6. 1 Cor. 


xiii. 1 al. 


a a ey Sia a é MA 14 c olda € a c ore c vo 0 Zz ee a8. 
or. i. 8. 
papria did ris evrodijs. 4° oidauev yap ° drt 0 vowos 20%..8., 
Ioryevpatixos éotiv, eyo Sé ° cdpKivds eiue f rempapévos ,\.\30" 
ers \ € / 15 4 \ x / > , r (z). 2 Cor. 
U7TTO TV AbapTlav. Oo yap KaTepyalouat OU YlLW@CK@  w.7, 1. 
xu. 
only. P.+ (-BadAeu, 2 Cor. iii. 10. -AAOVTWS, 2 Cor. xi. 23.) b = here only. (ch. iii. 7 reff.) 
c ch. ii. 2. iii. 19, viii. 22, 28. 1 Cor. vili.1,4. 2Cor.v.1. 1 John iii. 2, 14 al. dch.i, 11. 1 Cor. 
xii. 1d. xiy, 1 al.+ e1 Cor, iii. 1. 2 Cor. ili. 3. Heb, vii. 16 only. 2 Chron. xxxii. 8. Ezek. 
xi. 19. xxxvi. 26 only. (-tK0s, ch. xy. 27.) f =here only. 4 Kings xvii. 17. 1 Macc.i. 15. (Acts 


iv. 34 reff.) 


so BCF ak m. (A uncert.) ] 


7 awaptia bef ayaptwdros DF tol arm Aug, Ambrst. 


14. for yap, 5¢ ADL syr-mg Orig, Cyr Thdrt Aug, Hil Ruf Ambr Bede: om eth 

arm Aug, Jer,: txt BCFK® rel vss Orig, Tit Did Chr Cyr Phot Thl ec Aug, Jer. 

rec capkikos (corrn to more usual and appy more appropriate word? but the 

two are constantly confused), with K(e sil) L&* Orig Chr Thdrt Phot Ge Thl: txt 
ABCDEN! b! 0 17 Meth Ephr Nyss Bas Cyr Thdrt Damase. 


whereby the energy of evil is detected; so 
that sin, by its perversion of the [good] 
commandment into a cause [evil] of death, 
was shewn in its real character as sin. 
That this is the rendering is evident by the 
following clause, which is parallel with it. 
Erasm., Valla, Elsner, Dr. Burton, al., 
make auaptta the subject : ‘that sin might 
appear to be working death, &e.’ [‘so that 
sin appears to have effected my death,’ Ke. 
Dr. Burton, most ungrammatically |: there 
is no objection to this on the ground of 
auapt. being anarthrous, as even Bp. Mid- 
dleton himself reluctantly acknowledges ;— 
the objection lies in the context, as above), 
that (explains and runs parallel with the 
former iva, as in 2 Cor. ix. 3, where he adds 
to the 2nd iva, xa0ws Acyov) sin might, 
by means of the commandment, become 
above measure sinful: i.e. that sin, which 
was before unknown as such, might, being 
vivified and brought into energy by (its op- 
position to) the commandment, be brought 
out as being (not merely ‘shewn to be’) 
exceedingly sinful (sinful in an exaggerated 
degree—prominent in its true character as 
the opponent of God). 14.] On the 
change into the present tense here, see 
above in the remarks on the whole section. 
Hitherto has been historical: now the 
Apostle passes to the present time, keeping 
hold yet of the carnal éy# of former days, 
whose remnants are still energizing in the 
renewed man. For (by way of explaining 
and setting in still clearer light the relative 
positions of sin and the law, and the state 
of inner conflict brought about by their 
working) we know (it is an acknowledged 
principle amongst us, see reff.) that the 
law is spiritual (sprung from God, who is 
a Spirit, and requiring of men spiritual 
purity. These meanings, which have beer 
separately held by different Commentators, 


may, as Thol. and De W. observe, well be 
united): but I (see beginning of section) 
am carnal (cdpxivos, stronger than capki- 
xkés; carneus rather than carnalis, but it 
is doubtful whether the two endings were 
not used indiscriminately: see Tholuck), 
sold (into slavery, see reff.; but the simili- 
tude must not be exacted inall particulars, 
for it is only the fact of slavery, as far as 
its victim, the man, is concerned, which is 
here prominent) under (to, and so as to be 
under the power of) sin. Tholuck (who 
differs from the view of this section advo- 
cated above, yet) adds here: “The éyé 
appears here in its totality as sinful, while 
in vv. 16, 20 it is distinguished from sin. 
That Paul does not here bear in mind this 
distinction, may be justified by the maxim, 
‘a potiori fit denominatio;’ the éyd is a 
slave, and has not his own will: as ver. 23 
shews, the éyé which is hostile to sin, 
the véuos Tod vods, is under coercion, and 
the man isacaptive. So Arrian in Epict. 
li. 22: Orrov yap Td éy& kal Td eudy, ene? 
avayKn pémev 7d Cov, ei év capkt, exer 
Td Kuptevoy elvat, ei ey Mpoaipécet, exetvo 
(qu. exe? P) efvat.” The latter clause 
of the verse is the very strongest asser- 
tion of man’s subjection to the slavery of 
sin in his carnal nature. 15.] For 
(a proof of this mempdo@a: under sin, viz. 
not being able to do what I would, vv. 
15—17) that which I perform (am in the 
habit of doing) I know not (act blindly, at 
the dictates of another: which is proper to 
a slave. oxotodua nol, cvvaprdCoua, 
emfpeay bTouevw, ovk olda THs bTocKeAl- 
Coua:, Chrys. The meaning, ‘ J approved 
not,’ introduced by Aug.and held by Erasm., 
Beza, Grot., Estius, Semler, al., is not sanc- 
tioned by usage,—see note on 1 Cor. viii. 
3,—and would make the following clause 
almost a tautology): for (explanation of last 


382 IPOs POMAIOYS. VIL 
= % “a ls lal a a an 
ekereonlyt ov yap 0 GéX\w, Tov’TO Tpdcow, GAN 0 pLo@, TOUTO TrOLw. 
vr. 5. 8. 4 16 ? \ a > 6é fal lal “A fal f o 
het Tim. i, ef 5€ 0 od OédAw, TodTO TOL, ®FaovupnuL TO VOM OTL 
8. lv. . see 
‘ A ry , 
, blow?) Nandos. 17 vuvi dé lodK Err éya * xatepyatouar avto, 
k ver. 13. © rn « 
There see. ch. GANA 7 ™otkovoa 'év €uot dyaptia. 8 oida yap OTL ovK 
vu. 9, 11. 
1 Cor. uti 16. Im o?¢ee | gy Ewol, " TouTéoTLW ev TH GapKi jLov, ayabo ; 
Gen. iv. 16. OLKEL OL, | PRL (L0U, GYOUar: ae 


ap Oérxew °mapaxetal por, TO 5é€ * KaTepyatecOat ” TO 
4p ? PY 

> \ a / n~ 3 ’ 
P xadov ov. 19 ov yap 0 OéX\w Tro ayabov, adda 6 ov Bw 


Sir. xxxiv. (xxxi.) 16. Hom. Od. x. 65. Polyb. iy. 38.7. iii. 57.8. Ken. 
2 Cor. xiii. 7. Gal. vi. 9. 1 Thess. vy, 21 only. Amos vy. 14. 


xvi. 3. 

m as above (1). 
1 Cor. vii. 12, 
13. 1 Tim. 
vi. 16 only. 

n Acts xix. 4 reff. 

Anab. vii. 3. 22. 


o here only bis t. 
p here bis. 


15. om 1st rovro DF goth Meth, Pelag Ambr, (copt om both): ins ABCKLX rel 


vualg Orig Meth, Chr Thdrt Aug. adda X. 
16. cuvonm DER. 
17. [addAa, so BDFL.] 
Ambrst and follg ver). 
18. ins to bef aya#ov F Meth, Cyr. 


for Kados, Kadoy eotiy F. 
for o1kovea, evoikovoa BX am Ambrst (evoucer am 


for Se, yap, and for kadov, ayabov F. 


rec (for ov) ovx evpioxw, with DFKL rel arm-mg Chr Thdrt Thl @e Jer Sedul: 
txt ABCR vulg Syr copt arm Meth Procl Cyr gr-mss-mentd-by-Aug Augsepe- 


19. ins Touro bef row C ¢ vulg Jeraiiq Ruf-comm. 


[aAAa, so BD!X.] 


for ov GeAw, prow F vulg-sixt(with F-lat) Thdrt Aug, Ruf-comm: om G,. 


assertion, shewing how such blind service 
comes to pass) not what I wish, that do I 
(this @éAw is not the full determination of 
the will, the standing with the bow drawn 
and the arrow aimed; but rather the in- 
clination of the will,—the taking up the 
bow and pointing at the mark, but with- 
out power to draw it:—we have éAw 
in the sense of to wish, 1 Cor. vii. 7, 32; 
xiv. 5; 2 Cor. xii. 20), but what I dis- 
like (= od @€Aw, ver. 19: no distinction 
in intensity between 6é\# and pui0@), 
that I do (no distinction here between 
mpdoow and mom, as apparently in John 
iii. 20, 21, where see note: for they are 
interchanged in vv. 19, 20). The 
Commentators cite several parallel pas- 
sages from profane writers: e. g. Seneca, 
Hippol. 604, ‘Vos testor omnes ccelites, hoc 
quod volo, me nolle ;’— Epictetus, Enchiri- 
dion ii. 26, éwel yap 6 auaprdvwy ob BAK 
Gpaptdvew, GAG Karopbaoat, djrAov dre 
® pev Oérct ov Trore?, Kal d uh OeAEL ToL? : 
—the well-known lines of Ovid, Met. vii. 
19, ‘aliudque cupido, Mens aliud suadet : 
video meliora proboque, Deteriora sequor:’ 
—Plautus, Trinummus iii. 2. 31, ‘Scibam 
ut esse me deceret, facere non quibam 
miser :’— Ke. 16.] But if (= ‘now 
seeing that ;’ takes up the foregoing and 
draws an inference from it) what I wish 
not, that I do, I agree with (bear witness 
to) the law that it is good (viz. ‘in that 
the Jaw prohibits what J a/so dislike,—the 
Jaw and Lare asone in proscribing the thing, 
—the law, and my wish, tend the same 
way ’). 17.| Now however (‘quod 
autem quum ita sit,’ not of time, as Grot., 
‘nune post legem datam,’—or Koppe, ‘ex 


quo Christianus factus sum’) it is no 
longer (not a chronological, but a logical 
sequence, ‘it can no more be said, that ;’ see 
reff.) I that perform it (karepy. as recalling 
vv. 8—15), but sin that dwelleth in me. 
Here the éyé is not the complex respon- 
sible self, by which the evil deed is wrought, 
and which incurs the guilt of working it: 
but the self of the WiLL in its higher sense, 
the @ow &vOpwros of ver. 22. The not 
bearing this in mind has led to error in 
interpretation and doctrine: e. g. when it is 
supposed that the Christian is not respon- 
sible for his sins committed against his spi- 
ritual will and higher judgment ; whereas 
we are all responsible for the épya of the 
sin that dwelleth in us, and it is in this very 
subjection to and involution with the law of 
sin in our members, that themisery consists, 
which leads to the ery in ver. 24. 

18.| An explanation of the oixotca ev 
€uot auapria of the last verse. For I 
know (by experience, detailed in the next 
verse) that there dwells not in me, that 
is, in my flesh, (any) good (thing). I 
said, sin that dwelleth in me, because I feel 
sure, from experience, that in me (meaning 
by ‘me’ not that higher spiritual self in 
which the Spirit of God dwells, but the 
lower carnal self: see on this important 
limitation the remarks at the beginning of 
the section) dwells no good thing. And 
what is my proof of this? How has expe- 
rience led me to this knowledge? For 
(the proof from experience) the wish (to 
do good) is present with me (7ap., not 
metaphorical, see reff., but, as mpoxetuat in 
Homer, used commonly of meats served up 
to, lying before, any one); but to do that 


16—23. IPOS POMAIOTS. 383 


/ aA ’ / n . 
Kakov, ToUTO mpdcow. 2 ef Sé 6 ov Gérw [eyo], TodTO a= Actsrix. 
9. xxvii. 28. 
n i > ” > \ k / > i ’ \ e lm > fal 
mow, ‘oun ett eyo * katepyafouat avTo, adra 1) ™ oixodaa 


1 Chron, xx. 
2. 


“ 


léy éuolt awaptia. 7! Ievpi dpa tov 'youov TO OédovTt 
ep pot duapria, PERT: BPE STON HA GUST GE INCI ce eee 
€“0l Trotetvy P TO P KaXOV, OTL Ewol * TO * KaKOY ° TapaxeuTaL. ‘Ero NT 


92 t , \ a t n a \ \ u» ili. 11. 10. 
ie ouVnoomat yap TO VOL@ TOU Oeod KATA TOV €O0@M = Herod. iii. 36. 


Eurip. Med, 
/ « , \ "4 , ’ r , , 
“avOpwrov, * ¥ BXérw dé ™ Erepov vopov €v Tots * pédeoly , B85 
see 2 Cor. 
iv. 16. 1 Pet. iii. 4. © évTos av@p., Plato Rep. ix. p. 589. v = and constr., Heb. x. 25, 


w = Matt. viii. 21. vv. 3, 4 al x ch. vi. 13 reff, 

20. rec aft OeAw ins eyw (corrn for emphasis: or for conformity with eyw below ?), 
with AKLX rel syr copt goth Thdrt He Augsepe : om BCDF b 0 latt Syr wth arm 
Chr-ms, Cyr Thl-comm Ambr Pelag Aug, Ambrst. [aAda, so BD!X. | 

21. om ot: to mapakerta F. 

22. for Oeov, kupiov 34: voos B. 


which is good, is not(theabsenceof eipicxw justified by Soph. Gd. Col. 966, odk dv 
in ABC, and the variations of ywdéonw etedpors euol| auaprias dvedos ovdév,— 
and €xw in one or two mss.and versions,— _ and by Plato, Rep. iv. p. 421, érepa . . rots 
and besides, the somewhat unusual termi- @vAaéiw ciphxapuev, ‘alia invenimus nos- 
nation of the sentence with ov,—are too tris custodibus observanda,’ Ficin.) to me 
strong presumptions of its being an inter- (for myself) wishing to do good, that 
polation, to allow of its retention) (present (consisting in this, that) evil is present 
with me). 19.] And this ov mapa- with (see above, ver. 18) me. 

keto@a of the doing good is shewn by my 22, 28.] Explanation of the conflict above 
acts, in that I do not the good that I wish alleged to exist. For I delight in (ody not 
(to do), but the evil which I do not wish, signifying participation with others, but as 


that I do. 20.] The inference of ver.17 perhaps in ovyAumodmevos, Mark iii. 5, and 
restated, with the premiss of ver, 16in the in the phrase cdvoidd wor; denoting ‘ apud 
place of vuv) 6€:—but its meaning is now animum meum.’ Thol. cuvndouat is a 


clearer and deeper than then; we know now _ stronger expression than ovupnuu, ver. 16) 
that the éyé which in the present verse the law of God after the inner man 
does not the evil thing, is the better éya of (= vous, ver. 25,—see reff.—and compare 
the cw &vOpwros,—whereas the euof in Peter’s 6 kpumrds ris Kapdlas &vOpwros, 
which sin dwells and rules, though included ref. 1 Pet. But not merely the mental 
in the complex self, is the lower éyé, odp—E and reasoning part of man :—for that 
pov. And so the way is now prepared for at surely does not delight in the law of God: 
once setting forth the conflict within us be- —it is absolutely necessary to presuppose 
tween these two. 21.| Ifind then (i.e. the influence of the Holy Spirit, and to 
as appears from what has been detailed) the place the man in @ state of grace before 
(this) law (presently to be defined as the this assertion can be true. And it is sur- 
law of sin in my members, and exemplified prising to find Commentators like Tholuck 
in the following words: so tod pjuaros and De Wette, while they acknowledge that 
Tov kuplov, ws édreyev, Acts xi. 16:—rTév ovvfdoua is stronger than ctupnut, yet 
Adywy Tov Kupiov “Incod, btt a’tds eimev, denying the gradual introduction of the 
Acts xx. 35 [De W.]. This is the viewof spzritual man in the description of this 
Caly., Beza, Grot., Estius, Wolf, Winer, conflict. True, THE Sprrir is not yet in- 
Meyer [ed. 1, but in subsequent editions troduced, because purposely kept back until 
he has altered his view more than once], treated of as the great Deliverer from this 
De Wette, al. It cannot well be re- state of death; the man isas yet described 
ferred to the Mosaic law, as, with various * as compounded of the outer and inner man, 
forced arrangements and constructions, of 7 odpt and 6 voids, and the operations 
Chrys., Theophyl., Theodoret, Tholuck, of the two are detailed as if unassisted,— 
Olsh., Fritz., Kéllner; the great objection even the term zvedua for the human spirit 
being, that all these do violence to thecon- being as yet avoided,—but all this is done, 
text. Tholuck’s remark, that had véuov because the object is to set the conflict and 
meant as above, it would have been anar- misery, as existing even in the spiritual 
throus, or Toirov tby véuoy, is sufficiently man, in the strongest light, so that the 
answered by the above examples: and the question in ver. 24 may lead the way to the 
dative after eiploxw, to which he also ob- real uses and blessed results of this conflict 
jects as inadmissible in any language, is inch. viii.); butI see (= ‘find :’—asif he 


584 


y here only +. 
z Luke xxi. 
24. 2 Cor. 
x. 5. 2 Tim. 
iii. 6 only, 
3 Kings 
viii. 46. 
(-tos, Luke 
iv. 18 


Tots * wéNeoly pov. 


only. -Tevewv, Eph. iv. 8 only. -ota, ib. and Rev. xiii. 10 bis only.) 


TIPO} POMAIOT®S. 


VII. 24, 25. 


’ / a “ Lal 
Lov ¥ avTLaTPATEVOMEVOY TH * VOW TOD VOOS ov, Kal * aly- 
fi 4 > na , n a“ 

parwtifovTa we [ev] TO voww * THs apwaptias TO ovTe év 
4 b / > \ ” lad / 

Tadaitwpos éya avOpwtros: Tis me 

/ J col , a 

° pvceTas EK TOV TwuaTOS * TOD BavaTov TovTOV ; * 4 ydpiS 


a genit., = ch. vi. 6 reff. b Rev. 


iii. 17 only. Isa. xxxiii. 1. (-pia, ch. iii. 16. -pecv, James iv. 9.) ce = and constr., Luke i. 74. 2 Cor. 
i. 10 al. Exod. vi. 6. w. 476, Matt. vi. 13. ch. xv. 3l al. Ps. exxxix. 1. d = ch. vi. 17 reff.. 
23. avtioTpat. kK. atxmad. (omg Me) TW VOM. Tov voos mov Tw ovTi A. rec om 2nd 


ev, with (A)CL rel syrr Meth, Cws Chr Cyr ec Thi: ins BDFKN b! ¢ k mn 17 latt 


coptt goth Clem Thdrt. 


25. rec for xapis Tw Bew, evxapioTw Tw Oew (see notes), with AKLN! rel syrr goth Orig, 
Chr @e Thi: n xapis tov Ocov D vulg Thdrt-comm(appy) lat-ff, 7 xapis Tov Kkupiou F: 
txt B 213 sah eth Meth Orig,, and x. d€ tw 6. C2 (C! uncert) N-corr! 10-7. 31. 73. 


were a spectator of that which is going on 
within) a different law (differing in kind 
and aim, not = &AAos merely) in my 
members (= éy 77 capxi pou, ver. 18), 
warring against (avtiotp. is not to be 
joined with BAérw so asto = avtiotpatev- 
eo@a, though that would’ be an allowable 
construction, see Acts viii. 28; 1 Cor. viii. 
10,—but BAémw—pov forms an indepen- 
dent sentence antithetic to ocvvj5oumoi— 
iv@pwrov) the law of my mind (the con- 
sent viz., to the law of God, which my 
mind yields; not = the law of God, any 
more than the different law in my mem- 
bers = the law of sin,—but both meaning 
the standard or rule set up, which inclina- 
tion follows :—the one in the voids, in har- 
mony with the law of God,—the other in 
the wéAn or odpé, subservient, and causing 
subservience, to the principle or law of 
sin), and bringing me (the whole complex 
self—the ‘me’ of personality and action) 
into captivity with (év, not exactly ‘by 
means of, but pointing out the department 
in which, the investiture with which, the 
taking captive has place. Nor would the 
simple dative be ‘ by means of, as Chrys., 
Theodoret, Theophyl.,— but merely ‘to?’ 
the dat. commodi aft. aixuad.) the law 
of sin (the sinful principle, of resistance to 
God’s law, 7 auapria as awakened and set 
energizing, ver. 9, by that law) which is 
in my members. Commentators have 
much disputed whether the €repos vduos, 
and the véuos tis auapr., both ev rors 
péacoly pov, are different, or the same. 


The former view is held by Calv., Beza, © 


Kéllner, Riickert, De W.: the latter by 
Reiche, Meyer, Fritz., Tholuck. It ap- 
pears to me (see above) that the identity 
cannot be maintained without introducing 
great confusion into the sentence. 

24.] The division of the man against him- 
self,—his inward conflict, and miserable 
state of captivity to sin in the flesh, while 
with the mind he loves and serves the law 
of God. From this wretched condition, 


which is a very death in life, who shall 
deliver him? odépatos cannot well be 
figurative, ‘ universitas vitiorum,’ or ‘ mor- 
tifera peccati massa, but must, on account 
of the part which 7 odpt and 7a wéAn have 
hitherto borne, be literal. Then how is 
tovtov to be taken? Some (Syr., Erasm., 
Calv., Beza, Olsh., Winer) join it with 
odépuatos, and (not Winer) justify the 
construction asa Hebraism: but Winer has 
refuted the notion (edn. 6, § 34. 3. b) of 
a Hebraism, and the arrangement has no 
Greek example. It can only be joined with 
Oavarov ;—and that most fitly, as the state 
which he has been describing is referred to 
by tot @avarov tovTov. Then the body 
of this death will mean, ‘ the body whose 
subjection to the law of sin brings about 
this state of misery,’ compare c@ua THs 
amapttas, ch. vi. 6. From this body, as 
the instrument whereby he is led captive to 
the law of sin and death, he cries out for 
deliverance: i.e. to be set free, as ch. 
viii. 2, from the law of sin and death. 
Some Commentators, misled by the notion 
of a Hendiadys (t@uatos Tod 0. = BvnTov 
oépuaros), a most fruitful source of error in 
exegesis, have imagined that the verse im- 
plies a wish to be delivered from the body 
(by death), and expresses a weariness of life. 
The cry is uttered, as De Wette well 
observes, in full consciousness of the deliver- 
ance which Christ has effected, and as lead- 
ing to the expression of thanks which fol- 
lows. And so, and no otherwise, is it to be 
taken. 25.] The rec. edxapior@ has but 
slenderauthority, and in the great variety of 
readings, it is not easy to determine. 7 xdpis 
Tov Geov is evidently a correction to answer 
to rls above; so that our choice lies be- 
tween xdpis TG 0. and xdpis 5é Ta 8. 
The sentence is (not, of course, construc- 
tionally, as the var. readg. 7 xdpis Tov 
Gov, but logically) an answer to the pre- 
ceding question: Thanks to God (who hath 
accomplished this) by means of Jesus 
Christ our Lord. This exclamation and 


wa I, 2. IIPO> POMAIOTS. 385 


T@ Oe@ Sia “Inood ypictod Tod Kupiov juav. © dpa © ody ¢oh.¥. 18 reff 
5 \ : SN a X f iy s , a A \ span res 
autos eyo TH pev ‘vol & dovrAEVw Vvouw Oeod, TH SE capKl ‘f° ™** 
vou dwaptias. VIII. | odd& dpa viv “Katdxpya ®t” 
aor ee Bas i: 4 . P pa: , i h ch. vy. 16, 18 
Tois ev xptoT@ Inoov: * 0 yap vomos Tod imvevpatos TAS ; OMT) Rev. 
eek eee 5. 


80. 93 copt arm Meth Cyr Paulin Jer,. 
om ev FN? latt lat-ff. 


eyw bef avros D'(and lat) vulg. 


Cuap. VIII. 1. om vuy D! Syr eth arm Cyr Jer Victorin Praedest. rec at end 
ins uy Kata capKa mepimarovow (so far, with AD? vulg Syr goth arm Bas Chr lat-ff) 
ahAa kata rvevpa (supplied from ver 4, from a misunderstanding of the argument: 
see notes), with D?KLN% rel Thdrt Gc Thl: om BCD!FN? coptt eth Orig-schol Ath 


Cyr Dial Ruf Aug. 


thanksgiving more than all convince me, 
that Paul speaks of none other than him- 
self, and carries out as far as possible the 
misery of the conflict with sin in his mem- 
bers, on purpose to bring in the glorious de- 
liverance which follows. Compare 1Cor. 
xv. 56, 57, where a very similar thanks- 
giving occurs. apa ovv«.T.A.] These 
words are most important to the under- 
standing of the whole passage. We must 
bear in mind that it had begun with the 
question, Is THE LAW sin? The Apostle 
has proved that it is Not, but is HOLY. 
He has shewn the relation that it holds to 
sin, viz. that of vivifying it by means of 
man’s natural aversion to the command- 
ment. He has further shewn, that in him- 
self, even as delivered by Christ Jesus, a 
conflict between the law and sin is ever 
going on: the misery of which would be 
death itself, were not a glorious deliverance 
effected. He now sums up his vindication 
of the law as holy; and at the same time, 
sums up the other side of the evidence 
adduced in the passage, from which it 
appears that the flesh is still, even in the 
spiritual man, subject (essentially, not prac- 
tically and energetically) to the law of sin, 
—which subjection, in its nature and con- 
sequences, is so nobly treated in ch. viii. 
So then (as appears from the foregoing), 
I myself (I, who have said all this against 
and in disparagement of the law ; I, who 
write of justification by faith without the 
deeds of the law: not ‘JZ alone,’ without 
Christ, as opposed to the foregoing,—as 
De Wette, Meyer: nor, ‘ego idem,’ I, one 
and the same person, as Beza, Erasm., 
Calv., Olsh.: nor ‘ 2le ego,’ as Grot., Thol. 
See, for the meaning given above, ch. viii. 
26 [avrd 7d mvedual; ix. 3; xv. 14; 
2 Cor. xii. 13, in all which places [see on 
ch. xv. 14] it has the same force) with 
my mind (indeed) (6 voids = 6 eow uv6p. 
as. in ver. 23) serve the law of God (cf. 
cvvndouat, ver. 22), but with my flesh 
Vou. II. 


(the ey of ver. 18; and the cdpt through- 
out of ch. viii.) the law of sin. It re- 
mains to be seen how this latter subjection, 
which in the natural man carries all with 
it, is neutralized, and issues only in the 
death of the body on account of sin, in 
those who do not walk after the flesh, but 
after the Spirit. Cuap. VIII. 1—39.] 
In the case of those who are in Christ 
Jesus, this divided state ends in the glo- 
rious triumph of the Spirit over the flesh : 
and that (vv. 1—17), though incompletely, 
not inconsiderably, even here in this state, 
—and (vv. 18—380) completely and glo- 
riously hereafter. And (vv. 31—39) the 
Christian has no reason to fear, but all 
reason to hope; for nothing can sever him 
Srom God’s love in Christ. 1—17.] 
Although the flesh is still subject to the 
law of sin, the Christian, serving not the 
flesh, but walking according to the Spirit, 
shall not come into condemnation, but to 
glory with Christ. 1,] There is there- 
fore (an inference from ch. vii. 25, because 
with their mind, and that mind dwelé in 
and led by the Spirit of Christ, they 
serve, delight in, the law of God) now 
(this viv is emphatic, and follows upon 
the question and answer of vii. 24, 25, 
—rebus sie stantibus,—now that a de- 
liverance has been effected from the body 
of this death, by Christ. This is certain 
from the yap which follows, setting forth 
the fact of the deliverance) no condemna- 
tion (reff. ; = the penal consequence of sin 
original and actual) to those (who are) in 
Christ Jesus. The expression év xp. “Inc. 
refers particularly to the last place where 
God’s gift of life eternal in Christ Jesus 
our Lord was spoken of, ch. vi. 238,—and 
generally to all that was said in that chap- 
ter of our incorporation into and union 
with Him. The words ph kara cdpra 
mepimatovo, GAAG Kata mvedua, ‘walking 
as they do not according to the flesh but 
according to the Spirit, = probably a 
fo} 


586 


TIPO POMAIOTS. 


VIII. 


. a a“ rn lol "4 
koh. vit8 re i Leng vy ypict@ Inaod * jrevOépwcév * we aro TOD vomou 


l see Acts xiv. 
§ reff. constr. 


xii. 17. 
Heb. ii. 18. 
2 Cor. xiii. 


Lal Lal , 
THs Gmaptias Kal Tov Oavartov. 


es \ ] 150 a 
TO yap a UVVQATOV TOU 


2d n € nn 
-2Cor  pdmou, Mev @ “noOéver Sia THs sapKos, o Geos Tov EavTod 


ACDKL rel vulg syr sah goth eth Chr Thdrt Ge Thl Tert Jer Ambr. 


gloss introduced from ver. 4, right enough 
in sense (see there), but out of place here, 
because this moral element of ‘those in 
Christ’ is not yet brought in: the present 
assertion is general, and is made good in 
detail by and by. See digest. 2.) 
For (a reason why there is no condemna- 
tion) the law (norma, method = influence, 
as in €repov véuoy, ch. vii. 23,—used here 
perhaps for sharper contrast to the véuos 
apapt. below) of the Spirit of life (the 
Lord and Giver of life—life used in an 
incipient higher sense than (wv in ch. vii. 
9,—see below) freed me (aor., referring to 
the time of his conversion. There is no 
stronger proof to my mind of the identity 
of the speaker in the first person through- 
out with the Apostle himself, than this 
extension of that form of speaking into this 
chapter: nothing more clearly shews, that 
there he was describing a really existing 
state within himself, but insulating, and as 
it were exaggerating it [as so often], to 
bring out more clearly the glorious de- 
liverance to follow. If ce be read, the ad- 
dress is a general one to the reader, leading 
on to the juiv below: and the foregoing 
argument does not apply) in Jesus Christ 
(I follow the more regular grammatical 
arrangement in taking ev xp. "Inc. with the 
verb. Thus also Thol. and De Wette. 

It may be taken [notwithstanding the 
absence of the art., at which indeed only 
tiros will stumble] with (ws, as Luther, 
which seems to suit ch. vi. 23,—or with 
7Tov mv.7.¢.,as8 Piscator and Flatt,—or with 
6 véu. tT. 7. t. ¢, as Calv.) from the law 
of sin (vii. 25) and death (death again 
here bears a higher meaning than in ch. 
vii. We are now on higher ground :— 
katdakpipa having been mentioned, which 
is the punishment of sin, death now involves 
that, and is not only temporal misery, but 
eternal ruin also. This ‘law of the Spirit 
of life’ having freed him from the law of 
sin and death, so that he serves another 
master, all claim of sin on him is at an 
end —he is acquitted, and there is no con- 
demnation for him). 3.] For (ex- 
planation of ver. 2, shewing the method of 
this liberation) that which was not in the 
power of the law (the construction is a 
moninativus pendens, as in ref. Heb., in ap- 


position with the following sentence, 6 @eds 
k.T.A.: so Riickert, Meyer, Fritz., De W., 
Tholuck: Winer, § 32. 7, makes it an acc. 
governed by éwolnoey understood [stating 
however in edn. 6, the nom. pendens as an 
alternative ; see also § 63.2.d]: Olsh.al., 
make it an acc. absol. or supply katd: 
Camerarius and Beza, 5:4 ;—but the above 
seems the simplest. To advvaT. TOU 
vopnov may mean either, ‘that part of the 
law which was impossible,’ —*‘ could not be 
obeyed,’—as 7d yrwordy Tod Geod, ch. i. 19; 
—or, ‘ the inability of the law’ = % advuva- 
pla T.v., a8 TO xpnoTdy Tov Geod, ch. ii. 4; 
—or, ‘that which was unable to be done by 
the law.’ Of these, the first is out of the 
question, because véuos must be the sub- 
ject of év 6 708. «.7.A. :—the second would 
give the first clause the meaning, ‘that 
wherein the inability of the law shewed 
itself,’ viz. its powerlessness 61a 7. capkds. 
The third yields by far the best meaning: 
see below on 6:4 7. o.) in that (this clause 
gives a reason and explanation of the adv- 
vatov, see however the note on ref. Heb.) 
it was weak (the Apostle keeps in mind 
his defence of the holiness of the law 
undertaken in ch. vii., and as Chrys. ob- 
serves, dSoxe? wey d:aBdAAew roy kaos ei 
dé tis axpiB@s mposéxot, kal apddpa avrdy 
émaivel . . . ovde yap elwe Td movnpdy TOU 
vouov, GAAG Td GdvvaTov’ Kal wdAw év 
@ joGéver, od, ev @ exakoipye, ev @ 
émeBovAeve. Hom. xiv. p. 563) through 
the flesh (i.e. in having to act through the 
flesh: not, ‘on account of the flesh,’ i.e. 
of the hostility, or weakness of the flesh, 
which would be d:a tiv cdpxa. The flesh 
was the medium through which the law,— 
being a véuos évroAjs capklyns, Heb. vii. 
16,—wrought, and oi év capxi the objects 
on which. So the gen. here is similar to 
that in 2 Cor. ii. 4, éypaya Suiv 81a mod- 
Aa@y Saxptwv, and 1 Pet. v. 12, 5? dAlywr 
éypawa, indicating the state in or medium 
through which, the action is carried on), 
—God (did) sending His own Son (the 
stress is on éavrov, and the word is preg- 
nant with meaning :— His own, and there- 
fore like Himself, holy and sinless. This 
implication should be borne in mind, as 
the suppressed antithesis to auapr., three 
times repeated afterwards. Another anti- 


8) a. 


> , . 
viov hadi ev ° opoudware P TapKos P dpaptias Kal Sarept 0 ch. i. 25 reff 


TIPO POMAIOTS. 


387 


Phil. 
iii, 21 bis. 


p constr., 


a a tlas T KaTEK WeEV TI; Vv a a Tlav év TH oa KL, & j iva TO 9 — He». = 6, 
P ’ Lh 


thesis may be implied—éavrod, and there- 
fore spiritual, not acting merely through 
the flesh, though in its likeness, but bring- 
ing a higher spiritual life into the man- 
hood) in the likeness of the flesh of sin 
(the flesh whose attribute and character 
was SIN. he gen. is not = auaprwdod, 
but implies far more—the belonging to and 
being possessed by. De Wette observes, 
‘The words év duoimu. capk. au. appear 
almost to border on Docetism; but in 
reality contain a perfectly true and con- 
sistent sentiment. odpi auapr. is flesh 
{human nature, John i. 14; 1 John iv. 2; 
Heb. ii. 14] possessed with sin: the Apostle 
could not then have said év capt ay. with- 
out making Christ partaker of sin: nor 
could he have said merely ev capxt, for 
then the bond between the Manhood of 
Jesus, and sin, would have been wanting : 
he says then, ev duo. cap. au.,—mean- 
ing by that, He had a nature like sinful 
human nature, but had not Himself a sin- 
ful nature,—compare Heb. iv. 15: od 
yap €xouev apxiepéa mh BSuvduevoy ovv- 
mabnoa Tais aobevelas jay, memeipac- 
pévoy 5€ kata mayta Kal’ duoidtnTa xwpls 
auapttas. The likeness must be referred 
not only to cdpt, but also to the epithet 
77s au.:—it did not however consist in 
this, that He took our sins [literally] on 
Himself, and became Himself sinful [as 
Reiche |], which would not amount to like- 
ness of nature,—but in this, that He was 
able to be tempted, i. e. subjected to sen- 
suous incitements, e. g. of pain, which in 
other men break out into sin, but in Him 
did not.’ See Phil. ii. 7, and note. 

odpé is not = c@ua, but as in John i. 14, 
the material, of which man is in the 
body compounded),—and on account of 
sin (to be joined with wéeuas, not as 
Chrys. al. Vulg., with xaréxpivev: least 
of all as Luther, “und verdammete die 
Siinde in Fleisch durch WSiinde.” The 
‘for, or ‘on account of, sin, is at present 
indefinite, and not to be restricted to 
Christ’s death as a sin-offering, which is 
not just now the subject. ‘On account of 
sin’? then,= to put away sin, as retf. 
Heb.), condemned sin in the flesh (not 
‘the sin which was in the flesh,’ which 
would probably [not certainly] have been 
Thy év rt. o., and which is against the 
context, in which au. is throughout an 
absolute principle. KatéKkpivev is 
allusive to kataxpiua ver. 1. Hence it 
has been taken to mean that God con- 


viii. 8. Lev. v. 11. aoe il. reff 
demned, punished, sin in the flesh by the 
death of Christ: so Orig., Erasm., Calv., 
Melancthon, Calov., Olsh., al. But that 
can hardly be the meaning here, for several 
reasons. 1. The Apostle is not speaking of 
the removal of the guilt, but of the practice 
of sin, and of the real fulfilment of the law 
in those who are in Christ. It is this which 
even in ver. 1 is before him, grounding as 
he does the ovSé katrakpiua on the dov- 
Aetw vduw Geov—on the new and sanctify- 
ing power of the Spirit by Christ, in spite 
of the continued subjection of the flesh to 
the law of sin. 2. The context shews that 
the weakness of the law was, its having no 
sanctifying power ;—it could arouse sin, 
but it could not condemn and cast it out. 
This indeed is the burden of ch. vii. The 
absence of justifying power in the law has 
already been dealt with. 3. The following 
verse clearly makes the fulfilling the &- 
kalwua of the law no matter of mere im- 
putation, but of mepumateiy kata mvedua. 

We must then look for the meaning of 
katakplyew in the effects and accompani- 
ments of condemnation,—victory over, and 
casting out of sin. See, for example, John 
xii. 31, where xpiois Tod Kécpuou TovTov is 
explained by 6 &pxav tod Kéopuov Tovtov 
éexBAnejoerar ew, and ib. xvi. 11. As 
early as Irenzeus [Her. iii. 20. 2, p. 214] 
this was seen to be the sense: ‘ut con- 
demnaret peccatum, et jam quasi condem- 
natum projiceret illud extra carnem :—so 
Chrys., évixnoev abrqy, Thy Sivauw avTis 
ekéAvoe.—(CHicum. 2, mas efjpe; kaTaxplvas 
avtiv—kal deltas GAovoav. mas ody EdAW 
kal Arete 5 €v TH gap) avtov. m™pos- 
Leva yap BovAnbeion k. uy isxtcaca édAw 
kK. ATT)Ta,—and Theophyl. [tiv capra] 
nylace k. eorepdvace, Katakplyas Thy 
Guaptlay ev TH capkt mposAnpbcton kal 
beitas bt ob piace GuaptTwAds 7 oapék. 
And so, in modern times, Beza, Vitringa, 
Bengel, the Schmidts, Rosenm., Meyer, 
De Wette, Tholuck, Locke, Stuart, al., 
and mainly Grot., Reiche, and Fritz., who 
however render it ‘interfecit’ or ‘sup- 
plicio affecit,’ and understand the occa- 
sion to have been the Death of Christ,— 
though the condemnation of sin is owing 
to His sinlessness, not to, His sacrifice. 
I have dwelt at length on this question, 
as being very important to the right 


_apprehension of the whole chapter, in 


this part of which zot the justification, 
but the sanctification, of Christians is 
the leading subject. It is a strong con- 


Coz 


388 


r=ch. i. 32 
reff, 
s = ch. xiii. 8 


al. 

tch. i. 3,4 
(reff.). 

uch. vi. 4 reff. 

y constr., Matt. 
xvi. 23, Luke 
ii. 49. ch. ii. 
ld. Thuc, 
viii. 31. 

w = Matt. xvi. 
23 || Mk. ch. 
xii. 16. 

Phil. iii. 19. 
Col. iii. 2. 
1 Mace. x. 20. 

x here 3ce. 
ver. 27 
only +. 


Viv ? / 
Kal ¥ €p7Vv7. 


2 Mace. vii. 21. xiii. 9 only. 


1 Chron, xxix. 24. 
1 Thess. iv. 1. 


Dan. vi. 13 Theod. 
1 Cor. vii. 32, &c. 


ii. 51 al. 
xy. 1, &e. 


7. for diott, ore F. 
8. ins Tw bef bew D. 


firmation of the above view, that God’s 
condemnation of sin in the flesh by 
Christ is stated in ver. 3 as the ground of 
[ver.2] my being freed from the law of sin 
and death: because, viz. Christ’s victory 
over sin is mine, by my union with Him 
and participation in His Spirit. ev TH 
capkt is not ‘in His flesh, or ‘by means 
of His flesh, as Orig., Syr. [Peschito], 
Beza, Grot., Reiche, Olsh., al., but ‘in the 
Jlesh,’ which Christ and ourselves have in 
common), 4.| in order that (the pur- 
pose of God’s condemning sin in the flesh) 
the requirement of the law (= all its re- 
quirements [statutes], but here combined 
in one for the sake of more distinct objec- 
tivity. The variations in interpretation of 
ver. 3 have given rise to corresponding ones 
here. But here the matter has been more 
complicated still by the Vulg. rendering 
dixalwua, ‘justificatio,” which has thrown 
the weight of the Romanist interpreters on 
the side of ‘justitia imputata’ The usage 
of the word itself would preclude any such 
reference here, besides the considerations 
urged in the note above) might be fulfilled 
in us (find its full accomplishment ;—not 
merely = ‘be performed dy us,’—for the 
Apostle has a much deeper meaning, viz. 
that the aim of God in giving the Law 
might be accomplished in us, in our sancti- 
fication, which is the ultimate end of our 
redemption, Eph. ii. 10; Col. i. 22. The 
passive is used, to shew that the work is not 
ours, but that of God by His grace, Olsh., 
Thol., De Wette) who walk (not ‘ walking 
as we do, which would be anarthrous,— 
but a description of a// those of whom the 
above is true) not after the flesh but after 
the Spirit (who, notwithstanding that we 
are bound up with a odpf auaprias, do not 
walk in our daily life according to, or led 
by, the vduos rijs Guaprias 6 ev Tots wéAe- 
ow hpav, but according to and led by the 


TIPOS POMAIOTS. 


y = ch. ii. 10 reff, 
xxiii. 12, Gal, vy, 20. Eph. ii. 15,16. James iy. 4 only. Gen. iii. 15. w. ets, here only. 


2 Tim. ii. 4. 


Vi. 


6 ro yap * ppovnwa 


a Luke 
b Luke 
d Acts vi. 5 reff. ch. 


z=ch.i, 21. 1 Cor. xv. 9. 


e ch, ii. 28 reff. 
Proy, xii. 21. 


for duvarai, ovvara &}, 


vouos Tov mvevmatos THs CwHs, in Christ 
Jesus—members of Him, and participating 
in that victory over sin which He obtained, 
by which the power of sin in our flesh is 
broken). 5. | For (explanation of the 
last) those who live according to the flesh 
(dvtes not quite = mepimatoiytes, but 
nearly :—the latter is the evidence of the 
former, and a consequence of it: of kara 
odpka bytes = of odpkiwor) mind (‘ think 
of, ‘care for, and strive after,’ see reff.) 
the things belonging to the flesh (its 
objects of desire): but those (who live) 
according to the Spirit (= of mrevuarikol, 
see above), (mind) the things belonging 
to the Spirit (the higher aims and objects 
of desire of the spiritual life). 

6. | For (the spiritual man cannot seek the 
things of the flesh, because) the mind 
(thoughts, cares, and aims as above) of 
the flesh is (ends in—the copula [=], as 
when it joins the two signs of an algebraic 
operation ;—‘ amounts to, being worked 
out’) death (not merely physical, nor mere 
unhappiness, as sometimes in ch, vii., but 
as in ver. 2, in the largest sense, extending 
to eternity); but the mind (thoughts, 
cares, and aims) of the Spirit, is (see 
above) life and peace (in the largest 
sense, as above). In this argument there is 
a suppressed premiss, to be supplied from 
ver. 2; viz. ‘The Spirit is the Spirit of life.’ 
Hence it follows that the spiritual man can- 
not mind the things of the flesh, because 
such mind is death. The addition ral eiphyn 
seems to be made to enhance the unlikeli- 
hood of such a minding,—the peace of the 
Spirit being a blessed contrast to the tumult 
of the fleshly lusts, even in this life. 

7.] Because (reason why the mind of the 
flesh is death) the mind of the flesh is 
enmity (contrast to eiphyn above) against 
God (it being assumed that God is the 
source of Cw, and that @x@pa against Him 


"Sixalwpa Tod vomouv SmwAnpwOn év Huiv Trois wy * KaTa ABCD 

A Ms a 

‘odpxa “qepitatovow, adda ‘Kata Tredpua. 

\ , lol fa 

‘kata ‘oadpKa ovtTes ‘Ta THs capKos * dpovodow, ot b€ o17 

‘kata 'avedwa Y Ta TOU TVEvpaToS. 

a \ / \ , a ‘ 

THS capKos Oavaros, TO dé *ppovnwa Tod mvevpatos Fan 

12 8 , \.x ' im ps 2 > 

Lott TO* hpovnwa THs capKos * €yOpa eis 

fal N U rn lal \ 

Oeov' T@ yap voum TOD Oeod ody » UToTdacETAL, OVSE Yap 
bu <8 be cep © \ bee 9 apé » OU 

vvatat 8 ot dé ° ev “capi dvTes Oe@ 4 apécat ov SvvavTat. 

as he 


6 ah ie 
ol yap cafe 
i et Be 


—s 


5—l1. 


9 tmets d€ ovK eoTe © ev ° cape andra © ev Tvebpart, ‘eltrep ¢; e-= John fv 
hed d€ Tus 3 med pun xprarob 


avevpa Geod 8 oixet €v bpiv. 


h > i ¥ e ? ” ’ a 
OUK oe OUTOS OUK E€OTLY QAUTOU. 


IIPO> POMAIOTS. 


389 


Eph. vi. 

is, Col. i. 8. 

= Rey, i. 10. 
.2al. 


10 €l 6€ xpiaros ép fh, side 


Upmiv, TO wey Toma veKpov ova sounidime sts TO O€ Trvedua Cw) vanes: 


bua Stkavoawyny. ef dé TO myedpa, si * éyelpavTos [ror] 
EK VEeKp@V © oiKEl ev Lui, O 


"Inooov *é 


Cor. v. 3 
v.r. 2 Thess. 
i.6. 1 Pet. 


 éyelpas xpiorov Keke 9 arty 


reff. 
VEKPOV eeerecua es Kal Ta ™ Ovnra TOMATA VMOV, OLA TO h Matt. xvi. 


i1 Cor. vii. 40. Jude 19. 


m en we ‘12 reff. 
9. [aAAa, so BD!N. | 
10. om e de xp. ev um. F. 
dg m.] 


aft owua ins cori F. 
for (wn, (m F vulg(not am fuld harl!) arm. 


42. 1 Cor, 


k 1 Cor. xv. 12 reff. 1 ch. iv. 17 reff. 


(da au., so ABCD3FL 


iL. ins tov bef mmo. ABN! 0: om CDFKLN% rel (Clem) Cyr-jer Chr Thdrt @e Thi. 
rec ins tov bef xpiorov, with K LN? rel Hipp Thdrt (Ze Thl: om AB(C)D!3FR1 


gr-lat-ff.—for xpiorov, xp. ino. A(aft vexp.) D1 R' (aft vexp.) gr-lat-ff : 
tov ingovv lect-13, Troy Kupiov 114-5, 7. Kup. nu. no. xp. Syr : 


ay vulg copt «th: 


ino. xp. C(aft 


txt BD§FKL rel syr sah Thdrt Dial-trin @e Thl Iren-int Did Tert, Hil. 


om kat AN 39. 47. 


is the absence of all true peace) : for it is 
not subject (or, ‘does not submit itself,’ 
perhaps better) to the law of God,—for 
neither can it be (this was proved in ch. 
Vii.) : 8.] but (takes up the other 
and inferential member of the proposi- 
tion, answering to a suppressed peév pre- 
ceding,—7d ev ppdyvnua x.t.A. Calv., 
Beza, al. render it ‘therefore,’ and so 
K. V., ‘so then,’ erroneously) they who are 
in the flesh (as their element of life and 
thought: nearly = katd cdpra bytes above, 
which however denotes the rule which 
they follow. In 2 Cor. x. 3, the two are 
distinguished: év capki yap mepitatoiv- 
Ts ov KaTa odpKa oTpatTevducba) Can. 
not please God. Melancthon remarks 
(Thol.),—* Hie locus maxime refutat Pela- 
gianos et omnes qui imaginantur homines 
sine Spiritu Sancto legi obedire.’ 9.] 
But (oppos. to of kar. odp. dvres) ye are 
not in the flesh (see above), but in the 
Spirit, if so be that (‘provided that ;’ 
not ‘since, as Chrys., Olsh., al., which 
would be ézelwep: Chrys. tries to prove 
efrep = erelmep here by adducing ref. 
2 Thess., where, however, as here, the 
meaning is, ‘if so be that, ‘if at least.’ 
That this is the meaning here is evident by 
the exception which immediately follows). 
But (this must be rightly understood: for) 
if any man has not (ov«, and not uh, be- 
cause it belongs to the verb and not to «i. 
De W. See Winer, edn. 6, § 55. 2. d) 
the Spirit of Christ (=v. @cod above. 
Obs. here that my. Oc00, mv. xpiorod, and 
xpiords, are all used of the Holy Spirit 
indwelling in the Christian), he*is not His 
(belongs not to Him, in the higher and 
blessed sense of being united to Him as a 


elz 51a Tov evoikouytos avtou mvevmatos (see notes), with ACR 


member of Him). 10.] But (con- 
trast to the last verse) if Christ is in you 
(= tv. Bed oike? év bu., see 2 Cor. iii. 17), 
the (your) body indeed is dead on account 
of sin (still remains dead, see 2 Cor. iv. 
11—14, under the power of death physi- 
cal [and eternal ?] because of sin which 
it, per se, stands in, and serves), but the 
(your) spirit (thy Puxhy Aéyel, ws TvEvMa- 
Tiny HOn, yeyeynuevnv. Schol. ap. Mat- 
thei [Thol.]: or rather perhaps he uses 
mvevua, regarding our spirits as possessed 
and penetrated by God’s Spirit) is life 
(this would hardly be said if only our 
human spirits were meant, but the de- 
scription would be in the adjectival form) 
on account of righteousness (not here the 
imputed righteousness of justification, 
which is not now under treatment, but 
the implanted righteousness of the sanc- 
Jjication of the Spirit. This appears not 
only from the context, but also from the 
514 4uaptlay, which answers to it). 

11.] But (6¢€ takes up and continues the 
supposition in the former verse, with 
which in fact this is nearly identical, but 
with the important additional particular 
{whence the contrast] Tod éyelpavr. K.7.A.) 
if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus 
from the dead, dwells in you (which 
Spirit is therefore powerful over death, 
and besides renders you partakers of 
Christ's Resurrection), He who raised 
Christ from the dead (the personal name, 
JESUS, reminds more of the historic fact 
of the resurrection of the one Person, 
Jesus: the official and mystical name, 
Curist, of the body of which He is the 
Head and we the members,—all raised 
with Him by the one Spirit dwelling in 


390 IIPO> POMAIOT?®. VIII. 
* Got it 16 ” €volKoDY aUTOU media, €v bpiv. 12 ° dpa ° obv, aderpoi, 


2 Tim. i. q 
14 only, Lev. Po doce a asi ov TH capKl 4700 
xxv 

och. v.18 reff. 13 


\ ~ 
"kata ' oapKa oy. 


och.y. sre 13 €f yap ‘Kata *odpKa ire, * MérXETE ATroOvncKEW* et Oé 
q constr., 1 Cor. u 6 v 6 
x. 1S ref mvevpate Tas ‘mpakes TOU cwpaTos * Gavatoirte, ’ HyoecOe. 
rch, 1. ret. 
s = Acts xxi. 27. xxviii. 6. t = Acts xix. 18 reff. u ch. vii. 4 reff. v = Heb. 
x. 38. xii. 9. 


Dial-trin (Dial iii. 20, Athanas. Opp. vol iv. p 452. The Maced. has previously said 
oUtws ov yéypamTat Aid ToD . . GAAA Ala Td. ., and adds édy oby rov ev h Bebtepov 
avr lypapov ebpeby eoparuevoy map’ buiv ... . to which the Orthodox replies, Exouev 
dettat Gre ev GAots apxatos avTvypapois oVTw yéypamra evel be voulCes TovTO ayTideys- 
pevoy elvat, TAnpopopHOnt: Ka e& KAANS ypadix7s amodel~ews. Maced. ciné, todTo yap 
avTtAéyerat) syr copt «th Clem Hipp Cyr-jer Ath, Did Bas, Epiph, Chr, Cyr Mac Ambr 
Augsepe Vig: txt BDFKL befghk1lno17 latt Syr sah Orig, Meth Chr, Thdrt 
Sevrn Max (&e-comm Thl Iren-int Tert Hil Ambrst Ruf Jer Ambr,ji, Aug, Pelag Sedul 
Fulg. 

13. for Tov cwuatos, Tns capKos DF latt Orig, Did Iren-int Tert Cypr Ambrst Ambr 
Jer Aug Ruf Pelag Sedul Bede: txt ABCKLN® rel sah Orig, Chr Thdrt. 


all) shall quicken (not merely éeyepe?, be- _ parties. As to how far the Holy Spirit 


cause it is not merely the resurrection of 
the body which is in the Apostle’s view,— 

see below) even your mortal bodies (the 
higher phase of the (womoeiy takes place 
in the spirit of man: and even of that 
which takes place in the body, there are 
two branches—one, the quickening it from 
being a tool of unrighteousness unto death 
[eternal |,—the other, the quickening it out 
of death [physical] to be a new and glori- 
fied body. And the xafjoined with @vnrd, 
here, signifies that the working of the 
mvevua Cworoodv shall not stop at the 
purely spiritual resurrection, nor at that 
of the body from dead works to serve the 
living God, but shall extend even to the 
building up the spiritual body in the future 
new and glorious life), on account of His 
Spirit which dwells in you. Here the 
reading is much disputed, whether it be 
the acc. or gen.: see var. readd. The 
gen. can only mean, ‘by means of,’ 
‘through,’ His Spirit, &e.: this the ace. 
may include, (it not being specified for 
what reason it is on the Spirit’s account, 
and leaving it open to be His presence, 
or His agency,) but must be rendered ‘ on 
account of,’ or ‘because of,’ His Spirit, 
&e. Thus both may imply that the Holy 
Spirit is the agent in the quickening; but 
the gen. cannot bear the other meaning, 
that God will quicken, &c. because of His 
Spirit, &c. Hence in dispute with the 
Macedonians, who denied the divinity of 
the Holy Spirit, the gen. reading was im- 
portant to the orthodox, as expressing 
agency, and that alone. But it seems 
pretty clear that the variation was older 
than the time of this heresy, and, how- 
ever it may then have been appealed to, 
its origin cannot be assigned to any falsi- 
fication by either of the then disputant 


is the direct Agent in the resurrection 
of the body, see note on mvedua (wor-., 
1 Cor. xv. 45, and on 2 Cor. v. 5. Here, 
His direct agency cannot be in any way 
surprising, for it is the whole process of 
bringing from death to life, extending 
even to the mortal body, which is here 
spoken of—and unquestionably, ‘the Lord 
and Giver of Life’ is the agent throughout 
in this quickening. ‘ Non de ultima resur- 
rectione, que momento fiet, habetur sermo, 
sed de continua Spiritus operatione, que 
reliquias carnis paullatim mortificans, cce- 
lestem vitam in nobis instaurat.’ Calv.:— 
but perhaps ‘non solum de ultima resur- 
rectione,’ would have been more correct : 
for it certainly is one thing spoken of. 

12, 13.| So then, brethren, we ane 
(inference from the assurance in the last 
verse) debtors (we owe fealty: to what 
or whom, he leaves the reader to supply 
from ver. 11), not to the flesh, to live 
according to the flesh (Chrysostom well 
explains the qualification, tod xara a. ¢.,— 
kal yap ToAAG atrT, dpelAouer, 7d Tpepew 
aithy, To OdAmew, TO avaravetv, TO Oe- 
pamevery vooovcay, Td mepiBdAAew, Kal 
pupla €repa Aettoupyeiv. ty’ obv uh vo- 
hlons 611 rabtny avaipet thy diaxovlay, 
cimav ov éop. db. TH cap., Epunveber 
avTd A€ywy TOU Kk. o. Cow . TouTéaTe 
Lh woiuev avthy Kuplay THs (wis Tis 
nuetépas. Hom. xiv. p. 576): for if ye 
live according to the flesh, ye will 
(uéAAere of the certain end of your present 
course) die (¢jv and aroéy. here in their 
full and pregnant sense, involving body and 
soul here and hereafter: but not to be un- 
derstood as excluding the carnal from any 
resurrection—only from that which is truly 
¢jv,—any more than the spiritual are 
exempted from all death, but only from 


ABCD 
KLNa 
cdfg 

klm) 
o17 


12—15. 


14 Go0u ya j beod 
yap mvevpate Oeod 
Geod. 


zconstr., 2 Cor. iv. 13. Epb.i.17. 2 Tim. i. 7. 
xx. 2 al. bch ae 16 reff. 
d = Gal. vi. 1. e Gal. iv. 


TIPO POMAIOTS. 


Ww »” 
ayovTat, 
\ , a 
15 ov yap Y éhaBere %* mvedua * dovnelas ame > els 
ts ’ \ , , a , e 
poor, adda ¥ éhaBere %* mrvedpwa * viobecias, 4 év @ ° 


391 


ovTot * viol elow w=and 
constr., Gal. 
v. 18, 2 Tim. 
iii. 6. 

y x ver. 19 reff. 


fx A= y Acts viii. 15 
ee 


Gal. iv. 24. v. 1. Heb. ii. 15 oaty, Exod. 
. 23. ch. ix. 4. Gal. iv. 5. Eph. i. 5 only +. 


a Lae ad 


f Mark x. 48 Le. oo Ixxvi. 1. cvi. 6, &c. 


14. rec crow vio Oeov (corrn of order, as is also v. 0. «.), with KL rel Chr Thdrt 
Tren-int: us. de. exo, ACDN fuld wth Orig, Damase Cypr Cassiod Gaud: txt BF am(with 


demid al) Syr Orig 
15. [adAa, so ABCN. } 


that which is truly @¢varos): butif by the 
Spirit ye slay (abolish, annul) the deeds 
(hardly as Thol. ‘sensu obscceno,’ but as 
Col. iii. 9, the whole course of habits and 
action which has the flesh for its prompter) 
of the body (= 77s capxés, but here con- 
crete to give more vivid reality : compare 
Ta épya THs caprés, Gal. v. 19), ye shall 
live (not wéAAeTe Civ, this Life being no 
natural consequence of a course of mortify- 
ing the deeds of the body, but the gift of 
God through Christ : and coming therefore 
in the form of an assurance, ‘ye shall live,’ 
from Christ’s Apostle. On (jv, see above). 
14. | For (ground of the assurance con- 
tained in (joeoOe) as many as are led by 
(reff. ;—the slaying the deeds of the body 
by the Spirit, implies the being under the 
Spirit’s guidance) the Spirit of God, these 
(emphatic—‘ these and no others’) are 
Sons of God. vids 6. differs from Tékvov 
@. in implying the higher aud more mature 
and conscious member of God’s family, see 
Gal. iv. 1—6, and note on 6. Hence our 
Lord is never called réxvov but always 
vids Gcod. This latter, applied to a Chris- 
tian, signifies ‘one born of God’ in its 
deepest relation to him,—and hence a par- 
taker of His nature, 1 John iii. 9; 1 Pet. 
i. 23 (Tholuck, similarly Olsh.). 
15, 16.] Appeal to the CONSCIOUSNESS of 
the Christian to confirm the assertion (as- 
sumed for the moment that he zs led by 
God’s Spirit) that he is a son of God. 
For (confirmantis) ye did not receive (at 
your becoming Christians) the spirit of 
bondage (=‘the Spirit which ye received 
was not a spirit of bondage.’ zy. is not 
merely a spirit, a disposition, but evidently 
refers to the same mv. which afterwards is 
mv. viobec., and avTd Td mv. The Apostle 
seems however in this form of expression, 
both here and elsewhere, see reff., to have 
combined the objective Mvedpa given to 
us by God with our own subjective 
mvedua. In the next verse they are sepa- 
rated) again (it has been imagined here 
that the maAw must refer to a former 
bestowal of the mvedua SovAelas, and con- 
sequently that the reference is to the 


, Did Hil, Aug Ruf Bede. 


O. T. dispensation. In this two different 
sets of Commentators have found diffi- 
culties; (1) those, as Chrys.,—who would 
hold from John vii. 39, that the Holy 
Spirit was absolutely not given under 
the O. 'T., and (2) those, as Cocceius, who 
holding Him to have been given, deny that 
His character was mv. Sovdrclas. But 
there seems to me to be no occasion to go 
back for the reference of wdéAw to the 
O. T. The state of the natural man is 
dovAcla: the Holy Spirit given to them, 
the agent of their birth into, and sustainer 
of, a new state, was not a mv. SovAeias 
mdéAw eis ., a spirit merely to retain 
them in, or take them back into their old 
state, viz. astate of slavery :—to whom, or 
whether to different masters, is not here in 
question, but the state merely—the object 
of the gift of the Holy Spirit was not to lead 
them back into this) towards fear (so as to 
bring about or result in fear, see ch. vi. 19. 
méAw can hardly, as De W., be taken with 
eis pd8.), but ye received the Spirit of 
(the Spirit whose effect was, see above) 
adoption (this stricter meaning, and not 
that of mere sonship, is plainly that in- 
tended by the Apostle, both here and in 
reff. So Fritz., Meyer, Olsh., Harless on 
Eph. i. 5, Tholuck: on the other hand 
batted Winer, Riickert, De Wette, al., 
see on ver. 23. Ofcourse, the adoption to 
be a son involves sonship, but not the con- 
verse), in whom (compare éy mveduate 
ch. li. 29,and ver. 9. Luth.and Tholuck, 
‘through, by means of, whom: but 7d 
mvevua= Him iz whom, not merely Him by 
whom, not being merely an external agent, 
but an indwelling and pervading power) we 
cry (the earnest expression of supplicating 
prayer, see reff. LXX) Abba, Father (I 
have said, on ref. Mark, that 6 ar. does 
not appear to be a mere explanation of 
nix, but to have been joined to it in one 
phrase, as a form of address: expressing 
probably, a corresponding ‘my father,’ 
Ix, in the Heb. expression. Luther, to 
express the familiarity of Abba, renders 
‘lieber Vater,’ ‘dear Father’) See on 
the whole, the strictly parallel place, ref. 


592 


g Gal. 7 moore 
(e). 
xiv. 96 aly. 

h absol., Acts 
x. 19 reff. 

i ch. ii. 15, ix. 
1 only t. 

k = Acts xvii. 
16 reff. 

1 = ver, 21. ch. 
ix.8. Johni. 12, xi.52. Phil. ii. 15. 

iv. 13 reff. n Eph. iii. 6. Heb. xi. 9. 
p 1 Cor. xii. 26 only+. 1 Kings xxii. 8 Symm. 


16. at beg ins wore D: 
Thdrt Thl Ruf Pel. 
17. for lst kAnpov., cuvkAnpovono D?. 


Gal. 16.] And this confidence is 
grounded on the testimony of the Spirit 
itself. So Chrys. : od yap amd THs pwvijs 
ioxuplCouat udvoy, pnotv, GAAG Kal ard 
Tijs aitias ag’ is n porn TiktTeTaL 
ob yap Tov xapiopatds eoT 7 porn 
udvov, GAAG Kal Tov SdvTos Thy BSwpeay 
mapakAntov' avtos yap juas obtos édl- 
date Sia Tod xaplouaros oUTw PbeyyerOa. 
Hom. xiv. p. 579. This verse being with- 
out copula, is best understood to refer to 
the same as the preceding, and the asser- 
tion to concern the same fact as the last 
verb, xkpa(ouev,—as if it were ad’rod Tov 
mv. OvupaptupodvTos «k.T.A., grounding 
that fact on an act of the indwelling Spirit 
Himself. See again Gal. iv. 6. The 
Spirit itself (not ‘idem Spiritus, as Erasm. 
and similarly Luth., Reiche, al.: the avré 
expresses the independence, and at the same 
time, as coming from God, the preciousness 
and importance of the testimony) testifies 
to our spirit (see ch. ii. 15, and note: not 
‘una testatur : the ctv in composition does 
not refer to 76 mv. ju., but to agreement in 
the fact, as in ‘ contestari,’ ‘ confirmare’) 
that we are children of God. What is 
this witness of the Spirit itself? Allhave 
agreed, and indeed this verse is decisive for 
it, that it is something separate from and 
higher than, all subjective inferences and 
conclusions. But on the other hand it does 
not consist in mere indefinite feeling, but 
in a certitude of the Spirit’s presence and 
work continually asserted within us. It 
is manifested, as Olsh. beautifully says, in 
His comforting us, His stirring us up to 
prayer, His reproof of our sins, His drawing 
us to works of love, to bear testimony before 
the world, &e. And he adds, with equal 
truth, “On this direct testimony of the 
Holy Ghost rests, ultimately, all the regene- 
rate man’s conviction respecting Christ 

and His work. For belief in Scripture itself 
(he means, in the highest sense of the term 
‘belief,’ =‘ conviction personally applied’) 
has its foundation in this experience of the 
divine nature of the (influencing) Principle 
which it promises, and which, while the 


TIPO POMAIOTS. 


1 John iii. 1, 2, 10. v. 2. 
1 Pet. iii. 7 only +. 
q here only +. 


VIII. 


(see Gal. iv. 28, 31. Eph. v. 8.) 


(-metv, Sir. xxii. 23.) 


m ch. 
o ver. 9 reff. 


aft avro ins yap 115-24 vulg(demid harl' mar!: not am) Cyr 


[ouvracx., so AB!ICDFR.—xayer A. ] 


believer is studying it, infuses itself into 
him.” The same Commentator remarks, 
that this is one of the most decisive pas- 
sages against the pantheistic view of the 
identity of the Spirit of God and the spirit 
of man. However the one may by reno- 
vating power be rendered like the other, 
there still is a specific difference. The 
spirit of man may sin (2 Cor. vii. 1), the 
Spirit of God cannot, but can only be 
grieved (Eph. iv. 30), or quenched (1 Thess. 
v. 19), and it is by the infusion of this 
highest Principle of Holiness, that man be- 
comes ONE SPIRIT with the Lord Himself 
(eCors vicaln): téxva Geo} Here, 
(not viol) because the testimony respects 
the very ground and central point of son- 
ship, likeness to and desire for God: the 
testimony of the Spirit shewing us by our 
yearnings after, our confidence in, our re- 
gard to God, that we are verily begotten 
of Him. 17.| ConsEQUENCES of our 
being children of God. But (announcing 
a result, as in a mathematical proposition : 
‘but, if &ec.’) if children, also heirs 
(which is the universal rule of mankind: 
but «Amp. here must not be carried to the 
extent of the idea of heir in all directions : 
it is merely the one side of inheriting by 
promise, which is here brought out: the 
word referring back probably to ch. iv. 
13, 14, the promise to Abraham) ;—heirs 
of God (as our Father, giving the inherit- 
ance to us), and joint-heirs with Christ 
(whom God has made kAnpovdéuoy rdvtwr, 
Heb. i. 2). Tholuck remarks: “ It is 
by virtue of their substantial unity with 
the father, that the children come into 
participation of his possession. The Roman 
law regarded them as continuators of his 
personality. The dignity of the inherit- 
ance is shewn (1) by its being God’s pos- 
session, (2) by its being the possession of 
the Firstborn of God. By the Roman law, 
the share of the firstborn was no greater 
than that of the other children,—and the 
N. T. sets forth this view, making the re- 
deemed equal to Christ (ver. 29), and Christ’s 
possessions, theirs ; 1 Cor. iii, 21—23 ; John 


ihe °6 ‘ABBA 86 Tarip. 16 wiih ro mvedpua ' oumpapTupel ABCD 
To * rvevpate Hua OTL ecpev | Téxva ! cod. 
Kal m KAmpove pot’ ™ KANpovopol pev Geod, * curyKAmpovo pot 
dé ypiotov: °elrep P cuvTracyopuer, iva Kai 4 cvvdoEacbe- 


17 ef O€ Téxva, =. 


o17 


16—19. 


IIPOS POMAIOTS. 393 


7 Lal 
pvr 18 Noyifomat yap Ste ovk * dEva Ta & TaOnwaTa ¥ TOD + =andconstr., 


vov * Katpov ®“ pos tHv *Y uédAXovaeav ¥* do€av Y* atroKa- 
fol > ¢ na fol t= 
AvPO var” eis judas. 19 4 yap ° aroKxapadokia THs KTlcews * 9. 


24. Prov. iii. 15. viii. 11. 
w = Jer. xxiii. 28. 
words, Gal. iii. 23. 
xvii. 30. ch. i. 18. 
7 Aq. Jos. B. J. iii. 7. 26. 


1 Cor. xii. 22. 


Polyb. xvi. 2. 8.) 
18. for yap, 5 A 9 eth: ergo Ambrst. 


xvii. 22. In the joint-heirship we must 
not bring out this point, that Christ is the 
rightful Heir, who shares His inheritance 
with the other children of God: it is as 
adoptive children that they get the inherit- 
ance, and Christ is so far only the means of 
it, as He gives them power to become sons 
of God, John i. 12.” If at least (see 
above on ver. 9) we are suffering with 
Him, that we may also be glorified with 
Him: i.e. ‘if (provided that) we are found 
in that course of participation in Christ’s 
sufferings, whose aim and end, as that of 
His sufferings, is to be glorified as He was, 
and with Him.’ But the eZmep does not 
regard the subjective aim, q. d. ‘If at least 
our aim in suffering is, to be glorified,’— 
but the fact of our being partakers of that 
course of sufferings with Him, whose aim 
is, wherever it is found, to be glorified with 
Him. Thol. takes the tva as dependent 
on ouykAnp. (= &ste), and efmep cuvm.as 
quasi-parenthetical ; but the above seems to 
me more satisfactory. The connexion 
of suffering with Christ, and being glori- 
fied with Him is elsewhere insisted on, 
Been 2. Lime 1. dis) 1), Pets, iv. 13is)ive 1: 
This last clause serves as a transition 
to vv. 18—30, in which the Apostle treats 
of the complete and glorious triumph of 
God’s elect, through sufferings and by 
hope, and the blessed renovation of all 
things in and by their glorification. 
18.] For (= this suffering with Him in 
order to being glorified with Him is no 
casting away of toil and self-denial, seeing 
that) I reckon (implying, ‘I myself am one 
who have embraced this course, being con- 
vinced’) that the sufferings of this pre- 
sent period (of trial and sorrow, contrasted 
with the period of triumph following the 
mapovota of Christ) are insignificant (oi 
&tia = dvatia,—no gen. or verb under- 
stood. &os and davdtios are found in 
the sense of ‘worthy (or unworthy) to be 
compared with’ in the classics: so Hom. 
Il. 0. 234, viv & ot évds Bion eopev 
“Exropos, and Plato, Protag. [ Wetst. ], 
avdiia ott T ayab& Tay Kakdv, and 
again tls &AAn avatla ndovh mpds AdTHv 
éorty;) in comparison with the glory 
which shall be revealed (uéAA. put first, 


Sir. xxvi. 15. (see note.) 
x = ver. 13. w. inf. aor., Gal. iii. 23. Rev. i. 19. iii. 2. xii. 4. transp. of 
y 1 Pet. vy. 1. 
b = here only. 

8. 


ch. ii. 3 reff. 
(iii. 28.) 
s here only. 
Gen. xxiii. 
1 Chron. 
xxi. 22, 


u ch. vii. 5 reff. v ch. iii. 26 reff. 


z= ch. ii. 7 reff. a = Luke 


c Phil. i. 20 only +. (-kety, Ps. xxxvi. 
d = Mark xvi. 15. (ver. 39), Judith xvi. 14. 


as in reff., but apparently not, as De W., 
for the sake of emphasis. Thol. cites 
Demosth., p. 486. 10, ev tots odot vduors 
kuptos, in which there is no emphasis, as 
neither in ref. 1 Cor. amora., at the 
amoxadAuiis of Christ. On the sentiment, 
see 2 Cor. iv. 17) with regard to us (not 
merely juiv, as spectators, but cis fuds, 
as the subjects of the revelation; the E. V. 
is not far wrong, ‘in us,’ taking the eis in 
a pregnant sense as jv Knptocwr eis Tas 
ovy., Luke iv. 44). Bernard amplifies this 
—de Convers. ad Cleric. ¢. xxi. 37 (80), vol. 
i. p. 494,—‘non sunt condigne passiones 
hujus temporis ad preeteritam culpam que 
remittitur, non ad presentem consolationis 
gratiam que immittitur, non ad futuram 
gloriam que promittitur nobis.’ 
19 ff.] The greatness of this glory is shewn 
by the fact that ALL CREATION, now under 
the bondage of corruption, shall be set free 
Srom it by the glorification of the sons of 
God. For (proof of this transcendent 
greatness of the glory, not, as De W., of 
the certainty of its manifestation, though 
this secondary thought is perhaps in the 
background) the patient expectation 
(hardly = 7 od5pa mposdoxla, as Chrys., 
whom Luther and E. V. follow; but better 
mposdokia eis Td TéAos,—the ard de- 
noting, as also in amexdéxera, that the 
expectation continues till the time is ex- 
hausted, and the event arrives) of the 
Creation (= ail this world except man, 
both animate and inanimate: see an ac- 
count of the exegesis below) waits for 
(see above) the revelation of the sons of 
God (‘revelatur gloria: et tum revelantur 
etiam filii Dei.’ Beng. viov, not Téexywr, 
because their sonship will be complete, and 
possessed of all its privileges and glories). 
7 «Ktlo.s has been very variously 
understood. There is a full history of the 
exegesis in Tholuck. De Wette sums it 
up thus: “The Creation,—i.e. things 
created,—has by many been erroneously 
taken in an arbitrarily limited sense; e.g. 
as applying only, I. to tnanimate creation, 
as Chrys., Theophyl., Calv., Beza, Aret., 
‘mundi machina,’ Luther, the Schmidts, 
al., Fritz., ‘mundi machina, celi sidera, 
aer, terra:’—against this are the words 


394 IIPO> POMAIOTS. VIII. 

Ke ii. 5. 4 e >, 4 Leal ie tn Lal Lal g J , 20 ”~ 

Poo y Thy drondhuypw Tey f viay TOD Qeob ameKxdéxeTat. 9 ri 

. i. \ e 1 > c fol > 

al. Sirxi. YAP ™pwataoTnTe 7 I KTICis ‘UTETayn ody * ExoUca adda 

Matt. v9) \ ‘ 1¢ / m2 0 > / 21 ¢ \ am > e 

rMatt.v.9 ua tov lurotagavta, ™ér édrridu, OTL Kal avuTn 7 

xx. 36. ver. 

14. Gal. iii. 26. Rev. xxi. 7. g here &c.,3ce. 1Cor.i.7. Gal.v.5. Phil. iii. 20. Heb. ix. 28, 1 Pet. 

iii. 20 only +. h = here (Eph. iv. 17. 2 Pet. ii. 18) only. Eccles. i.2. (-ova@@at, ch. i. 21.) i ver. 

7 reff. — k 1 Cor. ix. lj only. Exod. xxi. 13 only. lact., 1 Cor. xv. 27 & Heb..ii. 8, from Ps. 
viii. 6. Eph. i. 22. Phil. iii. 21. m ch. iy. 18 reff. 


19. om Tov F. 

21. St67: DI FR. 
obx éxovoa and cuvotevdle Kk. cvvwdlvet, 
implying life in the xriois,—for to set 
these down to mere personification is surely 
arbitrary :—and one can imagine no reason 
why bestial creation should be excluded. 
II. to living creation: (1) to mankind ; 
Aug., Turret., all., take it of men not yet 
believers : (2) Locke, Lightt., Hammond, 
Semler, of the yet unconverted Gentiles: 
(3) Cramer, Gersdorf, al., of the yet un- 
converted Jews: (4) Le Clere, al., of the 
converted Gentiles: (5) al., of the con- 
verted Jews: (6) al., of all Christians :” — 
“‘but,” as he proceeds, “against (II.) lies 
this objection, that if the Apostle had 
wished to speak of the enslaving and free- 
ing of mankind, he hardly would have 
omitted reference to sin as the ground of 
the one and faith of the other, and the 
judgment on unbelievers. But on the 
other hand we must not extend the idea 
of xtiots too wide, as Theodoret, who in- 
cludes the angels, Kéllner, who under- 
stands the whole Creation, animate and in- 
animate, rational and irrational, and Olsh., 
who includes the unconverted Gentiles: 
nor make it too indefinite, as Koppe and 
Rosenm.: ‘tota rerum universitas. The 
right explanation is, all animate and in- 
animate nature as distinguished from 
mankind : so Irenus, Grot., Calov., Wolf, 
Riickert, Reiche, al., Meyer, Neander, 
Schneckenburger, Thol.”’ The idea of the 
renovation and glorification of all nature 
at the revelation of the glory of our re- 
turned Saviour, will need no apology nor 
seem strange to the readers of this com- 
mentary, nor to the students of the fol- 
lowing, and many other passages of the 
prophetic word: Isa. xi. 6 ff. ; lxv. 17 ff. ; 
Rev. xxi.; 2 Pet. iii. 13; Acts iii. 21. 
20.) Explanation of the REASON WHY 
all creation waits, &c. For the Creation 
was made subject to vanity (= 5am, Ps. 
xxxix. 6,—where (xxxviii. 5) the LXX 
have 7a otumravta patadtns. So also 
Eccles. i. 2 and passim. It signifies the 
instability, liability to change and decay, 
of all created things) not willingly (‘cum 
a corruptione natura res omnes abhor- 
reant.’ Bucer in Thol.) but on account 
of (did is so far from losing its proper 
meaning by the reference of rdv érordt- 


om 7 F. 


20. for ovx exovaa, ov Berouoa F. 


> BIDIFR. 


avta to God, as Jowett affirms, that it 
gains its strictest and most proper mean- 
ing by that reference: see ver. 11. He 
is the occasion, and His glory the end, 
of creation’s corruptibility) Him who sub- 
jected it (i.e. God. Chrys., al., interpret 
it of Adam, who was the occasion of its 
being subjected ; and at first sight the ace. 
with 8d seems to favour this. But I very 
much doubt whether this view can be borne 
out. For (1) does not érordiavra imply 
a conscious act of intentional subjugation, 
and not merely an unconscious occasioning 
of the subjugation? Thus we have it said 
of God, ref. 1 Cor., mavta yap trératev 
brd Tots médas avtov: bray 5é K.7.Xr., 
dijAov bt extds Tov trotrakavtos aiTa 
7a mdvta. And (2) the acc. aft. dia is 
in reality no reason against this. He is 
speaking of the originating cause of this 
subjection, not of the efficient means of it. 
He says that creation was not subjected 
€xovoa, i.e. 51a TY O€Anua éavTijs, but 
51a Tov brotdgavta. At the same time 
such a way of putting it, removing as it 
were the supreme will of God to a wider 
distance from corruption and vanity, and 
making it not so much the worker as the 
occasion of it, as well as this indefinite 
mention of Him, is quite intelligible on 
the ground of that reverential awe which 
so entirely characterizes the mind and 
writings of the Apostle. If the occasion 
pointed at by twordiat be required, I 
should hardly fix it at the Fall of man, 
but at his creation, in the eternul counsels, 
—when he was made capable of falling, 
liable to change. The explanation of 6 
troragas as meaning ‘ the devil’ [ Locke, 
al.|» hardly needs refutation. See Matt. 
x. 28, and note),—in (‘on condition of,’ 
‘in a state of, see ch. iv. 18, and note on 
ep’ @, ch. v. 12) hope (én éAwid: must not 
be joined with irordéavra, because then 
the éAmls becomes the hope of the tro- 
tdtas,—but with brerdyn, being the hope 
of the brorayeioa), because (not ‘that,’ 
after éAm{s,—for then it is not likely that 
aith 7 xtlows would be so emphatically 
repeated: the clause now announces a new 
fact, and thus the emphasis is accounted 
for. To suppose the whole clause subjec- 
tive to the édnts, would be to attribute to 


20—23. 


IIPO> POMAIOTS. 


395 


4 ericts ® EhevOepwOjoeTar ard THs ° Sovrelas TIS ? POopas x ch. vi. 18 rest. 


o ver. 15 reff. 
= 1 Cor. xv. 


eis THY TédEeVOepiay THs *do—ns TOV *TéxveV TOD * Beod. HSS: 


92 16, a ccd al ¢ d / t , \u 
oldapev yap 6Tt Taca 7 A KTiows t cuvoTevater Kai“ ouV- 2 
wdives *Y dypt ToD “vdvr 3 * ov povoy bé, *adrAa Kal 


vi. 8. Col. ii. 
2 Pet. i. 
4. ii. (12, bis) 
19 only. 
Jonah ii. 7. 

2 Cor. iii. 17, 


avtot Thy YaTapxynv Tov TvEevpwatos ExovTEs Hmels Kal *Iamesi. 25. 


> Xi. *3 Z e be / b e fa) / c2 6 , 
QUTOL EV ~ EAUTOLS orevatoper, VLOUECD LAV ~ ATTEK EXOMEVOL, . 


ii.12 al. 
Ley. xix. 20. 


ver. 18. 
s ver, 16 reff. 
t here only +. u here only +. v=ch.i.13. 1Cor.iv. 11. 2 Cor. iii. 14. Gal. iv. 2 al. 
w Phil. i. 5. xch.v.3. 2 Cor. viii. 19 al. fr. y ch. xi. 16. xvi. 5. 1 Cor. xv. 20, 
23. xvi. 15. 2 Thess. ii. 13. Jamesi. 18. Rev. xiv. 4 only. Exod. xxiii. 19 al. fr. z Ist pers., 
2 Cor. iii. 1 reff. a Mark vii. 34. 2 Cor. y.2,4. Heb. xiii.17. James y.9 only. Isa. xxiy. 7. 
b ver. 15 reff. ce ver. 19. 
22. for yap, 5« A: om eth. [ouvoreva¢er, so B'DF 17. ] for cvvw5., 


wduver F. 


28. rec 2nd kat bef nuers, with (DF)KL 17 rel Chr Thdrt,(readg «. nu. avr. before) 
Ge: txt ACN copt Damase.—DF transpose kat nets avtot and ka avror: B Epiph 


(omg nuers) have kat avto: both times: for other variations see Scholz. 
om vio8eciay DF Ambrst. 


orevafouey (or cvor.) D f 38. 72. 


the yearnings of creation, intelligence and 
rationality,—consciousness of itself and of 
God) the creation itself also (not only 
we, the sons of God, but even creation 
itself) shall be delivered from the bond- 
age of corruption (its subjection to the 
law of decay, see Heb. ii. 15) into (preg- 
nant: shall be delivered from, &¢., and 
admitted into) the freedom of the glory 
(beware of the fatal hendiadys : ‘the free- 
dom of the glory’ is not in any sense = ‘the 
glorious freedom ;’ in the latter, ‘ glorious’ 
is merely an epithet whereby the freedom 
is characterized, as in ‘ His rest shall be 
glorious : in the former the freedom is de- 
scribed as consisting in, belonging to, being 
one component part of, the glorified state 
of the children of God: and thus the 
thought is carried up to the state to which 
the freedom belongs) of the children 
(réxvwy and not vidv here, perhaps as em- 
bracing God’s universil family of creation, 
admitted, each in their share, to a place in 
incorruptibility and glory). 22.) For 
we know (said of an acknowledged and 
patent fact, see ch. ii. 2; iii. 19; vii. 14) 
that the whole creation groans tegether 
and travails together (not, groans and 
travails with us or with mankind, which 
would render the od pévoy 5€ adAAd of the 
next verse superfluous. On the figure in 
ocvvwodiver see John xvi. 21, note) up to 
this time (= from the beginning till now: 
no reference to time future, because o7da- 
fev yap expresses the results of experi- 
ence). 23.] The text here is in inex- 
tricable confusion (see var. read.), but the 
sense very little affected. But (moreover) 
not only (the creation), but even ourselves, 
possessing (not ‘who possess,’ oi éxovTes, 
but ‘though we possess’) the firstfruit of 
the Spirit (i. e. the indwellingand influences 


Gur- 


of the Holy Spirit here, as an earnest of the 
full harvest of His complete possession of 
us, mvedua and odpé and  Wvx7, hereafter. 
That this is the meaning, seems evident 
from the analogy of St. Paul’s imagery re- 
garding the Holy Spirit: he treats of Him 
as an earnest and pledge given to us, Eph. i. 
14; 2 Cor. i. 22; v. 5, and of His full work 
in us as the efficient means of our glorifica- 
tion hereafter, ver. 11; 2 Cor. iii. 18. Va- 
rious other renderings are,—(1) ‘ the first 
outpouring of the Spirit,’ in point of time, 
—Wetst., Reiche, Kélln., Mey., al.,— which 
would be irrelevant: (2) ‘the highest gifts 
of the Spirit,’ as the Schmidts, al. The 
gen. av. may be partitive or subjective :— 
the firstfruits of the Spirit,—which Spirit 
is the harvest,—or the firstfruits of the 
Spirit,—which the Spirit gives :—or even 
in apposition, the firstfruits of the Spirit, 
i.e. which consist in (the gift of) the 
Spirit. I prefer the first, from analogy— 
the Spirit being generally spoken of as. 
given, not as giving,—and God as the 
Giver), even we ourselves (repeated for 
emphasis, and 7jme?s inserted to involvehim- 
self and his fellow-workers in the general 
description of the last clause. Some [ Wolf, 
K@lln.] have imagined the Apostles only 
to be spoken of: some, that the Apostles 
are meant in one place, and all Christians in 
the other) groan within ourselves, await- 
ing the fulness of our adoption (amexé., 
as above, ver. 19, but even more strongly 
here, ‘zvazt out,’ ‘wait for the end of.” Our 
adoption is come already, ver. 15, so that 
we do not wait for i¢, but for the full mani- 
Sestation of it, in our bodies being rescued 
from the bondage of corruption and sin. 
This which in Gr. is expressed by the verb, 
in Eng. must be joined to the substantive. 
The omission of the art. before vio@. is pro- 


396 


‘ ’ 4 a a 
deh, iii ret. THY 4 aTOAUTPwWOLY TOD THMATOS MOV. 
éawOnwev, Edrmris dé * BXeropevyn ovK Ect édrris* 0 yap 
fri [fxai] €rmifer; ef dé 6 ov BrErroper, 


e = 2 Cor. iv. 
18 (4 times). 
f 1 Cor. xv. 29, 
30. / / 
g Heb. xii. 1. NETrEL TLS 
h ch. ii. 7 reff. 8 af 


11 cers 25 €NariLomev, © dv & drropovas ° aTTeKdeyoueOa. 
b€ Kal TO Tvedpa * cvvavTiAapBavera TH | acbevela Hyov. 
™7O yap TL tmposevé@meOa °Kabd Sei ovK oldapmev, GAN’ 
avTo TO TvEdua  UrEpevTVyyaver 4 oTEVaypmols * dNadrTOLS" 


k Luke x. 40 
only. Gen. 
xxx. 8 Ed- 
vat.(B def.) 
Exod. xviil. 
22. Num. xi. 
17; eee: 
Ixxxviii. 21 
only. (avTtaA., Acts xx. 35.) 

xxii. 30. 
only. Levit. ix. 5 B. 
onlyt+. = avekA,, 1 Pet. i. 8. 


24. ins n bef BAerouern F 55. 


1 Matt. viii. 17. 


p here only +. 


TIPO POMAIOTS. 


1 Cor. ii. 3 reff. 
1 Thess. iv. 1. principally L.P. Winer, edn. 6, } 18. 3. 


VE 


24 + yap edmrl6e 


26 i MsatTws 


m art., Mark ix. 23. Luke i. 62. Acts 
o 2 Cor.viii. 12 (bis). 1 Pet. iv. 13 


q Acts vii. 34 only. Jobiii. 24 al. r here 


om 7: B!(added by original scribe: see table) & 


rec ins kat, with ACKLN: om BDF 47-marg(noting 7d madaiby ofrws exer) 47). 


latt. 


for eAmiCer, utoweves AN! 47-marg Cyr: eaxspectat syrr Ambr,. 


26. rec tats acbeverats (see note), with KL 17 rel vss Chr Thdrt ec Thi: rns 


denoews F: txt ABCDN m vulg Syr Cyr-jer Damasc lat-ff. 


mposevéoueba DKL rel 


Orig Naz Cyr-jer Mac Chr, Damase (Ee: mposevxoueda F: txt ABCR Chr, Thdrt, Thl. 
rec aft umepevtuyxaver ins vrep nuwy, with CK LN? 17 rel vulg D*-lat Syr Cyr-jer 
Did Epiph Chr Thdrt Augsepe Jer: om ABDFN! arm Orig,(always adds tw Gew) 


Epiph Damase Aug. 

bably on account of its preceding its verb, 
—viod. amwexd. = amekd. tiv viod., for 
emphasis’ sake), the redemption (in appo- 
sition with vioé., or rather with the fulness 
of sense implied in vio@. amexké., q.d. ‘ex- 
pecting that full and perfect adoption 
which shall consist in...) of our body 
(not, ‘rescue from our body,’ as Erasm., 
Le Clere, Reiche, Fritz.,al.,—which though 
allowable in grammar,—see Heb. ix. 15,— 
is inconsistent with the doctrine of the 
change of the vile and mortal into the glo- 
rious and immortal body,—Phil. iii. 21; 
2 Cor. v. 2—4,—but the [entire] redemp- 
tion,—rescue,—of the body from corrup- 
tion and sin). 24, 25. | For (confirma- 
tion of the last assertion, proving hope to 
be our present state of salvation)—in hope 
were we (not, ‘are we,’ nor ‘have we been’) 
saved: i. e. our first apprehension of, and 
appropriation to ourselves of, salvation 
which is by faith in Christ, was effected in 
the condition of hope: which hope (Thol.) 
is in fact faith in its prospective attitude, 
—that faith which is trdoracts éAm(o- 
pévwv, Heb. xi. 1. The dat. eAmfd: is not 
a dat. of reference,—‘ according to hope,’ 
—but of the form or condition. Now 
hope that is seen (the object or fulfilment 
of which is present and palpable) is not 
hope: for that which any one sees, why 
does he [at all} hope for? If xal is to 
stand in the text, it conveys, after an 
interrogative word, a sense of the utter 
superfluity of the thing questioned about, 
as being irrelevant, and out of the ques- 
tion. ‘Qui interrogut tl xph mposdoxay ; 
expectat aliquid, sed dubius est quid eve- 
niat. Qui interrogat tl xph Kal zpos- 
doxav; desperat de salute, nec eam usquam 


exspectari posse existimat.’ Bremi in De- 
mosth. Phil. i. 46, cited in Hartung, Par- 
tikellehre, i. 137. 25.| But if that 
which we do not see, we hope for, with 
patience we wait for it. Patience (en- 
durance) is the state, in which,—through 
which as a medium,—our waiting takes 
place: hence 8 dmouov7s, as eypaba 
bu. 51a mrorAA@Y Bakpiwy, 2 Cor. ii. 4. 

26.] Likewise (another help to 
our endurance, co-ordinate with the last 
—our patience is one help to it, but not 
the only one) the Spirit also (the Holy Spi- 
rit of God) helps our weakness (not, helps 
us to bear our weakness, as if the weakness 
were the burden, which the Spirit lifts for 
and with us,—but, helps our weakness,— 
us who are weak, to bear the burden of 
ver. 23. And this weakness is not only 
inability to pray aright, which is only an 
example of it, but general weakness. This 
has been seen, and the reading consequently 
altered to the plural, which was at first per- 
haps a marginal gloss). For (example of 
the help above mentioned ;—the 7é binding 
together the clause,—see reff.,—and here 
implying ‘exempli gratia,’ —‘*for this viz. 
what to &c.’) what we should pray as 
we ought (two things ;—what we should 
pray, —the matter of our prayer ;—and how 
we should pray it,—the form and manner 
of our prayer) we know not: but the Spirit 
itself (Thol. remarks,—airé brings into 
more prominence the idea of the rvedua, 
so as to express of what dignity our Inter- 
cessor is,—an Intercessor who knows best 
what our wants are) intercedes (dep here 
does not intensify the verb, as in dzep- 
vixdv and the like, and as (c., Erasm., 
Luth., Bengel, render it,—but implies 


ABCDF 
KLNabk 
edfgh 
klmn 
o17 


24.—28. 


nw > , / lal 
27.6 8 Sépevvav Tas Kapdias oldey Ti TO ‘Ppovnua Tod **y! 
\ , , \ ¢ + 1 
Tvevpatos, Tt “Kata “ Beov * évtvyyaver bTrEp © ayiov. 


TIPOS, POMAIOTS. 


397 


s John v. 39. vii. 
1 Cor. ii. 


ii. 23 only. 
Prov. xx. 27. 


lal a ‘\ \ b an 
28 oidaev S€ STL Tots * yarrow Tov * Geov TavTaY cuvepyel , Pv? 


. . u 2 Cor. vii. 
9—11. v Acts xxv. 24 reff. weh.i. 7 al. fr. Acts ix. 13 reff. x 1 Cor. viii. 3 reff. 
y Mark xvi. 20. 1 Cor. xvi. 16. 2 Cor. vi. 1, James ii, 22 only+. Esdr. vii.2. 1 Mace. xii. 1 only. (-yos, 
ch. xvi. 3.) 


27. [epavywy N: txt B(Vere expr, Tischdf). ] 


xave®. 


the advocacy,—‘ convenire aliquem super 
negotio alterius,’ as Grot.,—to express 
which the drép judr of the rec. has been 
inserted) with groanings which cannot 
be expressed :—i.e. the Holy Spirit of 
God dwelling in us, knowing our wants bet- 
ter than we, Himself pleads in our prayers, 
raising us to higher and holier desires than 
we can express in words, which can only find 
utterance in sighings and aspirations: see 
next verse. So De W., Thol., Olsh. Chrys. 
(Hom. xiv., p. 586) interprets it of the 
xdpicua of prayer—and adds, 6 yap Torabrns 
KaTakimbels XApLTOS, ETTWS META TOAATS TIS 
KaTavvtews, meTa TOAA@Y TOV TTEVayLO@Y 
TaY KaT& Sidvoiay TH VEG TpooTinTwr, TH 
cundéepovta maow ATec :—similarly (We. 
and Theophyl. Calv. understands, that the 
Spirit suggests to us the proper words of 
acceptable prayer, which would otherwise 
have been unutterable by us: and similarly 
Beza, Grot. &AaAjTos may bear three 
meanings—1, wrspoken: 2, that does not 
speak,—mute (see LXX, Job xxxviii. 14; 
Sir. xviii. 833 compl.): 3, that cannot be 
spoken. The analogy of verbals in -tos in 
the N. T. favours the latter meaning: com- 
pare avexdinyntos, 2 Cor. ix. 15,—&ppnros, 
2 Cor. xii. 4,—avexAdAntos, 1 Pet. i. 8 
(Thol.). Macedonius gathered from 
this verse that the Holy Spirit is @ crea- 
ture, and inferior to God, because He 
prays to God for us. But as Aug. Tract. 
vi. in Joan. 2, vol. iii. p. 1425, remarks, 
‘non Spiritus Sanctus in semetipso apud 
semetipsum in illa Trinitate gemit, sed in 
nobis gemit, quia gemere nos facit.? No 
intercession in heaven is here spoken of, but 
a pleading in us by the indwelling Spirit, 
of a nature above our comprehension and 
utterance. 27.| But (opposed to 
a@Aadntos—‘ though unutterable by us’) 
He who searcheth the hearts (God) know- 
eth what is the mind (intent, or bent, as 
hidden in those sighs) of the Spirit. A 
difficulty presents itself in the rendering of 
the next clause. If 87: be causal, because 
He (the Spirit) pleads for the saints ac- 
cording to the will of God, it would seem 
that oijev must bear the meaning ‘ap- 
proves, otherwise the connexion will not be 
apparent ; and so Calv. and Riickert have 
rendered it. Hence Grot., Reiche, Meyer, 


umepevtuyxaver L 73: evytuy- 


Fritz. render $71, ‘ that,’ and construe, — 
‘knows what is the mind of the Spirit, — 
that He pleads with God (so Reiche and 
Fritz., and Winer, edn. 6, § 49. d, for xara 
9.) for the saints : justifying the repetition 
of ed, implied before, by 1 John iv. 8, 6 
Mh ayame@v ovK eyvw Toy Gedy, Sti & Beds 
aydry éoriv. But I must confess that the 
other rendering seems to me better to suit 
the context: and I do not see that the or- 
dinary meaning of oidev need be changed. 
The assurance which we have that God the 
Heart-Searcher interprets the inarticulate 
sighings of the Spirit in us, is,— not strictly 
speaking, His Omniscience,—but the fact 
that the very Spirit who thus pleads, does 
it kara Oedv,—in pursuance of the divine 
purposes and in conformity with God’s good 
pleasure. So that, as its place before the 
verb would suggest, card, Gedy is emphatic, 
and furnishes the reason of the ofdev. A 
minor objection against the explicative dri 
is, that we have ofSauev dr: immediately 
following. All these pleadings of the 
Spirit are heard and answered, even when 
inarticulately uttered : we may extend the 
same comforting assurance to the imper- 
fect and mistaken verbal utterances of 
our prayers, which are not themselves 
answered to our hurt, but the answer is 
given to the voice of the Spirit which 
speaks through them, which we would ex- 
press, but cannot. Compare 2 Cor. xii. 
7—10, for an instance in the Apostle’s own 
case. 28.) Having given an example, 
in prayer, how the Spirit helps our weak- 
ness, and out of our ignorance and discou- 
ragement brings from God an answer of 
peace, he now extends this to all things— 
all circumstances by which the Christian 
finds himself surrounded. These may seem 
calculated to dash down hope, and surpass 
patience; but we know better concerning 
them. But (the opposition seems most 
naturally to apply to ver. 22, the groaning 
and travailing of all creation) we know 
(as a point of the assurance of faith) that 
to those who love God (a stronger desig- 
nation than any yet used for believers) all 
things (every event of life, but especially, 
as the context requires, those which are ad- 
verse. To include, with Aug. de Corrept. et 
Grat.,c. ix. [24], vol. x. pt. i. p. 930, the sins 


5398 


tar’ *2t els *a@yabov, tois Kata *rpobecw ” KdyToIs odow. ABCDE 


a Acts xxvii. 


TIPO} POMAIOTS. 


Vie. 


9 6te ods © mpoeyyw, Kai “mpowpicev * cvupoppous THs cits t 


b ch. i. 7 al 
c eh. xi. 2. Acts xxvi. 5. 1 Pet. i. 20. 2 Pet. iii. li only+. Wisd. vi. 13. viii. 8. xviii. 6. (-yvwots, Acts ii. 23.) 
d 1 Cor. ii. 7 reff. e Phil. iii. 21 only+. (-@tGeo@at, Phil. iii. 10.) 


28. *aft ouvepyer ins 0 Oeds ABN (Orig,): om CDFKL rel vulg Clem Orig, 


(Cyr-jer) Chr Thdrt @e Thi Lucif Ambr Aug. 


ins To bef aya8ov Lafk 48. 57. 


72-3-4. 109-77 lectt-8-13 Clem-Orig, Cyr-jer Chr-ms Thl. 


of believers in this mdévra, as making them 
‘huumiliores et doctiores,’ is manifestly to in- 
troduce an element which did not enter into 
the Apostle’s consideration ; for he is here 
already viewing the believer as justified by 
faith, dwelt in by the Spirit, dead to sin) 
work together (cuvepyei, absolute, or aA- 
AfAos implied: not, ‘work together for 
good with those who love God, —‘loving 
God’ being a ‘working for good :’ which, 
though upheld by Thol., seems to me harsh, 
and inconsistent with the emphatic posi- 
tion of tots ay. tT. 8. Surely also in that 
case mdyvta would have been 7a ravra, all 
things, as one party working, set over 
against of &yama@vtes T. 0., the other party 
working: whereas mdvta ovvepyei gives 
rather the sense of all things co-operating 
one with another. If the reading of ABR 
be adopted, we should understand either 
(1) that God causeth all things to work, 
&e.: taking ouvépyer as from cuvepyw, 
concludo: or (2) that, as Syr. renders it, 
“in every thing He helpeth them for good.” 
But in this last case, we should require 7a 
mdvra) for (towards, to bring about) good 
(their eternal welfare ;—the fulfilment of 
the purpose of the aydrn r. Oeod 7H év 
xpioT@ “Inood tT. kup. Huy, ver. 39),—to 
those who are called (not only invited, but 
effectually called —see below) according to 
(His) purpose. In this further descrip- 
tion the Apostle designates the believers 
as not merely loving God, but being be- 
loved by God. The divine side of their 
security from harm is brought out, as 
combining with and ensuring the other. 
They are sure that all things work for their 
good, not only because they love Him who 
worketh all things, but also because He 
who worketh all things hath loved and 
chosen them, and carried them through the 
successive steps of their spiritual life. The 
calling here and elsewhere spoken of by the 
Apostle (compare especially ch. ix. 11) is 
the working, in men, of “the everlasting 
purpose of God whereby before the founda- 
tions of the world were laid, He hath de- 
creed by His counsel secret to us, to deliver 
from curse and damnation those whom He 
hath chosen in Christ out of mankind, and 
to bring them by Christ to everlasting sal- 
vation.” Art. X. of the Church of England. 
To specify the various ways in which this 
calling has been understood, would far ex- 


ceed the limits of a general commentary. 
It may suffice to say, that on the one hand, 
Scripture bears constant testimony to the 
fact that all believers are chosen and called 


’ by God,—their whole spiritual life in its 


origin, progress, and completion, being from 
Him :—while on the other hand its testi- 
mony is no less precise that He willeth all 
to be saved, and that none shall perish 
except by wilful rejection of the truth. So 
that, on the one side, Gop’s SOVEREIGNTY, 
—on the other, MAN’S FREE WILL,—is 
plainly declared to us. To receive, believe, 
and act on both these, is our duty, and 
our wisdom. They belong, as truths, no 
less to natural than to revealed religion: 
and every one who believes in a God must 
acknowledge both. But all attempts to 
bridge over the gulf between the two are 
Sutile, in the present imperfect condition of 
man. ‘The very reasonings used for this 
purpose are clothed in language framed on 
the analogies of this lower world, and wholly 
inadequate to describe God regarded as He 
isin Himself. Hence arises confusion, mis- 
apprehension of God, and unbelief. I have 
therefore simply, in this commentary, en- 
deavoured to enter into the full meaning of 
the sacred text, whenever one or other of 
these great truths is brought forward ; not 
explaining either of them away on account 
of possible difficulties arising from the re- 
cognition of the other, but recognizing as 
fully the elective and predestinating decree 
of God where it is treated of, as I have 
done, in other places, the free will of man. 
If there be an inconsistency in this course, 
it is at least one in which the nature of 
things, the conditions of human thought, 
and Scripture itself, participate, and from 
which no Commentator that I have seen, 
however anxious to avoid it by extreme 
views one way or the other, has been able 
to escape. See, for a full treatment of the 
subject, Tholuck’s Comm. in loc. 

29, 30.| The Apostle now goes backward 
from «Anois, to explain how this CALLING 
came about. It sprung from God’s fore- 
knowledge, co-ordinate with His fore-deter- 
mination of certain persons (to be) con- 
formed to the image of His Son, that 
Christ might be exalted as the Head of 


‘the great Family of God. These persons, 


thus foreknown and predetermined, He, in 
the course of His Providence actually, but 


at 


n 
o17 


29—82. 


¥ > , a oa >’ “ ’ + ed b) \ h , 
E€LKOVOS TOV VIOUV AUTOV, Seis TO Elval avTOV TT p@TO- 


Toxov é€v ‘qrodXois adeddots. 


, Nera 3 , \ A 37 , \ 
TOUTOUS Kal “€xadXewEV* Kal OUS *EKANETEV, TOUTOUS Kat ii. 


TIPO, POMAIOTS. 


399 
f Matt. xxii. 
3 a . a ; 20 ||. ch. i. 
Sods S€ 4 rpodpicev, *,1 0, 
2 Cor. iv. 4 
“Gens i 


; , \ , 26, 27. 
léduxaiwoer’ ods S€ édixaiwoev, TovTOVs Kal ™ édoEacer, ¢ ch. iv. MU reff 


/ a bd “ \ a 3” & ‘ e \ cA Col. i. 15, 18. 
31" TY ody ™ épotpev pos tadta; ef 0 Beds brép Huadv, Mev. i16 x 
to ‘a a 89 ev a St Cua > p ’ 77 + Xii. 23, 
TL xa NLWV 7 “os ye TOV LOLOU VLOV OUK epeicato, Rey. i.5 
=~ . only. Gen. 
iv. 4 al. i Matt. xx. 28. Heb. ii. 10. ix. 28. k = ch. ix. 11. 1 Cor. vil. 15. Gal. 
y.8. Eph. iv.1. 2 Thess. ii. 14 al. _ Ich. ii. 13 reff. m =7F Christ), John vii. 39 and 
passim, Of us, here only. see Esther iii. 1. vi. 6,7. n ch. iii. 5 reff. o = Matt. 
xii. 30. Gal. iii. 21. v. 23. p ch, xi. 21 reff. Gen. xxii. 16. 


30. for mpowpicerv, mpoeyvw A. 


kat ovs edtx. A eth. 


32. os ovde viov id10v epers. F; os (add ye D8) ovde tov idiov viov eeic. D. 


in His eternal decree implicitly, called, 
bringing them through justification to 
glory ;—and all this is spoken of as past, 
because to Him who sees the end from the 
beginning,— past, present, and future ARE 
Not, but ALL IS ACCOMPLISHED WHEN 
DETERMINED. Because whom He fore- 
knew (but in what sense? This has been 
much disputed: the Pelagian view,—‘ eos 
quos presciverat crediluros,’ is taken by 
Orig., Chrys., @e., Theophyl., Augustine 
(prop. 55, in Ep. ad Rom. vol. iii. p. 2076), 
Ambr., Erasm. in paraphrase, Calov., 
Reiche, Meyer, Neander, and others; the 
sense of fore-loved, by Erasm. in commen- 
tary, Grotius, Estius, the Schmidts, &c. : 
that of fore-decreed, by Thol. edn. 1, and 
Stuart,— which however Thol. in subse- 
quent editions suspects to be ungram- 
matical without some infinitive following, 
and prefers a sense combining foreknow- 
ledge and recognition-as-His:—that of 
elected, adopted as His sons, by Calvin,— 
‘Dei autem preecognitio, cujus hic Paulus 
meminit, non nuda est prescientia, ut 
stulte fingunt quidam imperiti, sed adop- 
tio qua filios suos ab improbis semper dis- 
crevit, —Riickert, De Wette, al. That this 
latter is ¢mplied, is certain: but I prefer 
taking the word in the ordinary sense of 
foreknew, especially as it is guarded from 
being a ‘nuda prescientia’ by what fol- 
lows: see below and Gal. iv. 9), He also 
pre-ordained (His foreknowledge was not 
a mere being previously aware how a series 
of events would happen: but was co-ordi- 
nate with, and inseparable from, His having 
pre-ordained all things) conformed (i.e. to 
be conformed) to the image of His Son 
(the dat. and gen. are both found after 
words like cdumopdpos ; compare ciugutos, 
ch. vi. 5. The image of Christ here 
spoken of is not His moral purity, nor His 
sufferings, but as in 1 Cor. xv. 49, that en- 
tire form, of glorification in body and sane- 
tification in spirit, of which Christ is the 
perfect pattern, and all His people shall be 
partakers. To accomplish this transforma- 
tion in us is the end, as regards us, of our 


election by God; not merely to rescue us 
from wrath. Compare 1 John iii. 2, 3; 
Phil. iii. 21: and on the comprehensive 
meaning of wopoh, Phil. ii. 6,'7,— where it 
expresses both ‘the form of God’ in which 
Christ was, and ‘the form of a servant’ in 
which He became incarnate), that He 
might (or may, as Calv., but the refer- 
ence in the aorists is to the past decree of 
God) be firstborn among many brethren 
(i.e. that He might be shewn, acknow- 
ledged to be, and glorified as THE Son OF 
GoD, pre-eminent among those who are 
by adoption through Him the sons of God. 
This is the further end of our election, as 
regards Christ: His glorification in us, as 
our elder Brother and Head):  30.] but 
whom He fore-ordained, those He also 
called (in making the decree, He left it 
not barren, but provided for those cireum- 
stances, all at His disposal, by which such 
decree should be made effectual in them. 
éxadeoev, supply, eis thy Eavtod 
Baotrclay nal ddtav 1 Thess. ii. 12; other 
expressions are found in 1 Cor. i. 9; 
2 Thess. ii. 14; 1 Tim. vi. 12; 1 Pet. v. 
10): and whom He called, these He also 
justified (the Apostle, remember, is speak- 
ing entirely of God’s acts on behalf of the 
believer: he says nothing now of that faith, 
through which this justification is, on his 
part, obtained); but whom He justified, 
them He also glorified (He did not merely, 
in His premundane decree, acquit them of 
sin, but also clothe them with glory: the 
aorist edétacev being used, as the other 
aorists, to imply the completion in the 
divine counsel of all these, which are to 
us, in the state of time, so many successive 
steps,—simultaneously and irrevocably. So 
we have the perfect in John xvii. 10, 22). 
31—39.] The Christian has no 

reason to fear, but all reason to hope ; 
Sor nothing can separate him from God’s 
love in Christ. 31.] What then shall 
we say to these things (what answer can 
the hesitating or discouraged find to this 
array of the merciful acts of God’s love on 
behalf of the believer)? If God is for us 


400 TIPOS POMAIOTS. ‘VEST. 


ash 2 Gra vrep juav mavtwv “rapédmKev avTov, THS ovyt 


r Acts xxv. ll, 

1 tee. Kab avy avTa Ta TavtTa tiv * icetar; 33 7is 86 
ii. 7, 10 alt " UTE Ted Xap l; TLS ey 
L.P. 2 Macc. 


Kandéoes Kata “ éxrXexT@v “ Geod; Geos 0 ¥ dtxarav; 3* Tis 
0 Kataxpivov ; xpliaTos 6 aTrofavay, * waddov dé [Kal] 
YéyepOels, Os Kat éotw * ev * deEia ToD Oeod, os Kal 
*éyTuyxaver UTEp Huov; % Tis Huds » ywpicer aTrO THs 


w Matt. xxvii. 


ili. 33. 

s Acts xix. 38 
reff. constr., 
here only. 
Soph. Phi- 
loct. 328. 

t Matt. xx. 16. 
xxiv. 22, &c. 
ch. xvi. 13 
al. Isa. xxviii. 16. v ver. W. 


u Col. iii. 12. Tit. i. 1. gen., ch. i. 6, 7. 


3. [John viii. 10,11.) ch. ii. lal. Esth. ii. 1. x = Gal. iv. 9. Eph. iv. 28. v. 11. y ver. ll. 

z=Eph.i. 20. Col. iii. 1. Heb. i. 3. viii. 1. x. 12. xii. 2. 1 Pet. iii. 22 only. Ps. xv. 11. a =and w. 
vreép, Heb. vii. 25. (Acts xxy. 24 reff.) b Matt. xix. 6. Ezek. xlvi. 19. w. amo, ver. 39. Heb. 
vii. 26. Wisd. i. 3. 


[aAAa, so BD'FR. | om ta D'F. 

34. aft xpioros ins encovs ACFLN 17 vulg copt eth arm Did Cyr Damasc Ruf Aug, 
Maximin: om BDK rel syrr Cyr-jer Chr Thdrt @c Thl. rec ins Ist «at, with 
DFKL rel latt(but not am') syr Iren-int Cyr-jer Chr Thdrt Thl @c Hil Ambr Aug 
Maximin: om ABCR g k 117 Syr copt Did Damase Ruf Victorin. (a: is left out in B 
ed Mai, as in Tischdf and in the collations of Btly and Bch; but Mai has got into some 


confusion with regard to Bch’s reading.) 
17 copt «2th Chr Damase Thl. 


aft evep8. add ex vexpwy ACR!(om 3?) 


om Kat (bef ecriv) ACN! b c ocopt vulg D!-lat 


Iren-int Cyr-jer Did Chr Cyr Thdrt Thl Ruf: ins BDFKLN% am harl? syrr Ee Thl 


Maximin Ambrst. om rou Bo. 


(and this He has been proved to be, vv. 
28 ~30,—in having foreknown, predesti- 
nated, called, justitied, glorified us), who 
(is) against us? 32.] (God) Who 
even (taking one act as a notable example 
out ofall) did not spare His own Son (His 
OWN,—His vids povoyervis, the only one of 
God’s sons who is One with Him in nature 
and essence, begotten of Him before all 
worlds. No other sense of id/ov will suit 
its position here, in a clause already made 
emphatic by ye, in consequence of which 
whatever epithet is fixed to viod must par- 
take of the emphasis), but delivered Him 
up (not necessarily eis 9dvaroy only, but 
generally, as €6wxev, John iii. 16: ‘largitus 
est, quem sibi retinere poterat,’ as Tho- 
luck, from Winer) on behalf of us all (so 
that every one of us believers, even the 
most afflicted, has an equal part in Him. 
Of others, nothing is said here), how shall 
He not (how can it be that He will not) 
also with Him (in consequence of and in 
analogy with this His greatest gift: it is 
a question ‘a majori ad minus’) give 
freely to us all things (all that we need 
or hope for; or even more largely, all 
created things for ours, to subserve our 
good, and work together for us: compare 


1 Cor. iii. 22)? 33.| The punctua- 
tion of these verses is disputed. Many 
(Aug., Ambr., Reiche, K@llner, Olsh., 


Meyer, De Wette, and Griesb., Knapp, 
Lachmann) follow, in vy. 38, 34, the un- 
doubted form of ver. 35, and place an in- 
terrogation after each clause, as in the 
text; while Luther, Beza, Grot., Wolf, 
Tholuck, al., make Oeds 6 dix. and xpiords 
6 &ro8. x.7.A. the reply to and rejection of 
the questions preceding them. The former 


method is preferable, as preserving the form 
of ver. 35, and involving no harshness of con- 
struction, which the other does, in the case 
of xpiorés followed by the two participles. 
Who shall lay (7:) any charge against 

the elect of God (éyxaAéw usually with a 
dat. see retf.)? Shall God (éykadécet), 
who justifies them (Chrys. strikingly says, 
ovr ele ‘Beds 6 ahels Guapthuata,’ GAN 
 TOAA@ pmetCoy hv Beds 6 Sixarav. bray 
yap 7 Tod Sixactod Wijdos Sikaov amo- 
ghvn, Kal Sixacrod To1ovTov, Tivos ukios 6 
KaTnyopay ; Hom. xv. p. 597)% Who is 
he that condemns them (the pres. part. 
as expressing the official employment, ‘is 
their accuser,’ is better than the fut., as cor- 
responding more closely with ducai@v)? (Is 
it) Christ who died, yea who rather is also 
risen, who moreover is at the right hand 
of God, who also intercedes for us? “All 
the great points of our redemption are 
ranged together, from the death of Christ 
to His stillenduring intercession, as reasons 
for negativing the question above.’ De W. 
35. | Who (i.e. what: but mase. 

for uniformity with vv. 33, 34) shall se- 
parate us from the love of Christ? Is 
this (1) our love to Christ, or (2) Christ’s 
love to us, or (3) our sense of Christ's love 
to us? The first of these is held by Origen, 
Chrys., Theodoret, Ambr., Erasm., al. But 
the difficulty of it lies in consistently inter- 
preting ver. 37, where not our endurance in 
love to Him, but our victory by means of 
His love to us, is alleged. And besides, it 
militates against the conclusion in ver. 39, 
which ought certainly to respond to this 
question. The third meaning is defended 
by Calvin. But the second, as maintained 
by Beza, Grot., Est., al., Thol., Reiche, 


33—38. TIPO}, POMAIOTS. 401 


ayarns Tod ypiaToU ; ° Odiris 7) Sorevoyxwpia 7 4 Svwypos ¢ch.ii-9 (ref) 
A @ x \ A £ , a apy 8 A oh s =a 36 fal N reff. 
© rypos 7 fyvuvorns } & Kivduvos % » wayarpa; 38 KaB@S « P.ti, 2 cor. 


, ed ov a ig , 6 7) \ e , xi. 27 only. 
yéyparrrar ore évexev cod ‘Gavatovpeba bdyv Thy Huépar, , Acts xi. 7a. 
Kl CKoylaOnuev as mpoBata ™adayns. 87 adn ev Tov- Reins 


a ns a 5 \ A Qy3 , ones xxvili. 48 
TOLS Tact UTTEPVLK@ [LEV ta TOU ayaTrnaavTos nas. only. 
& 


38 Parémevopar yap OTL ote 1 Advatos ovTE 1 wx, odTE (times). 


¥ ” > / yA > a ” / exiv. 3. 
ayyedot oute *apyai, ovre ®eveatw@ta ovte 1% wédOVTA, bh — Mati. x. 94. 
Jer. ix. 16. 
i ch, vii. 4 reff. Psa. xliii. 22. k = ch. ix. 8 reff. 11 Cor.iv.1. 2Cor.x.2. Job xli. 20. 
m Acts viii. 32. James v. 5 only. l.c. Isa. xxxiv. 2,6. gen., Zech. xi. 4. n here only +. 
o of Christ, Gal. v. 20. Eph. v. 2. p constr., ch. xiv. 14. xv. 14. 2 Tim. i. 5,12. ace. and inf., 
2 Mace. ix. 27. q so 1 Cor. iii. 22. r = (see note) 1 Cor. xy. 24. Eph.i.2lal. Dan. 
vii. 27 Theod. s = 1 Cor. vii. 26 reff. t Acts xxiv. 25 reff. 


35. aft zis ins ovy F latt(not am) Ruf Sedul. 
Oeou Tns ev xpiorou inoov B. om 2nd 7 D. 

36. rec «veka (so ZXX-B), with CK Thdrt Damase ie Thl: txt (so zxx-AN) 
ABDFL® m n 17 Clem Orig Meth Chr. 

37. Tov ayarncavta DF Jatt. 

38. ayyeAos DF Aug, Ambrst: not Hil Augsepe. aft ouvre apyar add ovre 
efovorn (see Col ii. 15 al) C fn 46. 73. 80. 109-21 syr-w-ast: pref, D. rec ouvre 
duvauers bef ovre eveotwra o. u., With KL rel vulg Syr goth Chr Thdrt ec Thl Aug: 
txt ABCDFX m tol syr copt Orig Eus Ephr Cyr Damase lat-ff (ovr. duv. has been 
suspected as spurious | Fritz., Tholuck, in De Wette]: but no mss omit it, unless 


for tov xpioTou, Beov Nal: tov 


Lappy | 121 [Mtt] and one or two lat-{f who have ovte egovciat). 


Meyer, De Wette, appears to me the only 
tenable sense of the words. For, having 
shewn that God’s great love to us is such 
that none can accuse nor harm us, the Apos- 
tle now asserts the permanence of that love 
under all adverse circumstances—that none 
such can affect it,—nay more, that it is 
by that love that we are enabled to obtain 
the victory over all such adversities. And 
finally he expresses his persuasion that no 
created thing shall ever separate us from 
that love, i.e. shall ever be able to pluck 
us out of the Father’s hand. 36. | 
The quotation here expresses,—‘ all which 
things befall us, as they befell God’s saints 
of old,—and it is no new trials to which we 
are subjected:— What, if we verify the an- 
cient description ?’ 37.] But (ne- 
gation of the question @Atis.... wdxat- 
pa;) in all these things we are far the 
conquerors (hardly, ‘more than conque- 
rors: the bwép intensifies the degree of 
vikGy, as in breprepiooevery and the like, 
but does not express a superiority over 
vikgv) through Him who loved us (i.e. so 
far from all these things separating us from 
His love, that very love has given us a glo- 
rious victory over them). The reading 
dia Toy ayarjoayTa jas would amount to 
the same in meaning :—‘on account of Him 
who loved us’ implying, as in vv. 11, 20, 
that He is the efficient cause of the result. 

It is doubted whether ‘ He who loved 
us’ be the Father, or our Lord Jesus Christ. 
This is, I think, decided by t@ ayaravrt 
Huas kal AovoavTs Has... . eu TE alwars 

Vou. II 


avrov, Rev.i.5. The use of such an ex- 
pression as a title of our Lord in a doxo- 
logy, makes it very probable that where 
unexplained, as here, it would also desig- 
nate Him. 38.] For I am per- 
suaded (a taking up and amplifying of the 
bmepvikGuev—our victory is not only over 
these things, but I dare assertit over greater 
and more awful than these) that neither 
death, nor life (well explained by De W. 
as the two principal possible states of man, 
and not as = ‘any thing dead or living,’ 
as Calvin and Koppe), nor angels, nor 
principalities (whether good or bad; apx4 
is used of good, Col. i. 16; ii. 15 [see note}; 
of bad (1 Cor. xv. 24?), Eph. vi. 12; here, 
as Eph. i. 21, generally. &yyedo, abso- 
lutely, seems never to be used of bad angels: 
if it here means good angels, there is no ob- 
jection, as Stuart alleges, to the rhetorical 
supposition that they might attempt this 
separation, any more than to that of an 
angel from heaven preaching another 
gospel, Gal. i. 8), nor things present nor 
things to come (no vicissitudes of time), 
nor powers (some confusion has evidently 
crept into the arrangement. Ephr. Syr. 
reads, ot. apxal ott. éfoucia: ovr. évect. 
OUT. MEAA. obT. Suvdmers oT. Hyyedo; 
Basil, ofre ayy. ott. apx. ott. éEouc. o'r. 
duvdmers oT. ever. oT. ueAA. I follow, with 
Griesb., Lachm., Tischdf., the very strong 
consent of the ancient Mss.), nor height 
nor depth (no extremes of space), nor any 
other created thing ({«ricis cannot here be 
the whole creation, as Chrys.,—é Aéye: To:- 
Db 


4.02 TPOy POMAIOTS. VIIE. 39. 
u=Matt. UTE * duvdpets, 39 ovTe Y thpopa ov’te * Babos, ovTte Tis ABCD: 
XXIV. < I ae 
ee Eger eTépa Suvnjceras nas * xwpioat avo THS * aya- od te 
4. n 
v 2 Cor. x. a 
2 Sor mans Tov *Oeov THs ev Xplore *Incod TO Kuplp MOV. o17 
Faith x8, IX. 1 *’AAnOeav A€yo “ev xpicTa, od 4 rpevdouar, 
40 
w Eph. iii, is al. Isa. vii. 11. x = ch, i. 26. (vv. 19, &c.) Heb. iv. 13. Judith ix. 12. y =ch. 
xiii. 9. 1 Tim. i. 10. z ver. 35. a=ch.v. 5. = xiii. 13. b = 2 Cor. 
xii.6. Eph. iv. 25. Ps. xiv. c = 2 Cor. xii. 19. Eph. ivi 17, d 2 Cor. xi. 31. Gal. 
i. 20. 1 Tim. ii. 7. 


39. om tis DF latt syrr. 


ovtév éorw"' €i Kal &AAN TocabTH KTloLs HY 
bon n dpwuevn, bon 7 vonTn, ovdey by 
be THS ayarns eéxelyns anéotnoe,—but 
any creature, such as are all the things 
named) shall be able to sever us from the 
love of God which is in Christ Jesus 
our Lord (here plainly enough G'od’s 
love to us in Christ,—to us, as we are 
in Christ, to us, manifested in and by 
Christ). 

Cuap. IX.—XI.] The Gospel being now 
established, in its fulness and freeness, as 
the power of God unto salvation to every 
one that believeth,—a question naturally 
arises, not unaccompanied with painful dif- 
ficulty, respecting the exclusion of that 
people, as a people, to whom God’s ancient 
promises were made. With this national 
rejection of Israel the Apostle now deals : 
first (ix. 1—5) expressing his deep sym- 
pathy with his own people: then (vv. 
6—29) justifying God, Who has not (vv. 
6—13) broken His promise, but from the 
Jirst chose a portion only of Abraham’s 
seed, and that (vv. 14—29) by His un- 
doubted elective right, not to be murmured 
at nor disputed by us His creatures: ac- 
cording to which election a remnant shall 
now also be saved. Then, as to the rejec- 
tion of so large a portion of Israel, their 
own self-righteousness (vv. 30—33) has 
been the cause of it,and (x. 1—12) their ig- 
norance of God's righteousness,—notwith- 
standing that (vy.13—21) their Scriptures 
plainly declared to them the nature of the 
Gospel, and its results with regard to 
themselves and the Gentiles, with which 
declarations Paul’s preaching was in per- 
fect accordance. Has God then cast off 
his people (xi. 1—10)? No—for a rem- 
nant shall be saved according to the elec- 
tion of grace, but the rest hardened, not 
however for the purpose of their destruc- 
tion, but (xi. 11—24) of mercy to the 
Gentiles: which purpose of mercy being 
Sulfilled, Israel shall be brought in again 
to its proper place of blessing (xi. 25—32). 
He concludes the whole with a humble 
admiration of the unsearchable depth of 
God’s ways, and the riches of His Wisdom 
(xi. 33—36). 


Tov kupiov ACF. 


In no part of the Epistles of Paul is it 
more requisite than in this portion, to bear 
in mind his habit of InsuLaTING the one 
view of the subject under consideration, 
with which he is at the time dealing. The 
divine side of the history of Israel and the 
world is in the greater part of this portion 
thus insulated: the facts of the divine 
dealings and the divine decrees insisted on, 
and the mundane or human side of that 
history kept for the most part out of sight, 
and only so much shewn, as to make it 
manifest that the Jews, on their part, failed 
of attaining God’s righteousness, and so lost 
their share in the Gospel. 

It must also be remembered, that, what- 
ever inferences may justly lie from the 
Apostle’s arguments, with regard to God’s 
disposal of individuals, the assertions here 
made by him are universally spoken with 
a national reference. Of the eternal salva- 
tion or rejection of any individual Jew there 
is here no question: and however logically 
true of any individual the same conclusion 
may be shewn to be, we know as matter of 
fact, that in such cases not the divine, but 
the human side, is that ever held up by the 
Apostle—the universality of free grace for 
all—the riches of God’s mercy to all who 
call on Him, and consequent exhortations 
to all, to look to Him and be saved. De 
Wette has well shewn, against Reiche and 
others, that the apparent inconsistencies of 
the Apostle, at onetime speaking of absolute 
decrees of God, and at another of culpability 
in man,—at one time of the election of 
some, at another of a hope of the conyer- 
sion of all,—resolve themselves into the 
necessary conditions of thought under 
which we all are placed, being compelled 
to acknowledge the divine Sovereignty on 
the one hand, and human free will on the 
other, and alternately appearing to lose 
sight of one of these, as often as for the 
time we confine our view to the other. 

IX.1—5.] The Apostle’s deep sympathy 
with his own people Israel. ‘The subject 
on which he is about to enter, so unwel- 
come to Jews in general, coupled with their 
hostility to himself, and designation of him 
as a mwAdvos (2 Cor. vi. 8: compare also 


IX. 1—3. 


IIPOS, POMAIOTS. 


403 


a lA 
©ouppaptupovans por THs ‘ouvErdioews MoV EV TVEVMATL © ch. ii, vil 


/ ia , 
diyle@, 2 6re AvT pol ect peyddn Kal § adiadeLTrTOS 


b] 4 fal 
h6ddvn TH Kapdia pov. 
autos 
viii. 18. 


ii. 20. 2 Thess. i. 9. 


Cuap. IX. 1. aft xpiorw add inoov D!F Ps-Ath Ambrst. 


2. rns kapdias K 17. 219}. 


3. evyouny DKL ce k1n17 Thdrt-mss: evxoua 41. 


i Acts xxvii. 29 reff. imperf., = Acts xxv. 22 reff. 
xii. 3, xvi. 22. Gal. i. 8,9 only. Deut. vii. 26. 


f 2 Cor. 1. 12 
reff. 
2 Tim. i. 3 


Sits ee \ k 2 10 3 8 
noxouny yap * dvdbewa elvat opis, Cros, 

a a a ma ch. 1. 9.) 

éya ‘dard tod ypiotod trép THY adehPav jou, »1 Tim. v.10 


only. Jer. 


k Acts xxiii. 14. 1 Cor, 
1=ch. vii.2. 2 Cor. xi. 3. Col, 


for 2nd ev, ovy F. 


eva bef avabeua N. 


ree autos eyw bef avadeua ewat, with CKL rel vss Ath Thdrt Cypr: txt ABDF(X) syr 


2 Cor. i. 17; ii. 17; iv. 1, 2; vii. 2 al.), 
causes him to begin with a rporapairnots or 
deprecation, bespeaking credit for simpli- 
city and earnestness in the assertion which 
is to follow. This deprecation and assertion 
of sympathy he puts in the forefront of 
the section, to take at once the ground 
from those who might charge him, in the 
conduct of his argument, with hostility to 
his own alienated people. I say (the) 
truth in Christ (as a Christian,—as united 
to Christ; the ordinary sense of the expres- 
sion év xpio76, so frequent with the Apostle. 
It is not an oath, ‘dy Christ,’—for 
though év with duvuur bears this meaning, 
we have no instance of it where the verb is 
not expressed),—I lie not (confirmation of 
the preceding, by shewing that he was aware 
of what would be laid to his charge, and 
distinctly repudiating it),—my conscience 
bearing me witness of the same (the ovv 
in composition, as in reff., denoting accord- 
ance with the fact, not joint testimony) in 
the Holy Spirit (much as év xpior@ above: 
—a conscience not left to itself but in- 
formed and enlightened by the Spirit of 
God. Strangely enough, Griesb., Knapp, 
and Koppe take these words also for a 
formula jurandi, and connect them with 
od Wevdoua), that (not because, or for, as 
Bengel: 81, as in 2 Cor. xi. 10, introducing 
the matter to which the asseveration was 
directed,—I say the truth, when I say, that 
....) I have great grief and continual 
sorrow in my heart. The reason of this 
grief is reserved for a yet stronger descrip- 
tion of his sympathy in the next verse. 
8.| For I could wish (the imperf. is not 
historical, alluding to his days of Phari- 
saism, as Pelag. and others, but quasi- 
optative, as in reff. ‘I was wishing,’ had 
it been possible,—nioxduny ei évexdpet, ci 
évedéxeTo, Phot. The sense of the imperf. 
in such expressions is the proper and strict 
one [and no new discovery, but common 
enough in every schoolboy’s reading |: the 
act is unfinished, an obstacle intervening. 
So in Latin, ‘ faciebam, ni... ,’ the com- 


pleted sentence being, ‘faciebam, et per- 
fecissem, ni...’) that I myself (on aitds 
éyé see ch. vii. 25; it gives emphasis, as 
éya Tavaos, Gal. v. 2: ‘1, the very per- 
son who write this and whom ye know’) 
were a curse (a thing accursed, ava0epa 
in the LXX = 097, an irrevocable devotion 
to God, or, a thing or person so devoted. 
All persons and animals thus devoted were 
put to death; none could be redeemed, 
Levit. xxvii. 28, 29. The subsequent scrip- 
tural usage of the word arose from this. It 
never denotes simply an exclusion or ex- 
communication, but always devotion to per- 
dition,—a curse. Attempts havebeen made 
to explain away the meaning here, by under- 
standing excommunication, as Grot., Ham- 
mond, Le Clere, &e.; or even natural death 
only, as Jerome, al.: but excommunication 
included cursing and delivering over to 
Satan:—and the mere wish for natural 
death would, as Chrys. eloquently remarks, 
be altogether beneath the dignity of the pas- 
sage. Perhaps the strangest interpretation 
is that of Dr. Burton : “St. Paul had been 
set apart and consecrated by Christ to His 
service; and he had prayed that this devo- 
tion of himself might be for the good of his 
countrymen :”—it is however no unfair 
sample of a multitude of others, all more or 
less shrinking from the full meaning of the 
fervid words of the Apostle) from Christ 
(i. e. cut off and separated from Him for 
ever in eternal perdition. No other mean- 
ing will satisfy the plain sense of the words. 
amé in the sense of dé, making Christ the 
agent of the curse, would be hardly admis- 
sible: still less the joming,—as Carpzov 
and Elsner,—a7é with nixdunv. On this 
wish, compare Exod. xxxii. 32) in behalf 
of (in the place of; or, if thus I could be- 
nefit, deliver from perdition) my brethren, 
my kinsmen according to the flesh. 

The wish is evidently not to be pressed as 
entailing on the Apostle the charge of incon- 
sistency in loving his nation more than his 
Saviour. It is the expression of an affec- 
tionate and self-denying heart, willing to 


S. DepeZ 


4.04. TIPO} POMAIOTS. rx. 


m = ch. xvi. 7, ~, m 
&c. (?) Levit. TOV 
xxv. 45. 

n ch. i. 3 reff. 

o = Acts x. 41 


a n \ n / 4 a) 7 , > , 
ovyyevov ov ™ Kata "odpKa, * ° oitwés eiow “lepa- 
nritat, av  Pviobecia Kat 7 4 d0Ea Kai ai * diaOAKat Kat 

i} 
7 Svomobecia Kal 7) *XaTpEla Kai ai “ érrayyeriat, ® ov 
€ Vv , \ bd e e \ ‘ n \ n / en 
oi ‘ ratépes, Kal €€ @Y 0 yploTOS TO "KaTa ™odpKa, Oo OV 


eff. 

p ch. viii. 15 
reff. 

q = Heb. ix. 5. 
Exod. xl. 34. 


va ies ee a 6 \ xy 2? \ x? \ x 722 oe 
3 Kings vii. W eq TravT@y Ueos *Y evdoynTos * Eis TOUS *aLMvas, aunV. 
r = Acts iii. 
25. vii. 8. Heb. passim. (plur., Gal. iy. 24. Eph. ii. 12 only.) Gen. xvii. 2 al. s here onlyt. 2 Macc. 
vi. 23 only. (-Oeretv, Heb. vii. 11. -7ms, James iv. 12.) t John xvi. 2. ch. xii. 1. Heb. ix. 1,6 
only. Exod. xii. 25, 26. u see ch, iy. 13. xv. 8. Gal. iii. 16. v absol., Acts vii. 19 reff. 


xch.i. 25. 2Cor. xi. 31. 
2 Cor. i. 3. Eph. i. 3. 


Ps. Ixxxviii. 52 


w = Eph. iy. 6 al. 
i 1 Pet. i. 3 only. 


xiv. 61. Luke i. 68. 


y (see note.) as above (x). Mark 


goth Chr Ambr, Ruf Pac. umo DG, om adeA¢. u. Twy B!(ins B?-marg[see 
table }). om 2nd pov DIF Cyr lat-ff: add twv DF a? Syr Cyr Thdrt. 

4. om wy 7 v100. to emayyeAia A: om kot at 5109. k. 1 vomod. L. 1 diabnKy 
BDF demid harl? Ath Chr-mss Cypr Ruf-ms Jer, Sedul: txt CKX® rel latt(inclg am 
harl! tol) syrr copt goth Epiph Chr Thdrt Phot Hil. n emaryyeAva D Chr-mss : 
emayyedia FB. 

5. om o F. om kat F Hip Cypr Pelag (not Iren Aug). for ro, Ta C!: 
om to F Epiph Cyr, Thdrt,. om @eos Ephr Cypr-ed Hil-ed, Leo, : but it is in 
most gr-lat-ff, and 6 év &e is cited by very many fathers as in apposition to o xpioTos. 
(The various punctuations fe see in notes, and more particulars in Wetstein and 


Scholz.) 


surrender all things, even, if it might be so, 
eternal glory itself, if thereby he could ob- 
tain for his beloved people those blessings of 
the Gospel which he now enjoyed, but from 
which they were excluded. Nor does he 
describe the wish as ever actually formed ; 
only as a conceivable limit to which, if ad- 
missible, his self-devotion for them would 
reach. Others express their love by pro- 
fessing themselves ready to give their life 
for their friends ; he declares the intensity 
of his affection by reckoning even his sp?- 
ritual life not too great a price, if it might 
purchase their salvation. 4.] Not only 
on their relationship to himself does he 
ground this sorrow and this self-devotion : 
but on the recollection of their ancient pri- 
vileges and glories. Who are Israelites 
(a name of honour, see John i. 48; 2 Cor. 
xi. 22; Phil. iii. 5); whose (is) the adop- 
tion (see Exod. iv. 22; Deut. xiv.1; xxxii. 
6; Isa. i. 2 al.), and the glory (perhaps 
their general preferenceand exaltation, con- 
sequent on the vio#ecla,—but far more 
probably, as all the other substantives refer 
to separate matters of fact,—the Shechinah 
or visible manifestation of the divine Pre- 
sence on the mercy-seat between the che- 
rubims: see reff.), and the covenants (not, 
the two tables of the law,—as Beza, Grot., 
al..— which formed but one covenant, and 
are included in vouobecla; nor, the Old 
and New Testament Covenants,—as Aug., 
Jer., Calov., Wolf,—see Gal. iv. 24 ff: 
but the several renewals of the covenant 
with Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and finally 
with the whole people at Sinai :—see Gen. 
xv.9—21; xvii 4,7,10; xxvi. 24; xxviii. 13; 


Exod. xxiv. 7, 8 al.), and the law-giving 
(‘si alii Solonibus et Lycurgis gloriantur, 
quanto justior est gloriandi materia de Do- 
mino!’ Caly. voyuoé.is both the act of 
giving the Law, and the Law thus given), 
and the service (ordinances of worship: 
see ref. Heb.), and the promises (probably 
only those to the patriarchs, of a Redeemer 
to come, are here thought of, as the next 
two clauses place the patriarchs and Christ 
together without any mention of the pro- 
phets. So Abraham isdescribed, Heb. vii.6, 
as Thy €xovTa Tas emayyeAlas),—Wwhose 
are the fathers (probably to be limited to 
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob :—so De W., 
but Stephen gives of rar. a much wider 
meaning in Acts vii. 11, 12, 19, 39, 44, 
and so apparently Paul himself, Acts xiii. 
17. In all those places, however, except 
Acts vii. 19, judy follows, whereas here 
the word is absolute: so that the above 
limitation may be true),—and of whom 
is Christ, as far as regards the flesh 
(r6,—ace., as also in ch. xii. 18,—implies 
that He was not entirely sprung from them, 
but had another nature: q. d. ‘on his 
human side,’—‘ duntaxat quod attinet ad 
corpus humanum,’ as Erasmus), who is 
God over all (prob. neuter ; for 7a rdavTa, 
not of mdyres, is the equivalent nominative 
in such sentences: see ch. xi. 36) blessed 
for ever. Amen. The punctuation and 
application of this doxology have been much 
disputed. By the early Church it was ge- 
nerally rendered as above, and applied to 
Christ,—so Iren., Tert., Orig. h.1., Athan., 
Epiph., Chrys., Theodoret, Theophyl., Ge, 
Wetstein has, it is true, collected passages 


4—6, 


IIPO> POMAIOTY. 


405 


6 ody Zolov Sé Stu *éxmértwxev 6 »AOYoS TOD » Beod: ov *=here only. 


r ? 
a = here only. see Jamesi.1l. = mimtewv, Luke xvi. 17. Svaz., Josh. xxi. 43 (45). Judith vi.9. 


xi. 1 reff. 


from the fathers to shew that they applied 
the words 6 éml ravrwy 0eds to the FATHER 
alone, and protested against their applica- 
tion to the Son; but these passages them- 
selves protest only against the erroneous 
Noetian or Sabellian view of the identity of 
the Father and the Son, whereas in Eph. iv. 
5, 6, eis xvpios, and cis Oeds Kk. marhp 
mavTwy, & éwt wavtwv, are plainly dis- 
tinguished. That our Lord is not, in the 
strict exclusive sense, 6 ém) mavtwv Oeds, 
every Christian will admit, that title being 
reserved for the Father: but that He is ém 
mavtwy Oeds, none of the passages goes to 
deny. Had our text stood e ay 6 xp. Td 
kata odpka, 6 em) mavtwr beds 5 evAoynTds 
eis Tovs aidvas, it would have appeared to 
countenance the above error, which as it 
now stands it cannot do. The first 
trace of a different interpretation, if it be 
one, is found in an assertion of the emperor 
Julian (Cyril, p. 321. Wetst.) roy yoov 
*Inoody ove TlavaAos eréAunoer eimety Oedy, 
ovrTe Mat@aios ote Mdpxos, AX 6 xpno- 
Tbs *Iwdvyns. The next is in the punctua- 
tion of two cursive mss. of the twelfth 
century (5 and 47), which place a period 
after cdpra, thus insulating 6 dv ém mdav- 
Tov... . aunv, and regarding it as a 
doxology to God over all, blessed for ever. 
This is followed by Erasm., Wetst., Sem- 
ler, Reiche, Kéllner, Meyer, Fritzsche, 
Krehl, al. The objections to this rendering 
are, (1) ingenuously suggested by Socinus 
himself (Thol.), and never yet obviated,— 
that without one exception in Hebrew or 
Greek, wherever an ascription of blessing 
is found, the predicate ebAoyntés (743) 
precedes the name of God. (In the one 
place, Ps. lxvii. 19 LXX, kdp. 6 0. evdoyn- 
Tés, evAoynTds Kup. Hucpay Kal? juepar, 
which seems to be an exception, the first 
«vA. has no corresponding word in the Heb. 
and perhaps may be interpolated. So Stuart, 
and even Eichhorn, Hinleit. ins A. T. p. 
320. In Yates’s vindication of Unitarian- 
ism, p. 180, this is. the only instance cited. 
Such cases as 3 Kings x. 9; 2 Chron. ix.8 ; 
Job i. 21; Ps. exii. 2, are no exceptions, as 
in all of them the verb ef or yévoiro is 
expressed, requiring the substantive to 
follow it closely.) And this collocation of 
words depends, not upon the mere aim at 
perspicuity of arrangement (Yates, p. 180), 
but upon the circumstance that the stress 
is, in a peculiar manner, in such ascriptions 
of praise, on the predicate, which is used in 
a pregnant sense, the copula being omitted. 


iner, edn. 
64. 6 


b Acts 


(2) That the &v, on this rendering, would 
be superfluous altogether (see below). (3) 
That the doxology would be unmeaning 
and frigid in the extreme. It is not the 
habit of the Apostle to break out into irre- 
levant ascriptions of praise ; and certainly 
there is here nothing in the immediate 
context requiring one. If it be said that 
the survey of all these privileges bestowed 
on his people prompts the doxology,— 
surely such a view is most unnatural: for 
the sad subject of the Apostle’s sympathy, 
to which he immediately recurs again, is 
the apparent inanity of all these privileges 
in the exclusion from life of those who 
were dignified with them. If it be said 
that the incarnation of Christ is the ex- 
citing cause, the Td kara odpka comes in 
most strangely, depreciating, as it would 
on that supposition, the greatness of the 
event, which then becomes a source of so 
lofty a thanksgiving. (4) That the ex- 
pression evAoyntds eis Tovs aiavas is 
twice besides used by Paul, and each time 
unquestionably not in an ascription of 
praise, but in an assertion regarding the 
subject of the sentence. The places are, 
ch. i. 25, €Adrpevoay tH KTloe mapa 
Tov Ktioavta, bs éorw evAoynTds eis TOUS 
ai@vas. aunv,—and 2 Cor. xi. 31, 6 @eds 
kK. TaThp T. Kup. “Incod oldev, 6 dv evAo- 
yntos cis Tovs ai@vas, dbtt ov WetdSoua: 
whereas he twice uses the phrase evAoynrds 
6 @edés as an ascription of praise, without 
joining cis tovs ai@vas. (5) That in the 
latter of the above-cited passages (2 Cor. 
xi. 31), not only the same phrase as here, 
but the same construction, 6 &y, occurs, 
and that there the whole refers to the sub- 
ject of the sentence. I do not reckon 
among the objections the want of any con- 
trast to 7d Kata odpka, because that might 
have well been left to the readers to supply. 
Another mode of punctuation has been 
suggested (Locke, Clarke, al.), and indeed 
is found in one ms. of the same date as 
above (71): to set a period after mévrwy 
and refer 6 dy ém) ravtwy to Christ, under- 
standing by mdéytwy all the preceding glo- 
rious things, or the marépes only, or even 
‘all things.’ This lies open to all the 
above objections except (5), and to this in 
addition, that as Bp. Middleton observes, we 
must in that case read 6 Oeds. Variety 
of reading there is none worth notice: the 
very fathers generally cited as omitting 
6cds, having it in the best manuscripts and 
editions,  Crell (not Schlichting, see Thol. 


4.06 


37. (Acts iti 


vii. 5, 6,) 


‘ , / 
Gal. iii. 29. 7 
Gal. ii. 28. Ojcetat cot oéppa. 
Isa. xli. 8. 
d Gen. xxi. 12. 
= Isa. xlviil. 


e Acts xix. 4 


reff. 
f ch. viii. 16 
reff. \ yA a y FARIS er 
g Gal. iv. 28 Kab €oTaAL TH appa vLOS. 
only. . 
h ch. ii. 26 (reff.). vy. 3, &c. viii. 36. Acts xix. 27. Wisd. ix. 6. 


xii. 1, xix. 23. j see John xiv. 23. 


IPOS POMAIOTS. 


k ch. v. 3, 11. viii. 23. 


TX. 


ees / e , ‘\ 
e John vill, 93, yap mavtes ol €€ “Iopand, obtot “lopand- 7 ovd Ore eioiv 
: , ’ , \ K 
ue ¢ ewrépua © ABpadp, wavtes Téxva, AAW’ ’Ev “loaak * KXy- 
- rn 
8 rodT EoTw, ov Ta TéxVa THS 
/ lal a rn fol 
"gapkos, Tavta ‘Téxva Tov ‘Oeov, adda Ta ®TéKVA THS 
8 érayyelas © Noyil h é 
yyedias oyiferas » e’s o7réppa. 
- / ia i r \ \ i \ j lal ; » 4 
0 Royos ovtos, ‘Kata tov ixaipov '} TovToy | éNMevoopmat 


9 érayyedias yap 


10 Kod péovoy Oé, adda Kal 


i Gen. xviii. 10 (see note). see Acts 


2 Cor. viii. 19. 


6. for 2nd iopana, iopandeirrar DF latt(not tol) Nys Chr-ms,(and Mtt’s mss,) e- 
comm Ambrst Aug,: txt ABKLX rel Orig, Cas Chr-ed Thdrt Gc Th] Augyepe Tich. 


7. war &. 


8. aft tour ect add or: B}(sic: see table)X3 m 116 Orig,. 


70. 114-20. 
9. om o D. 


p- 484, note, edn. 1842) proposed (and is fol- 
lowed by Whiston, Whitby, and Taylor) to 
transpose 6 éy into ay 6;—but besides the 
objection to the sense thus arising, evAoyn- 
76s would probably in that case (not neces- 
sarily, as Bp. Middleton in loc.) have the 
art.: not to mention that no conjecture 
arising from doctrinal difficulty is everto be 
admitted in the face of the consensusof Mss. 
and versions. The rendering given 
above is then not only that most agreeable 
to the usage of the Apostle, but the only 
one admissible by the rules of grammar 
and arrangement. It also admirably suits 
the context: for, having enumerated the 
historic advantages of the Jewish people, 
he concludes by stating one which ranks far 
higher than all,—that from them sprung, 
according to the flesh, He who is God over 
all, blessed for ever. any implies no op- 
tative ascription of praise, but is the accus- 
tomed ending of such solemn declarations 
of the divine Majesty; compare ch. i. 25. 

6—13.| God has not broken his 
promise: for He chose from the first but 
a portion of the seed of Abraham (6—9), 
and again only one out of the two sons of 
Rebecca (10—13). 6.| Not however 
that (ox olov 5€, b71 = od Toi0v BE A€yw, 
olov tt... . , ‘but Ido not mean sucha 
thing, as that ...., or ‘the matter how- 
ever is not so, as that.,..’? De W. cites 
from Athen. vi. p. 244, odx ofoy BadiCe, 
and from Phrynich. p. 332, obx ofoy dpyi- 
Cova, in a similar sense. The rendering, 
‘it is not possible that,’ would require or- 
dinarily ofév re with an infinitive,—and 
St. Paul is asserting, not the impossibility, 
however true, of God’s word being broken, 
but the fact, that it was not broken) the 
word (i.e. the promise) of God has come 
to nothing (see reff, so Lat., excidit) ; 
viz. by many, the majority of the nominal 
Israel, missing the salvation which seemed 


om tov F m 672. 


to be their inheritance by promise. For 
not all who are sprung from Israel (= 
Jacob, according to Tholuck: but this does 
not seem necessary: Israel here as well as 
below may mean the people, but here in 
the popular sense, there in the divine idea), 
(these) are Israel (veritably, and in the 
sense of the promise). 7.) Nor, 
because they are (physically) the seed of 
Abraham, are all children (so as to in- 
herit the promise), but (we read), ‘In Isaac 
shall thy seed be called”’ (i.e. those only 
shall be called truly and properly, for the 
purposes of the covenant, thy seed, who 
are descended from Isaac, not those from 
Ishmael or any other son. Thol. renders 
kadeiy here by erwecten, ‘ to raise up’) : 

8.] that is (that amounts, when the facts 
of the history are recollected, to saying) 
not the children of the flesh (begotten by 
natural generation, compare John i. 13, and 
Gal. iv. 29) they are the children of God; 
but the children of the promise (begotten 
not naturally, but by virtue of the divine 
promise [Gal. iv. 23, 28], as Isaac) are 
reckoned for seed. 9.] For this word 
was (one) of promise (not, ‘ For this was 
the word of promise, i.e. ovTos yap 6 A. 
THs enayy. The stress is on émayyeAlas: 
the children of promise are reckoned for 
seed: for this word, in fulfilment of which 
Isaac was born, was a word of promise), 
According to this time (m7 ny3, ‘ when 
the time (shall be) reviviscent,’—as De W., 
Thol., al.:—i.e. next year at this time. 
The citation is a free one; the LXX has 
eravactpéepwy iw mpds oe Kata Toy Kal- 
pov trovrov eis Spas, x. eer viv Sdppa 
n yuvh cov. The change into éora rH 
Xdppa vids is probably made for the sake 
of emphasis—the promise was to Sarah) 
will Icome, and Sarah shall have a 
son. 10, 11.} And not only (so) 
(i.e. not only have we an example of 


7—12. 


IPOS POMAIOTS. 


407 


“P , > [ ] / ” > \ lal \ 
eBéxxa €& evos 'xoirny Eyovaa, “Ioadk Tod matpos 1=here (take 


nuov, 1™ who yap yervnbevtav pyndé tpakavtev Ti 


> fal 
ayabov 7 ™dhaddov, iva % Kat’ 


xiii. 13. Heb. 
xiii. 4) only. 
Num. v. 20. 


°€xXoynv P mpobeais TOU m Heb. ix.8 


only. 


fal / > 4 > n ral 7 sg se 
Geod 4 wévyn, ove &E& Epyov adN €k Tod * KadodvTos, BP Tit ii. 


b] a al 
2 eppéOn adth ote 6 § weifwov * Sovredoes TH “ EXadocONN, 


xxii. 8. 
p Acts xxvii. 13 reff. 
r= ch. viii. 30 reff. 
viii. 33. Acts vii. 7, from Gen. xy. 14. 
i. 16.) 


11. for unde, 7 F latt. 


o Acts ix. 15. ch. xi. 5, 7, 28. 
q = Matt. xi. 23. 
s = Heb. xi. 24. 


8 only. 


iii. 20. v. 29. 

James iii. 16 

only. Proy. 
1 Thess. i. 4. 2 Pet. i. 10 only+. Isa. xxii. 7 Aq. 
1 Cor. iii. 14. 2 Cor. ix. 9. 1 Pet. i. 23, 25, from Isa. xl. 8. 
Gen. x. 21. xxix. 16. GEN. xxv. 23. t = John 


u=1Tim. y.9 (John ii. 10, Heb. vii. 7) only. l.c. (Gen. 


rec (for pava.) kakoy (more usual word), with DFKL 
rel Chr Thdrt Gc Thl: txt ABN m Orig, Cyr Damasc. 


rec Tov Geov bef mpodects, 


with (Syr) Chr: txt ABDFKLX rel latt syr goth arm Orig, Chr-2-mss Thdrt. 


pen F. 


12. ree eppyén, with B2D2L rel Orig Chr: txt AB!D'FKN b d fh k n o Thdrt. 


om avtn D}(and lat) harl! Orig, Ambrst Bede. 


the election of a son of Abraham by one 
woman, and the rejection of a son by an- 
other, but also of election and rejection of 
the children of the same woman, Rehecea, 
and that before they were born. ov pdvov 
dé introduces an @ fortiori consideration. 
In the construction supply TodTo only), 
but also Rebecca having conceived (see 
ref. Num. and ch. xiii. 18, where the mean- 
ing is not exactly the same though cognate) 
by one man (in the former case, the chil- 
dren were by two wives ; the difference be- 
tween that case and this being, that there, 
was diversity of parents, here, identity. 
The points of contrast being then this di- 
versity and identity, the identity of the 
father also is brought into view. This is 
well put by Chrys.: 7 yap ‘PeBéxka kal 
pévn TH "loaak yéyove yuvn, Kal dvo 
Tekovca Taidas, ek Tov “IoaaKk ETEKEV ay- 
porepous’ AAA’ Suws of meXOEVTES TOV AUTO 
TaTpos OVTES, THS aUTHS uNTpds, TAS avTaS 
Adcavres wDdivas, kal duomdrpiot dvTes Kah 
duounrpiot, Kal mpds TovTaLs Kal Sidvuot, ov 
TOV avTaY annrAavoay. Hom. xvi. p. 610), 
our father Isaac (7. mar. ju., probably 
said without any special reference, the 
Apostle speaking as a Jew. If with any 
design it might be, as Thol. remarks, to 
shew that even among the Patriarchs’ 
children such distinction took place. 
Christians being tékva éemayyeAlas, the 
expression might apply to them: but, as 
the same Commentator observes, the argu- 
ment here is to shew that not all the 
children of promise belonged to the ék- 
Aoyn. See ch. iv. 1—12. As to the 
construction here, it is best to regard 
GAAG Kal... @yovca...u@y as a sen- 
tence begun but intercepted by the remark 
following, and resumed in another form 
at 66. avrH),—for (not answering to 
‘furnishes us an example ’ supplied after 
éxovea, but elliptically put, answering to 
the apprehension in the Apostle’s mind of 


perGoy SN}. 


the force of the example which he is about 
to adduce. For this use of ydp see John 
iv. 44, note; Herod. i. 8, Pvyn, ov yap....; 
30, teive AQ. map’ jucas yap... . Thucyd. 
i. 72, Tv 5¢ “AO. Ervxe yap....; and 
other examples in Hartung, Partikellehre, 
i. 467) without their having been yet 
born (the subject, the children, is to be 
supplied partly from the fact of her preg- 
nancy just stated, partly from the history, 
well known to the readers. un instead 
of ov is frequently used by later Greek 
writers in participial clauses: Winer, edn. 
6, § 55.5; so Acts ix. 9, jv... wy BAérov 
k. ovx €payey..., and Luke xiii. 11, py 
duvapévn avartwat. See Schifer, Demosth. 
iii. 395, and Hartung, ii. 130—132) or 
having done any thing good or ill (pada. 
an unusual word with Paul = properly 
amAoby, padioy, evteAés, as Timeeus in 
Lex. to Plato, with whom it is a very 
common word in this sense. Ruhnken, 
on the word in Timeus, gives from the 
Lex. Rhetor. MS., 7d ©. onuatver déxa" 
éxl Te mpos@mou kal mpdyuatos TO kakdv. 
Td pikpdv, kK. TO EvKaTappdyynTov, K. Td 
aobevés. k. Td Hdokov. kK. TO AVONTOY, K.T.A. 
This will shew the connexion of the strict 
and the wider meaning), that the pur- 
pose of God according to (purposed in 
pursuance of, or in accordance with, or 
[Thol.] with reference to His) election 
(Thol. prefers taking kat’ exA. adjec- 
tively, as Bengel has rendered it, ‘pro- 
positum electivum, and as in Polyb. vi. 
34. 8, cis ExdoTyns avnp AauBaverat Kar” 
exroyny, ‘electively’) may (not might ; 
the purpose is treated as one in all time, 
which would be nullified if once thwarted) 
abide (stand firm; the opposite of éxmi7- 
tev, see reff. 1 Pet., Isa.),—not of works 
(ch. iii. 20; iv. 2) but of Him that 
calleth,—(this clause does not seem to 
depend on any one word of the foregoing 
or following, as on é6¢@n, Calv., Luth, ; 


408 


v MAL. i. 2, 3. 

w ch. iii. 5 reff. 

x Luke xiii. 27. 
ch, i. 29 al. 
Ps. xci. 15. 

y ch. ii. 11. 
Demosth., p. 
318. 13. 

z ch. iii. 4 reff. 

a Matt. ix. 27 
al. Exop, 
xxxiii. 19, 

Gal. vy. 7. 


ech. y. 18 reff. d = 1 Cor. ix. 24. 


13. kaSarep B Orig. 


TIPO> POMAIOTS. 


IX. 


13 xabas yéypartat * Tov “laxwB ryryarnoa, tov dé ‘Head 
ary 2 14 w / 3 b lal \ x a) U y \ a 6 fal 

éulonaa. Ti oby epodpev ; wn * abixia ¥ rapa TO O€@ ; 
un yéevoito. 1° Tr Mwah yap réyer *’ EXenow bv ay * eheo, 
kal Yoixteipnow ov av ” oixtelpw. 
Gédovtos ovde Tod “TpéxoVTOS, GAA Tov * éXedvTOS ODeod. 


-Gv (pres.) here bis. Jude 23 only. Prov. xxi. 26 A(not F) BIN, 
i Ps. cxviii. 32. gen., Acts i. 7. 


16° doa °ovv ov Tov 


b here bis only. 4 Kings xiii. 23. 
Heb. v. 14. 


14. om tw D'F. 


15. rec yap bef uwon, with AKL rel Chr Thdrt: txt BDFN Damase. pwue 
FKLX abfhk1: txt ABD.— -ce B?F ¢ d g Chr-2-mss: -on AB!DKLX Thdrt. 
16. rec eAcovvtos, with B?K gr-ff; evdoxouvtos L rel: txt AB1DFR. 


—or pevn, Riickert, Meyer ;—or kar’ ék- 
Aoynv, Fritz.;—but to be a general cha- 
racteristic of the whole transaction ; see a 
similar é« in ch.i.17. Thol., De W. 
Thus viewed, or indeed however taken, it 
is decisive against the Pelagianism of the 
Romanists, who by making our faith as 
foreseen by God the cause of our election, 
affirm it to be e& @pywy. See the matter 
discussed in Thol.),—it was said to her 
(rvis recitantis; the LXX have xal), “The 
elder shall serve the younger” (this 
prophecy is distinctly connected in Gen. 
xxv. with the prophetic description of the 
children as two nations, — Aabs dAaovd 
trepeger, kal 6 pelCwy x«.7.A. But the 
nations must be considered as_ spoken 
of in their progenitors, and the elder 
nation = that sprung from the elder bro- 
ther. History records several subjugations 
of Edom by the kings of Judah; first by 
David [2 Sam. viii. 14];—under Joram 
they rebelled [2 Kings viii. 20], but were 
defeated by Amaziah [2 Kings xiv. 7], and 
Elath taken from them by Uzziah [2 Kings 
xiv. 22]; under Ahuz they were again free, 
and troubled Judah [2 Chron. xxviii. 16, 
17, compare 2 Kings xvi. 6, 7 ],—and con- 
tinued free, as prophesied in Gen. xxvii. 
40, till the time of John Hyrcanus, who 
[Jos. Antt. xiii. 9.1] reduced them finally, 
so that thenceforward they were incorpo- 
rated among the Jews): as it is written, 
Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated (there is 
no necessity here to soften the ‘hated’ 
into ‘loved less :’ the words in Malachi pro- 
ceed on the fullest meaning of éulonoa, see 
ver. 4 there, ‘‘ The people against whom the 
Lorp hath indignation for ever ”). 
14—29.| This election was made by the 
indubitable right of God, Who is not 
therefore unjust. 14.| What then 
shall we say (anticipation of a difficulty or 
objection, see reff.,—but not put into the 
mouth of an objector)? Is there un- 
righteousness (injustice) with (in) God 


(viz. in that He chooses as He will, with- 
out any reference to previous desert) ? Let 
it not be: 15.| for He saith to 
Moses, ‘‘I will have mercy on whomso- 
ever I have mercy, and will compas- 
sionate whomsoever I compassionate.” 
The citation is from the LXX, who in- 
sert the indefinite a, the Heb. being 
. + + Jig Warne na; the meaning ap- 
parently being, ‘ whenever I have mercy on 
any, it shall be pure mercy, no human 
desert contributing ;’ which agrees better 
with the next verse than the ordinary ren- 
dering, which lays the stress on the i, ay; 
and is not inconsistent with ver. 18, év 
Oéde1, €AeG: because if God’s mercy be 
pure mercy without any desert on man’s 
part, it necessarily follows that he has 
mercy on whom He will, His will being the 
only assignable cause of the selection. 

16.} So then (inference from the 
citation) it is not,of (God’s mercy ‘does 
not belong to, —‘is not in the power of,’ 
see reff.) him that willeth (any man 
willing it) nor of him that runneth (any 
man contending for it, see reff. and Phil. 
iii. 14. There hardly can be any allusion 
to Abraham’s wish for Ishmael, Gen. xvii. 
18, and Esau’s running to hunt for venison, 
as Stuart, Burton, al.), but of God that 
hath mercy. I must pause again here to 
remind the student, that I purposely do not 
enter on the disquisitions so abundant in 
some commentaries on this part of Scrip- 
ture, by which it is endeavoured to recon- 
cile the sovereign election of God with our 
free will. We shall find that free will 
asserted strongly enough for all edifying 
purposes by this Apostle, when the time 
comes. At present, he is employed wholly 
in asserting the divine Sovereignty, the 
glorious vision of which it ill becomes us to 
distract by continual downward looks on 
this earth. I must also protest against all 
endeavours to make it appear, that no 
inference lies from this passage as to the 


13—18. 


17 Néyer yap °7 ypadt to Papaw Gru ‘ eis & adTo ® TodTO 
/ 3 ¥, j / 3 \ Pe 
héEnyeipa oe, OTrws ‘évdeiEwuat ev col Thy Svvauly pov 


IIPO> POMAIOTS. 


409 


e sing., Mark 
xii. 10. xv. 
28. John ii 
22 and 
passim. ch. 


\ 24 k PS) a \ ” re > , a a iv. 3 al. 
Kal OTS layyerAn TO OvoMa pou EV TAGH TH YI. eMirki.as. 


edoa °ovv ov Oérer **€rec?, Ov SE OérXev !oKAnpvver. 


g Acts xxiv. 15 reff. 


i and constr., 1 Tim, i. 16, (see ver. 22.) Exon, ix. 


h = here (1 Cor. vi. 14) only. Judg. v. 12. 
16, k Luke ix, 60. Acts xxi. 26 only. 1. c. 


John xviii. 
37. Acts ix. 
21. 


Ps. vii. 6 al. Jos. Antt. viii. 11. 


1 Acts xix. 9. Heb. iii, 8, 13, 18, iv. 7 only. Exod. iv. 21 (737). vii. 3 (MOP), al. 


17. aft omws ins av F. 


evdertoua: FL c |! Chr-ms. 
18. In A, from ov de 6. to n ove exe: ver. 21 is in a later hand. 


diayyeAer L fo. 
*éXed DIF. 


aft eA. ins ov Se OcAet eAcer B'(Tischdf: om B?). 


salvation of individuals. It is most true 
(see remarks at the beginning of this 
chapter) that the immediate subject is 
the national rejection of the Jews : but we 
must consent to hold our reason in abey- 
ance, if we do not recognize the infer- 
ence, that the sovereign power and free 
election here proved to belong to God 
extend to every exercise of His mercy— 
whether temporal or spiritual—whether in 
Providence or in Grace—whether national 
or individual. It is in parts of Scripture 
like this, that we must be especially careful 
not to fall short of what is written : not to 
allow of any compromise of the plain and 
awful words of God’s Spirit, for the sake of 
a caution which He Himself does not teach 
us. 17.] The same great truth shewn 
on its darker side :—not only as regards 
God’s mercy, but His wrath also. For 
(confirmation of the wniversal truth of the 
last inference) the Scripture (identified 
with God, its Author: the case, as Thol. 
remarks, is different when merely something 
contained in Scripture is introduced by 
n ypaph A€yer: there 7 yp. is merely per- 
sonified. The justice of Thol.’s remark 
will be apparent, if we reflect that this 
expression could not be used of the mere 
ordinary words of any man in the histo- 
rical Scriptures, Ahab, or Hezekiah,—but 
only where the teat itself speaks, or where 
God spoke, or, as here, some man under 
inspiration of God) saith to Pharaoh, For 
this very purpose (ér: recitantis; the LXX 
_ have kal évexey tovrov) raised I thee up 
(LXX diet np7Ons, ‘ thou wert preserved to 
this day :’ Heb. smyox71 from ny, stetit, 
in Hiph. stare fecit ; hence taken to sig- 
nify (1) ‘constituit, muneri prefecit, as 
1 Kings xii. 32; Isa. xxi. 6 [LXX ceauT¢ 
aticov oxémov|; Esth. iv. 5,—(2) ‘ con- 
jirmavit, as 1 Kings xv. 4 al.,—and (3) 
‘prodire fecit, excitavit, Dan. xi. 11; 
Neh. vi. 7: the meaning ‘ ixcolumem pre- 
stitit, given in the Lexicons, seems to be 
grounded on the following of the LXX in 
this passage, who apparently understood it 
of Pharaoh being kept safe through the 


plagues. This has been done by modern 
interpreters to avoid the strong assertion 
which the Apostle here gives, purposely 
deviating from the LXX, that Pharaoh was 
‘raised up,’ called into action in his office, 
to be an example of God’s dealing with im- 
penitent sinners. The word chosen by the 
Apostle, egeyefpw, in its transitive sense, is 
often used by the LXX for ‘to rouse into 
action :’ see besides reff. Ps. lvi. 8; Ixxix. 
2; Cant. iv. 16 al. So that the meaning 
(3) given above for the Heb. verb—‘prodire 
fecit, excitavit,’ was evidently that intended 
by eéfye:pa), that I may shew in thee (‘in 
thee as an example,—‘in thy case,’—*‘ by 
thee’) my power (7. icxtv mov LXX- 
B: dvv. [which is read in A] is perhaps 
chosen by the Apostle as more general, 
icxvs applying rather to those deeds of 
miraculous power of which Egypt was then 
witness), and that my Name may be pro- 
claimed in all the earth (compare as a 
comment, the words of the song of triumph, 
Exod. xv. 14—16). 18.| Therefore 
whom He will, He hath mercy on (ref. to 
ver. 15, where see note), and whom He 
will, He hardeneth. The frequent re- 
currence of the expression okAnpivew thy 
kapdlay in the history of Pharaoh should 
have kept Commentators (Carpzov, Er- 
nesti, al., and of Lexicographers, Wahl and 
Bretschneider) from attempting to give to 
gKAnpvvw the sense of ‘ treating hardly,’ 
against which the next verse would be deci- 
sive, if there were no other reason for re- 
jecting it. But it is very doubtful whether 
the word can ever bear the meaning. The 
only passage which appears to justify it (for 
in 2 Chron. x. 4 it clearly has the import 
of hardening, making severe) is Job xxxix. 
16, where dmeckAhpuve Ta Téxva éauTijs 
[airjjs AN] the LXX version of the Heb. 
Dw, is supposed to mean, ‘ treats her off- 
spring hardly’ But the LXX by this 
compound seem to have intended, ‘casts off 
her offspring in her hardness ;’ the E. V. 
has, ‘She is hardened against her young 
ones.’ Whatever difficulty there lies in 
this assertion, that God hardeneth whom 


410 IIPO > POMAIOTS. Ex 
ch. iii.7. 19 gped py ™ Dy | & : * TO va 4 
a Té [ov] ere "memperas ; 7B yap ° Bovnaj- 
"Kit nie MaTe avtTod Tis ? avOéaornkev; * & avOpwre, 4% pevodvye 
rec.) only T. ‘ 


, ‘ / 3 ¢ > - rn ca 
Sixt al OU TIS el O ‘avTaTroKpwopuevos TO Bed; pn Epel TO 

. ie ¥ ‘ / fal / / Ey 
ok; Smraocwa TO 'tracavte Ti pe eroincas ottws; 2H 
43. 1 Pet. 


iv. 3only+. 2 Macc. xv. 5 only. p Acts vi. 10 reff. q ch. x. 18 (Luke xi. 28 v. r.) 
only. r Luke xiv. 6 only. Judg.v.29A. Job xvi. 9. xxxii. 12 only. shere only. Job 
xl. 14(19). Isa. xxix. 16. t1 Tim. ii. 13 only. Gen. ii. 7, 8. 


19. rec 1st ovy bef wo, with DF KL latt Orig, Chr Thdrt: om ovy 73.118 arm: txt 
ABX m syr goth Orig,. rec om 2nd ovy, with AKLX rel vulg Orig, Chr Thdrt 
Aug: ins BDF Jer Ruf Sedul. elz om ‘yap, with G-lat : ins ABDFKLNX rel Orig 
Ath Chr Thdrt Thdor-mops Damase Aug. 

20. rec pevourye bef w avOp. (to suit the arrangement in other places: see reff. Had 
the wevouvye been transposed in A &e to avoid placing it first in the sentence [see 
Phryn Lobeck, p. 342], the same various reading would have occurred in the other 
places, which it does not), with D?KLN% rel syrr copt Orig Chr Thdrt Thdor-mops ce 
Thl: om pevovrye D'F latt eth Jer Ruf: txt A(B)&' m Chr-ms, Damase.—om ye B. 


for eroinoas, erAaoas D Syr Thl-marg. 


He will, lies also in the daily course of His 
Providence, in which we see this hardening 
process going on in the case of the pros- 
perous ungodly man. The fact is patent, 
whether declared by revelation or read in 
history : but to the solution of it, and its 
reconciliation with the equally certain fact 
of human responsibility, we shall never 
attain in this imperfect state, however we 
may strive to do so by subtle refinements 
and distinctions. The following is the ad- 
mirable advice of Augustine (ad Sixtum, 
Ep. exciv. 6. 23, vol. ii. p. 882), from 
whom in this case it comes with double 
weight: “Satis sit interim Christiano ex 
fide adhue viventi, et nondum cernenti 
quod perfectum est, sed ex parte scienti, 
nosse vel credere quod neminem Deus libe- 
ret nisi gratuité misericordia per Dominum 
nostrum Jesum Christum, et neminem 
damnet nisi sequissima veritate per eundem 
Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum. Cur 
autem illum potius quam illum liberet aut 
non liberet, scrutetur qui potest judiciorum 
ejus tam magnum profundum,—verum- 
tamen caveat precipitium.” 19.] Thou 
wilt say then to me (there seems no reason 
to suppose the objector a Jew, as Thol. after 
Grot., Calov., Koppe, al. :—the objection is 
a general one, applying to all mankind, and 
likely to arise in the mind of any reader. 
The expression é &v@pwre seems to confirm 
this), Why then doth He yet find fault (ex 
as ch. iii. 7, assuming your premises,—‘if 
this be so:’ at the same time it expresses 
a certain irritation on the part of the 
objector: ‘exprimit morosum fremitum,’ 
Bengel. péupoua has a stronger sense 
than mere blame here: Hesych. interprets 
it airiara, eEovOevei, katayiwwoKer: see the 
apocryphal reff. Thol.) ? .For who resists 
(not, ‘hath resisted: avbéarnnev, like 


éarnxer, is present, see Winer, edn. 6, § 40. 
4. b, and compare epéornxev, 2 Tim. iv. 6) 
His will (i.e. if it be His will to harden the 
sinner, and the sinner goes on in his sin, he 
does not resist but goes with the will of 
God)? Yea rather (uevotvye, see reff., 
takes the ground from under the previous 
assertion and supersedes it by another: im- 
plying that it has a certain show of truth, 
but that the proper view of the matter is 
yet to be stated. It thus conveys, as in 
ref. Luke, an intimation of rebuke; here, 
with severity : ‘ that which thou hast said, 
may be correct human reasoning—but as 
against God’s sovereignty, thy reasoning is 
out of place and irrelevant’), 0 man (per- 
haps without emphasis implying the con- 
trast between man and God,—for this is 
done by the emphatic od following, and we 
have &v@pwre unemphatic in ch. ii. 1), who 
art THOU that repliest against (the avrf 
seems to imply contradiction, not merely 
dialogue: see besides reff., avtamdxpiow, 
Job xiii. 22, BCR) Gop implying, ‘ thou 
hast neither right nor power, to call God to 
account in this manner.’ Notice, that 
the answer to the objector’s question does 
not lie in these vv. 20, 21, but in the follow- 
ing (see there) ;—the present verses are a 
rebuke administered to the spirit of the 
objection, which forgets the immeasurable 
distance between us and God, and the re- 
lation of Creator and Disposer in which He 
stands to us. So Chrys.,—xal ob8€ thy 
Atvow eibéws erdyet, cunpepdyvtws kal TodTO 
moi@v GAA’ emoroul(er mpatov toy (y- 
TovvTa, Aéywv obTw pevotvye .. . . OED; 
moet 5& TovTo, Thy Ukatpoy abrov mepi- 
epylav avactéAAwy, K. THY WOAAHV oAv- 
mpaynortvny, «. xadwdy mepitibels, k. 
madetwv eidévar Th wey Oeds Th BE EvOpw- 
mos, K. W@s dkardAnmros altod h mpéd- 


19—23. 


IIPOZ POMAIOTS. 


411 


4 al n 
oun exes “ eEovciay 6 * Kepayeds TOU * myAOD, ex ToD * RAR, 


1 Cor. ix. 12 


> ~ x s a a A z.2 \ a - reff. 
QuTovu dupapatos Tolnaatl wi oO bev els TLV OKEVOS, v Matt. xxvii. 


a \ > > ’ 95 > X , © \ , 7, 10 only. 
¥6 de eis Yatyiav; cei S€ O&dwv oO Geos I évdciEa- Fie) 

6 x > \ ce , ‘o£ 8 . > ~  ( 2tK6s. 
GvUat TV opy7Vv Kat yvo@pioat TO UVVQATOV QAUTOU key ii. 27.) 
zg ” > - bh 6 , i s > an k w John ix. 6, 

TPVEY KEV €V TONAH Hakpo UELLa OKEVI) opyns KAT7)p- ee (5 — 

Ld > > / rs ‘ a , ‘ a on. y- en. 
Tic peva els! aTwrevav, * Kai ™ va © yvwpion Tov © TODTOY , ¥*. 55 

~ , > - er / f a / 1 Cor. v. 6,7. 

THs °OoEns avTov emt iaKxevn P édéovs, & ImponToiwagey Gil. only. 
Exod. xii. 34. 

y 1 Cor. xi. 21 reff. z=ch.1. 1,5alL fr. a= 2 Tim. ii. 20,21. Heb. ix.2l1al Exod. 

iii. 22. b ch. i. 26 reff. c Acts xxiii. 9. d constr., ch. ii. 15. Eph. ii.7. Tit. 

ii. 10. iii. 2. Heb. vi. 10,11. see ver. 17. P.H. Gen. 1 15, 17. e 1 Cor. xii. 3 reff. = here 

only. constr., ch. i. 19, 20. viii. 3. g = Heb. xii. Wonly. (see Heb. xiii. 13.) hépew 

Ti mpaws, Xen. Cyr. ii. 2. 9. h ch. ii. 4 reff. isee ver. 21. Jer. xxvii. (1) 25. constr., 

Acts ix. 15. k = Heb. x. 5 (from Ps. xxxix. 6). xi. 3. (Matt. iv. 21.) 1 = Acts viii. 20 

reff. John xvii. 12. Jer. xxvi. (xlvi.) 21. m constr., see Winer, edn. 6, $ 63. I. 1. n ch. 


ii. 4 reff. 
ii 4. Exod. xx. 6. 


22. om nveyxev F D!-lat Julian. 


o Eph. i. 18. iii. 16. (Phil. iv. 19.) Col. i. 27. 
q Eph. i. 10 only. i 


p Luke i. 50, &c. Eph. 


Isa. xxvili. 24. Wisd. ix. 8 only. 


ins es bef cxevn F Ambrst Julian. 


23. om Ist xa: B wm 39. 47-marg 67°. 80. 116 vulg copt goth arm (Orig) Jer Ruf 


Pel Sedul Fulg. 


vow, K. mas bmepBalvovca Toy TuéTEpov 
Aoyicpuoyv, K. TGs Gravta ai’Tge weiBecOau 
bet? va Grav TovTo KaTackevdon mapa 
T@ Gkpoath, kK. KatagTelAn K. Aeayn THY 
yrounv, TéTE weTa TOAATS evKoAlas éx- 
dyov Thy Avcw, cirapadextoy alte worhon 
Tb Acyouevov. Hom. xvi. p.614. Simi- 
larly Calvin: ‘Hac priori responsione 
nihil alind quam improbitatem illius blas- 
phemiz retundit, argumento ab hominis 
conditionesumpto. Alteram mox subjiciet, 
qua Dei justitiam ab omni criminatione 
vindicabit.’ Shall the thing made (pro- 
perly of a production of plastic art, moulded 
of clay or wax) say to him who moulded it, 
‘“Why madest thou me thus?” These 
words are slightly altered from Isa. xxix. 
16 LXX,—ph épet 7d tWAdo ua TE TWAdCAYTE 
aitdéiom. até AN), Ov ot pe exdasas; 
9) To xoinua TS ToincayTi, Ov cuveTas ye 
éxolnoas ; Or (introduces a new objec- 
tion, or fresh ground of rebuke, see ch. ii. 
4; iii. 29 ; vi. 3; xi. 2) hath not the potter 
power over the clay (the similitude from 
ref. Isa. In Sir. xxxvi. [xxxiii.] 13, we 
have a very similar sentiment: és anAdbs 
kepapews ev xeipl avTOU.... odTws &vOpw- 
mot éy xeipl Tov xoihoayTos aitovs. And 
even more strikingly so, Wisd. xv. 7: xat 
yap kepane’s aradny viv CAlBwrv éxinox Gov 
mAdoce: mpbs brnpeciay Nuay ExagTor| ev Ex. 
ACN], GA éx Tod abtov wNAOd averAdcaTo 
7a Te Tav Kabapav Epywy SoiAa cKebn Ta 
Te évaytia wav@ [xdavz7a AN | éuolws: TovTwy 
de éxarépou| érépov BN, évépwy NR!) ris 
éxdotouv éotly 7[om. 7 XN] xpHos, Kpiths 
6 xnaovpyés. See also Jer. xviii. 6), from 
the same mass to make one vessel unto 
honour (honourable uses) and another unto 
dishonour (dishonourable uses. See ref. 2 
Tim. The honour and dishonour are not 


for Tov mAouvTov, To mAouToOs F. 


here the moral purity or impurity of the 
human vessels, but their ultimate glorifi- 
cation or perdition. The Apostle in asking 
this question, rather aims at striking dumb 
the objector by a statement of God’s un- 
doubted right, against which it does not 
become us men to murmur, than at un- 
folding to us the actual state of the case. 
This he does in the succeeding verses; see 
above, from Chrys. and Calv.) ? 22.] 
But what if (by the elliptical ei 3€ the an- 
swer tothe question of the objector, ver. 19, 
seems to be introduced ; éayv ofy occursina 
similar connexion John vi. 62 ; and GAA’ ei, 
Soph. (Ed. Col. 590,—aar’ ei 6€Aovras 7 
ovdé col ouyeiv addy; See Hartung, Parti- 
kellehre, ii. 212. 6) (1) God, purposing to 
shew forth His wrath, and to make known 
His power (that which He could do), en- 
dured with much long-suffering vessels 
of wrath fitted for destruction; and 
(what if this took place) (2) that He 
might make known the riches of His 
glory on (not to, as De Wette, who joins 
it with yvwpicn,—but ‘ toward’, on, ‘ with 
regard to,’ dependent on zAcirov, as wAov- 
tay eis, ch. x. 12) the vessels of mercy, 
which He before made ready for glory? 
I have given the whole, that my view of 
the construction might be evident: viz. 
that (1) and (2) are parallel clauses, both 
dependent on et 5€ ; @éAwy giving the pur- 
pose of the Ist, and fa yy. that of the 
2nd. They might be cast into one form by 
writing the Ist 6 @., iva évdeitnra:... k. 
yvwpion,—or the 2nd, kal 6éAwy yrwpica. 
Only I do not, as Calv., Beza, Grot., Ben- 
gel, De Wette, Meyer, and Winer, under- 
stand the same fveyxey ... aw@x., as be- 
longing to both, but only to the 1st, and 
supply before the 2nd, ‘ What if this took 


>, , A 
eis * d0Fav; 4 ods 
5s => Ma i. 2. ? / \ 
‘Tai 6 "lovdalwv, adda Kal 

see ch. xi. 2. 
t Hosea ii. 23 


(B). 
u Hosea i. 10. 


TIPO) POMAIOTS. 


bb a 


Kal éKddecev Tuas ov povoy && 
e& eOvav, ® ws Kai *év TA ‘One 
éyes Karéow tov ov acy pov acy pov, Kal THY OvK 
‘nyarnwevny nyarnuevnyy “Kal Eotar év TO TOTM 


ov éppéOn avtots Ov dads pou tpeis, exe? xANOHoov- 


25. om ev B. 
26. for of, w X!(txt N-corr! ?). 
dfhkl?n17 Thdrt Thl. 


rec eppyOn, with B2D%L rel Ec : txt AB! D!-gr KX 
for epp. avt., av. kAnOnoovta F (D}-lat Ambrst): im 


loco liberata (eppvo@n ?) in quo vocabatur Iren-int. 


place,’ viz. this dv @€Ae1, eAce?. Other con- 
structions have been,—to make tva depend 
on Karnpticuéeva—‘ prepared to destruc- 
tion for this very purpose, that &e. So 
Fritz. and Riickert, ed. 2; but this seems 
to overlook kal, or to regard it as = kal 
TovTo :—to take ver. 23 as a new sentence, 
supplying éexdAecey jas, as Tholuck. 

Stuart supplies @€Awy before va yv., and 
naAénoev before obs exdrAcoevy Huds. This 
in fact amounts to nearly the same as my 
own view, but appears objectionable, inas- 
much as it joins ver. 24 to ver. 23: see 
below. The argument is, ‘What if God, 
in the case of the vessels of wrath prepared 
for destruction, has, in willing to manifest 
His power and wrath, also exhibited towards 
them long-suffering (to lead them to repent- 
ance, ch. ii. 4,—a mystery which we cannot 
fathom), and in having mercy on the ves- 
sels of mercy prepared for glory, has also 
made manifest the riches of His glory ?’” 
Then in both these dispensations will ap- 
pear, not the arbitrary power, but the rich 
goodness of God. The theological diffi- 
culties in karnpriouéeva and mponrolyacerv 
(in both cases God is the agent; not they 
themselves, as Chrys., Theophyl., Olsh. 
Bengel, however, rightly remarks, ‘ non 
dicit quae mpoxathptice, cum tamen ver. seq. 
dicat ‘que preeparavit.’ Cf. Matt. xxv. 34 
cum ver. 41, et Act. xiii. 46 cum ver. 48”’) 
are but such as have occurred repeatedly 
before, and, as Stuart has well observed, are 
inherent, not in the Apostle’s argument, 
nor even in revelation, but in any consistent 
belief of an omnipotent and omniscient 
God. See remarks on ver. 18. oKevn 
épyis and cKedn eA€ous are vessels prepared 
to subserve, as it were to hold, His opyh 
and éAeos : hardly, as Calvin, instruments to 
shew forth: that is done, over and above 
their being oxe’y, but is not necessary 
to it. The ox. dpy. and ox. eA. are not 
to be, with a view to evade the general 
application, confined to the instances of 
Pharaoh and the Jews: these instances 
give occasion to the argument, but the 
argument itself is general, extending to all 


the dealings of God. 24.) Of which 
kind (quales, agreeing with 7uas—i. e. 
oket’n €Acous) He also called us, not only 
from among the Jews, but also from among 
the Gentiles. It being entirely inthe power 
of God to preordain and have mercy on 
whom He will, He has exercised this 
right by calling not only the remnant of 
His own people, but a people from among 
the Gentiles alse. 25, 26.] It is diffi- 
cult to ascertain in what sense the Apostle 
cites these two passages from Hosea as 
applicable to the Gentiles being called to 
be the people of God. That he does so, is 
manifest from the words themselves, and 
from the transition to the Jews in ver. 27. 
In the prophet they are spoken of Israel ; 
see ch. i. 6—11, and ch. ii. throughout : 
who after being rejected and put away, was 
to be again received into favour by God. 
Two ways are open, by which their citation 
by the Apostle may be understood. Either 
(1) he brings them forward to shew that it 
is consonant with what we know of God’s 
dealings, to receive as His people, those 
who were formerly not His people—that 
this may now take place with regard to the 
Gentiles, as it was announced to happen 
with regard to Israel_—and even more,— 
that Israel in this as in so many other 
things was the prophetie mirror in which 
God foreshewed on a small scale His future 
dealings with mankind,—or (2) he adduces 
them from mere applicability to the subject 
in hand, implying, ‘It has been with us 
Gentiles, as with Israel in the prophet 
Hosea.’ I own I much prefer the former 
of these, as more consonant with the dignity 
of the argument, and as apparently justified 
by the xal,—as He saith also in Hosea, 
implying perhaps that the matter in hand 
was not that directly prophesied in the 
citation, but one analogous to it. Chrys. 
takes the same view: ei yap ém ray 
ayvomovnodvrwy peta ToAAGaS evepyeotas, 
kal GAAoTpiwbévtwy, Kal Td Aads elvac 
drodwrekdTwr, TocalTn yeyovey 7) meTa- 
Bodh, th exddve Kal to’s ov mera Thy 
oixelwoww GAAoTpiwOévTas, GAA’ eE apxiis 


24—30. 


tat viol Oeod favTos. 


tod “Iopaidy *’Kav 4 6 apiOuos tav vidv “lopayr i.i 


IIPO> POMAIOTS. 413 
27“Hoaias 8é ¥ xpates * brrép yer, 
vii. 4. Phil. 


x IsA. x. 22, 


as 7 37 aupos THs YOaXaoons, TO *vTONELpa TwONCETAL. , 2, \i: 45, 
’ yR 


28 Noyov yap “ ouvteda@v Kal “ cvytéuver [év © duKatoovvn’ 
is a an 
dtt Noyov tavvreTunpévoy] Townoes KUpLos él THs ys. 


29 Kat Kabas f 


h ES lé e ”~ / e > 1) vn > / \ al 
EYKATENTIEY NuiY OTTEpa, WS Yodoua av éeyevnOnpuev kat ,,* 


as Topoppa av ' epowwOnyev. 


ii.17. Jer. vi. 11. 
iii. 2, Jude 17+. g Isa. i. 9. 
ii. 17. elsw. Mt. Mk. L. only. Ps. xxvii. 1. 


Isa, xxviii. 22. 


d here only. l.c. 


xx. 8 only. 
Gen. xxxil. 
12. see Heb. 
xi, 12. 

z as above (y). 
Matt. vii. 26. 


mpoeipnxev “Hoaias ® Ki pry Kvptos caBae a here only. 


fic. v. 7,8 


onstr. part., 
ch. y. 3, 11. 


/ i lal 
30k Te ody * épodwev 3 OTt ¢ Xeis xxi. 27 


= Lam. 


=2 Pet. 
i= Acts xiy.11. Heb. 


reff. 

e Acts xvii. 31 reff. 
h 2 Cor. iv. 9 reff. i 
k ch, iii. 5 reff. 


27. rec katademua (corrn to LXX where no MS has vTod.), with DFKL &-corr! 
rel Thdrt: eykaradcimpa Chr: vrokataAcimpa 47: txt ABN! Eus,. 

28. om ev Sikatocvvyn ott Aoyoy cuvteTtunuevov (by mistake from similarity of cvv- 
Teuvev and cuvteTunuevoy ?) ABN! Syr copt Kus Damase Aug, (ath has the ver thus: 
quia consummatum et precisum verbum enarret Deus in mundo: om cvurted. to Aovyov 
Thdrt) : ins DFKLN3 rel latt syr goth Eus, Chr He Thl Jer Ambrst Bede. 


29. eyxaTreAermey ADIFKL. 


GAAoTplovs bvTas, KANORVaL, K. vmaKov- 
cavTas Tov avTa@y atiwOjvat; Hom. xvi. p. 
618. The fem. ry is used because the 
Jewish people was typified by the daughter 
of the prophet, Hos. i. 6, who was called 
Lo-ruhamah, ‘not having obtained mercy.’ 
The sense, not the words of the LXX, is 
quoted. By é€v r@ témm... . €ket must 
not I think be understood, in any particular 
place, as Judea, nor among any peculiar 
people, as the Christian Church: but as a 
general assertion, that in every place where 
they were called ‘not His people,’ there 
they shall be called ‘ His people.’ 

27.| A proof from Scripture of the fact, 
that a part of Israel are excluded. Here 
again the analogy of God’s dealings, in the 
partial deliverance of Israel from captivity, 
and their great final deliverance from death 
eternal, is the key to the interpretation of 
the prophecy cited. The words are spoken 
by Isaiah of the return from captivity of a 
remnant of Israel. 28.| The refer- 
ence of this latter part of the citation is not 
very plain. It isalmost verbatim from the 
LXX, the ydép (which is found in AN but 
not in B) being perhaps adopted by the 
Apostle as continuing the testimony, = 
: Br the prophet proceeds,’—and the LXX 
having kardAcimua for brdAciupma (see di- 
gest), and ev TH oixounévn bAn for em) THs 
yis. The literal rendering of the Heb. is, 
«The consummation (or consumption) de- 
cided, overfloweth with righteousness: for 
a decision (or consumption) and a decree 
shall the Lord Jehovah of Sabaoth make 
in the midst of alltheland.” As it stands 
in the LXX, the meaning seems to be, 


eyernbeyv B'(Tischdf.) 


onoiwOnuevy AFL. 


the Lord will complete and soon fulfil 
His word in righteousness (viz. his denun- 
ciation of consuming the Assyrian and 
liberating the remnant of His people) : 
Sor the Lord will make a rapidly accom- 
plished word in the midst of all the land. 
The E. V., Calv., and others, render Adyov, 
‘ work,’ a signification which it never has. 
If the above interpretation be correct, and 
the view which I have taken of the analogy 
of prophecy, it will follow that this verse is 
adduced by the Apostle as confirming the 
certainty of the salvation of the remnant 
of Israel, seeing that now, as then, He 
with whom a thousand years are as a day, 
will swiftly accomplish His prophetic word 
in righteousness. 29. | Another proof 
of a remnant to be saved, froma preceding 
part of the same prophecy. (Such seems 
to be the sense of mpoeip. here,—and so 
Beza, Calv., Grot.,al.; De W., Thol., al., pre- 
fer ‘ prophesied ;’ but surely there is no ne- 
cessity for affixing an unusual sense to the 
word, where the ordinary one [see all the 
reff.] suits much better.) — “‘ 6porotc Bar 
as is a construction in which two ideas, ‘to 
become as,’ and ‘to become like to,’ are 
mingled, as in Heb. > bu, Ps. xlix. 13, 
21; compare Mark iv, 30.” Tholuck. On 
‘Jehovah Sabaoth,’ Bengel remarks, ‘Pro 
Hebraico nx3x in libro 1 Sam. et Jesaia 
oa8060 ponitur ; in reliquis libris omnibus 
mavtokpatwp.” (This is not strictly the 
case: duvduewy is found in several places : 
and oaBaé@ occurs in Zech. xiii. 2 BN.) 

The citation is verbatim from the 
LXX, who have put omépua for the Heb. 
ry, ‘residuum,’—implying a remnant 


414 TIPO, POMAIOTS. 
1 = ch. xii. 13. 
xiv. 19. Phil. 
iii. 12, 14. 
1 Thess. v. 
15. Isa. 
li. 1. Six. 
XXVii. 8. 
m 1 Tim. vi. 
1l. 2 Tim. ii. 22. n = 1 Cor. ix. 24. Phil. iii. 12. 
x.6. Gal. iii. 8. p = Phil. iii. 16. Dan. xii. 12 Theod. 
2 Cor. x. 14. w. €m7t, Matt. xii. 281) L. 1 Thess. ii. 16 only. 


IX. 


Q ‘A 
evn Ta bn ™ StdKovta ™ Sixatocvvny, " KaTéXaBev SiKato- 
auvnv, Suxatoctynv Sé tiv °ék trictews' 31 "lapanr dé 
\Svoxv vomov SiKavocvvns, P eis vopov ovK 4 épOacev. 


Exod. xv. 9. Deut. xxviii. 45. o=ch. 
q as above (p). 1 Thess. iv. 5. w. axpl, 
Eccl. viii. 14. Dan. iv. 25 (28) Theod. 


81. rec aft 2nd vouoy ins Sixaocvyyns (corrn for clearness’ sake? see notes), with F 
(but with a mark inserted before it) KLX% rel D3-lat vulg syrr goth Chr Thdor-mops, 
Thdrt Ce Thl Jer, Aug, Pel Bede: om ABDGN! copt Procop Damase Orig-int 


Ambrst-comm Ruf Sedul. 


for a fresh planting. 30—33.] The 
Apostle takes up again the fact of Israel’s 
Sailure, and shews how their own pursuit 
of righteousness never attained to right- 
eousness, being hindered by thew self- 
righteousness and rejection of Christ. 
These verses do not contain, as Chrys., 
(c., Theophyl., the trod xwplov mavtds 
Avois—this Avois is simply in the creative 
right of God, as declared ver. 18;—but 
they are a comment on ver. 16, that it is 
not of him that willeth, nor of him that 
runneth: the same similitude of running 
being here resumed, and it being shewn 
that, so far from man’s running having 
decided the matter, the Jews who pressed 
forward to the goal attained not, whereas 
the Gentiles, who never ran, have attained. 
If this is lost sight of, the connexion of 
the whole is much impaired, and from 
doctrinal prejudice, a wholly wrong turn 
given to the Apostle’s line of reasoning,— 
who resolves the awful fact of Israel’s ex- 
clusion not into any causes arising from 
man, but into the supreme will of God,— 
which will is here again distinctly asserted 
in the citation from Isaiah (see below). 

What then shall we say? This ques- 
tion, when followed by a question, implies 
of course a rejection of the thought thus 
suggested—but when, as here, by an asser- 
tion, introduces a further unfolding of the 
argument from what has preceded. I can- 
not agree with Flatt, Olsh., al., that 67: 
x... is to be regarded as a question : for, 
as Riickert has observed, (1) Paul could not 
put interrogatively, as a supposition in 
answer to Ti ody époduev, a sentiment not 
intimated in nor following from the fore- 
going; (2) there would be no answer to 
the question thus asked, but the 5:4 7/, ver. 
32, would ask another question, proceeding 
on the assumption of that which had been 
before by implication negatived ; and (3) 
the answer, ér: «.7.A. ver. 32, would touch 
only the case of the Jews, and not that of 
the Gentiles, also involved, on this suppo- 
sition, in the question. That the Gentiles 
(not, as Meyer and Fritz., ‘some Gentiles’), 


epOoxev (and G). 


which pursue not after (sce especially reff. 
Phil.) righteousness (not justification, 
which is merely ‘the being accounted 
righteous,’ ‘the way in which righteous- 
ness is ascribed :’ not this, but righteous- 
ness itself, is the aim and end of the race) 
attained (the whole transaction being re- 
garded as a historical fact) righteousness, 
even (5¢ brings in something new, different 
from the foregoing, but not strongly op- 
posed to it, see Winer, edn. 6, § 53.7. b :— 
the opposition here, though fine and de- 
licate, is remarkable: righteousness —not 
however that arising from their own works, 
but the righteousness, &c.) the righteous- 
ness which is from faith: 31.|—but 
Israel, pursuing after the law of righte- 
ousness (what is the vduos Sixaoobyns ? 
Certainly not = dixatootyn véuov,as Chrys., 
Theodoret, Gcum., Calv., Beza, Bengel, 
by the so-called, but as Thol. observes, 
unlogical figure of Hypallage :—it may 
mean either (1) as Meyer, Fritz., Thol., an 
ideal law of righteousness, a justifying 
law,—or (2) as Chrys., al..—see above,— 
the law of Moses, thus described: or 
(3) which I believe to be the true account 
of the words, vépos dicaioc. is put regard- 
ing the Jews, rather than merely d:xatoc., 
because in their case there was a prescribed 
norm of apparent righteousness, viz. the 
law, in which rule and way they, as matter 
of fact, followed after it. The above, as I 
believe, mistaken interpretations arise from 
supposing véuov Sixatoc. to be = dixaoc., 
which it is not. The Jews followed after, 
aimed at the fulfilment of ‘the law of 
righteousness,’ thinking by the observance 
of that law to acquire righteousness. See 
ch. x. 3,5, and note; and compare John’s 
coming év 63¢ Sixaoctvns, Matt. xxi. 32), 
did not attain unto the law (fell far short 
even of that law, which was given them. 
It is surprising, with ch. x. 3—5 before 
them, how De Wette and Tholuck can pro- 
nounce the reading véuov without d:ixcato- 
ctvns to be without sense. The Jews fol- 
lowed after, thinking to perform it entirely, 
their véuos dixasocdvys: which dicatoc. éx 


31—33. 


IIPO> POMAIOTY. 


415 


82 r \ Fw ’ > / ? ? gf > oY / 
Sua ti; Ort ov ex TricTEws, GAN § as éF pyar [vdpov] aH Jen. 


/ a a , 
‘ aposéxopav 7® Ow Tod ” TPOSKOMMLAaTOS, 


2 Cor. xi. 11 
only. 
= Philem. 14. 


33 Kabas 


yeyparrat Y'1dod tinue ev Sumy Aov “ mposKdppatos * Matt. iv.6 


~ / a 
kat “ métpav “* ocKavdddou, Kal 6 Y rictevav em ad’T@ ov 


7 KaTacyuvOnoeTat. 


uch. xiv. 13, 20. 
w 1 Pet. ii. 8. 
(from 1. c. F). 


1 Cor, viii. 9. 1 Pet. ii. 8 only. 


x = Matt. xviii. 7. ch. xiv.13 al. Ps. xlviii. 14. 
z—ehuy. 5, x. 22 al: 0, 


| L. vii. 27. 


John xi. 9, 
10. ch. xiv. 
21. 1,Pet. ii. 
8 only. Proy. 
iii. 23. 
Isa. xxix. 21. v Isa. (viii. 14) xxviii. 16. 
ych. x. 11. 1 Pet. ii. 6 
Ps. xxiy. 20. 


32. om vouou (see notes) ABF'N! vulg copt Jer Aug Ambrst Ruf: ins DKLN3 rel syrr 
goth Chr(ov« efrev EE Epywv, GAN ‘Os ef Epywy vouou Sekvds bri ovdSE TabTHy elxoy Thy 


tkatoovynv) Thdor-mops Thdrt Ge Thl. 


rec aft mposexowar ins yap (see note), 


with D?KLN% rel vulg syrr Chr Thdor-mops Thdrt (ic Thl Aug, Jer Sedul Bede: om 
ABD!FS! a! am(with tol al) copt goth Ambrst Ruf. 

33. rec ins mas bef o miatevey (insd to conform this ver to ch x. 11, rather than omd 
to suit the LXX: not one ms omits it in ch x. 11), with KL rel D-lat vulg syr Chr 
Thdor-mops Thdrt Ge Thl Jer Sedul: om ABDFX Syr copt goth «th Orig Damase 


Aug Ambrst Ruf Bede. 


tov véuov the Apostle defines, ch. x. 5, to 
be 6 moiqoas adta &vOpwros ChoeTar ev 
avtots, but they did not attain to—not in 
this case karéAaBev, but €pOacev cis—the 
law—they therefore never attained s7ghte- 
ousness. It is surely far more easy to 
imagine how a transcriber should have in- 
serted Sixatocvvyns, than how he should 
have omitted it. It probably was a mar- 
ginal gloss to explain the second véuor, 
and thence found its way into the text 
{I may notice, that ch. x. 3 is not a case 
in point, the yéuoy here having an inde- 
pendent and exceptional meaning of its 
own, which introduces an element not 
belonging to idiav there]). Wherefore? 
because (pursuing it) not by faith, but as 
(used subjectively, as ‘if about to obtain 
their object by :’ see Winer, edn. 6, § 65. 
9, and compare 2 Pet. i. 3) by [the] works 
[of the law (the evidence for and against 
vduov is about equally balanced. On the 
one side we have the Apostle’s usage, see 
ch. iii. 28 reff..—and the possibility of a 
transcriber omitting véuou, either as having 
twice occurred already, or for more com- 
plete antithesis,—and on the other we 
have the temptation to correct épywy to 
épywv vduou to suit that very usage. On 
the whole I incline to omit véuou, but do 
not regard the evidence as sufficiently 
clear to justify its exclusion from the 
text) |, they stumbled at the stone of 
stumbling (the similitude of a race is still 
kept up. The insertion of yép has arisen 
from a period being placed at vduov. It 
confuses the sense, making it appear as if 
the stumbling was the cause of, or at all 
events coincident with, their pursuing odk 
éx ™. K.T.A., Whereas it was this mistaken 
method of pursuing which caused them to 


ov hyn KaTaoxuvOn (see LXX) DF. 


stumble against the stone of stumbling. 
Thus we have instances in the Greek chariot 
races, of competitors, by an error in judg- 
ment in driving, striking against the or#An 
round which the chariots were to turn, see 
Soph. Elect. 730 f. There is a close 
analogy between our text and the exhorta- 
tion in Heb. xii. 1 f. There, after the 
triumphs of faith have been related, we are 
exhorted to run with patience the race set 
before us, looking to Jesus, the Author and 
Finisher of our faith: where notice, that 
the sacred Writer seems to have had in his 
mind the same comparison of Him to the 
pillar or goal, to which the eyes of the run- 
ners would be exclusively directed). 

33.] Appeal to the prophecy of Isaiah, as 
justifying this comparison of Christ to a 
stone of stumbling. The citation is gathered 
from two places in Isaiah. The ‘stone of 
stumbling and rock of offence,’ mentioned 
ch. viii. 14, is substituted for the ‘corner- 
stone elect, precious,’ of ch. xxviii. 16. The 
solution of this is very simple. Isa. viii. 14 
was evidently interpreted by the Jews them- 
selves of the Messiah: for Simeon, Luke 
ii. 34, when speaking of the child Jesus as 
the Messiah, expressly adduces the pro- 
phecy as about to be fulfilled. Similarly 
Isa. xxviii. 16 was interpreted by the 
Chaldee Targum, the Babylonish Talmud 
(Tract Sanhedrin, fol. xxxviii. 1, Stuart), 
&c. What was there then to prevent the 
Apostle from giving to this Stone, plainly 
foretold as to be laid in Zion, that desig- 
nation which prophecy also justifies, and 
which bears immediately on the matter here 
in hand? The translation of Isa. viii. 14 
is after the Heb.,—the LXX having appa- 
rently read differently. See 1 Pet. ii. 6—8, 
where the same two texts are joined, and 


416 


a = here only. 
Sir. xviii. 31 


TIPO> POMAIOTS. 


X. 


X. 1’Aderdol, 7) pwev *eddonia Ths éuhs Kapdias Kat 


i 26 A / 
(Matt x25 9 Senos mpos Tov Oeov wep avTav ” Eis owTNplaV. 


al.) 
b Acts xi. 18. 


cActsxxii.6. gy fat 8 ériyvwow 
Gal. iv. 15. vy . 
Col. iv. 13. “| , \ \ 
ohn ii, + OLKALOTUYNV, Kal THY 
17, from Ps. 
Ixviii. 9. 
2 Cor. vii. 7, 
ll. 
e 2 Cor. xi. 2. see Acts xxii. 3. eh 
ich. i, 17 reff. k = Acts xiii. 8 reff. 
. 28, 2 Mace. xiii. 23. see ch. viii. 7 reff. 


f Acts iii. 17 reff. 


Cuap. X. 1. rec aft  denois ins n (corrn: see note), with KL rel Chr Thdrt: om 
mpos tov Oy is written over an erasure by N}. 


ABDER® Cyr. 


1= ch. iii. 31. 


2¢ waptupa@ yap avtois bre % Grov © Oeod Exovow, adr’ 
3. Gyvootvtes yap Tv Tov ‘Beov 


idiav [duxatoovvnv| * Syrodvtes 


l a nr i§ s la) i fay lal > m e / 
OoTnoaL, TI) LKALODOVVYH TOU €0U OUN UTPETAYNOAV. 


g ch. iii. 20 reff. h Acts xiii. 27 reff. 
Heb. x. 9. Num. xxx. 14. m = 1 Cor. 


rec for avtwy, 


tov ispanad (explanatory gloss), with KL rel Thdrt Gc Thl: txt ABDFN 17 latt syrr 


copt arm Chr Cyr Damase Ambrst Ruf Aug Pel Sedul Bede. 


rec ins eoti bef 


ets cwrnpiav, with KLN? rel syr Chr Thdrt: om ABDFR! Syr copt goth Cyr Aug). 


8. for yap, 5 A 57 Leo. 


om 2nd dikatoovvny ABD vulg copt arm Clem Cyr 


Bas Chr, Procop Damase Iren-int(most mss) Augsepe: ins FKLN rel syrr goth th 
Chr Thdrt (2c Thi Iren-mss Tert Ambr Aug,, and aft (nrouvyres m. 


also Ps. exviii. (exvii.) 22. ov KaTato- 
xvvOryoerar, LXX (Isa. xxviii. 16), ob wy 
Kata xvv7, gives a secondary meaning of 
the Heb. wry x, ‘shall not make haste? 
i.e. shall not fly in terror, shall not be 
confounded. 

Cuap. X. 1—13.] The Jews, though 
zealous for God, are yet ignorant of God’s 
righteousness (1—3), as revealed to them 
in their own Scriptures (4A—13). 

1.] Brethren (‘nune quasi superata pre- 
cedentis tractationis severitate comiter ap- 
pellat fratres.’ Bengel), the inclination of 
my heart (evdoxla is seldom, if ever, used 
to signify the motion of desire, but imports 
the rest of approving satisfaction. Pos- 
sibly there is here a mixture of construc- 
tions: the Apostle’s evdoxia would be their 
salvation itself, —his dénots mpds Tov 0. bmep 
aut. waseis gwr. The uév requires a cor- 
responding 5é¢, not expressed, but implied in 
the course of vv. 2, 3, where the obstacle to 
their cwrhp. is brought out),and my prayer 
to God for them (Israel, see ch. ix. 32, 
aposéxowav), (is) for (their) salvation (lit. 
“towards salvation.’ The insertion of 
the art. after déno1s has apparently been an 
over-careful grammatical correction : it is 
by no means universal in the N. T., even 
where the Greek writers insert it,—and 
here, seeing that there could be no deqcers 
to any other than God, the omission would 
be more natural. tov *IopanA has been 
substituted by the adoption of a gloss: 
éarlv to complete the sense). The Apostle’s 
meaning seems to be, to destroy any impres- 
sion which his readers may have received 
unfavourable to his love of his own people, 
from the stern argument of the former 
chapter. 2.) For (reason why I thus 


sympathize with their efforts, though mis- 
directed) I bear witness to them that they 
have a zeal for God (for this meaning of 
the gen. see reff., especially 2 Cor. xi. 2, 
and note there), but not according to (in 
accordance with, founded upon, and carried 
on with) knowledge (accurate apprehen- 
sion of the way of righteousness as re- 
vealed to them). 3.] For (explana- 
tion of ov Kar énlyyv.) not recognizing 
(‘ being ignorant of” is liable to the objec- 
tion, that it may represent to the reader 
a state of excusable ignorance, whereas 
they had it before them, and overlooked it) 
the righteousness of God (not, the way of 
justification appointed by God, as Stuart, 
al.: but that only righteousness which 
avails before God, which becomes ours in 
justification ; see De Wette’s note, quoted 
on ch. i. 17), and striving to establish 
their own righteousness (again, not justi- 
fication, but righteousness : that, namely, 
described ver. 5 ; not that it was ever theirs, 
but the Apostle speaks subjectively. Not- 
withstanding the Ms. authority against 
dica. after idfavy, it would seem as if it 
had been written for emphasis’ sake by the 
Apostle, and omitted on account of the 
word occurring thrice in the sentence), they 
were not subjected (historical: implying, 
but not itself bearing, a perfect sense. 
The passage,—not in a middle sense, as 
De Wette and Thol.,—expresses the result 
only ; it might be themselves, or it might 
be some other, that subjected them,—but 
the historical fact was, that they were not 
subjected) to the righteousness of God 
(the dix. 7. 8. being considered as a rule or 
method, to which it was necessary to con- 
form, but to which they were never sub- 


ABDI 
dfg 

c 

k la 
ol7 


1—5. 


TIPO, POMAIOTS. 


417 


4n7é ‘ 4 pe DY ef. , ) gy n=1Pet.i.9. 
TENOS yap VO/LOU XpLoTos ELS Oukavoovvny TAVTL OTS et. 1 


ILO TEVOVTL. 


\ p > p , q rd c , ain ” é , i. 46. 5 Ja 
Tyv Pex Pyowov, I67L o Togas avTa avOpwros Cioetas Luke xvii 
p Phil. iii. (6) 9. see Gal. iii. 21. 


5. rec ins tov bef vouov, with DFKL rel: om (A)BX.—for vouou, morews A. 
bef 7. Sux. 7. ex v. AD'X* 17! vulg Damase Ruf. 


see note and 


a \ , \ Ls Jor. ill. u 
5 Mavors yap °ypader thy P Sixacoovuny o cont ichn 


ee 


q Ley. xviii. 5. see Neh. ix. 29. Ezek. xx. 21. 


OTL 
om aura (as 2xx-AB[not 


Ed-vat]) A D-gr 8? vulg Damase Ruf: eam D2-lat copt goth Cassiod : ravta 171 m! eth. 


om avOpwros I Syr Chr Hil. 


jected as they were to the law of Moses). 
4—13.] The dicaoctyn rt. 0. isnow 
explained to be summed up in that Saviour 
who was declared to them ia their own 
Scriptures. For (establishing what was 
last said, and at the same time unfolding 
the dic. 7. @. in a form which rendered 
them inexcusable for its non-recognition) 
Christ is the end of the Law (i. e. the 
object at which the law aimed: see the 
similar expression 1 Tim. i. 5, 7d TéAos 
Tis mapayyeAlas eorly a&ydrn. Various 
meanings have been given to TéAos. (1) 
End, finis, chronological: ‘Christ is the 
termination of the law.’ So the latt., 
Augustine, Luther, al.,Olsh., Meyer, Fritz., 
De Wette, al. But this meaning, unless 
understood in its pregnant sense, that 
"Christ, who has succeeded to the law, was 
also the object and aim of the law, says too 
little. In this pregnant sense Tholuck 
takes the word ‘end,’ the end in time and 
inaim. it maybe so; but I prefer simply 
to take in the idea of Christ being the end, 
i.e. aim of the law, as borne out by the 
following citations, in which nothing is said 
of the transitoriness of the law, but much 
of the notices which it contains of right- 
eousness by faith in Christ. (2) Clem. 
Alex.,—7Afpwpua yap v. xp. els dik. 7. TH 
mot., De Div. Serv. § 9, p. 940 P. 
Theodoret, Calv., Grot., al., take téAos for 
‘accomplishment,’ a sense included in the 
general meaning, but not especially treated 
here,—the following quotations not having 
any reference to it. (3) The meaning, end 
in the sense of object or aim, above adopted, 
is that of the Syr., Chrys., Theophyl., Beza, 
Bengel, al. Chrys. observes: et yap tov 
vouwov TéAos 6 xpiatés, 6 Thy xpLoToY OvK 
éxwv, kby exetvny (i. e. Sucatoodynv) Sony 
exew, ove exer 6 bE Thy xpioTdy exw», 
Kav ph H KatwpOwkas Toy vduov, Td Tay 
efAngde. Kal yap TéAos iarpikfjs byiela. 
dsmep ovv 6 Suvduevos byt Toeiy, Khy 
Bh Thy larpichy Exn, Td wav exer. 6 SE wh 
elds Oepameverv, Kay petTievar Sonq Thy 
Téexvnv, Tov mavTds ekémecev’ otTw émh 
Tov véuouv Kal THs mioTews, 6 Mev TavTHY 
exwv, kal Td exelvou TéAos Exer’ 6 5E Tav- 
Tns tw By, aupotépwy éotly GAdAdrp.os. 
Hom. xvii. p.622. —_ yduovu is here plainly 
Vou. iL. 


the law of Moses: see Middleton in loc.) 
unto righteousness (i.e. so as to bring about 
righteousness, which the law could not do) 
to (dat. commodi) every one that believeth. 
“Had they only used the law, instead of 
abusing it, it would have been their best 
preparation for the Saviour’s advent. For 
indeed, by reason of man’s natural weak- 
ness, it was always powerless to justify. 
It was never intended to make the sinner 
righteous before God ; but rather to impart 
to him a knowledge of his sinfulness, and 
to awaken in his heart earnest longings for 
some powerful deliverer. Thus used, it 
would have ensured the reception of the 
Messiah by those who now reject Him. 
Striving to attain to real holiness, and 
increasingly conscious of the impossibility 
of becoming holy by an imperfect obedience 
tothe law’s requirements, they would gladly 
have recognized the Saviour as the end of 
the law for righteousness.” Ewbank. 

5.] For (proof of the impossibility of legal 
righteousness, as declared even in the law 
itself) Moses describes (reff.) the righte- 
ousness which is of (abstr.—not implying 
that it has ever been attained, but rather 
presupposing the contrary) the law, that 
(67x recitantis, not ypa. O71, in which case 
we should have airy. The eam of some 
versions has apparently arisen from mis- 
understanding é7:) the man who hath 
performed them (the ordinances of the 
law) shall live in (in the strength of, by 
means of as his status) it (the righteous- 
ness accruing by such doing of them). 

As regards the life here promised, the 
Jewish interpreters themselves included in 
it more than mere earthly felicity in Canaan, 
and extended their view to a better life 
hereafter: see Wetst. in loc. Earthly feli- 
city it doubtless did impart, compare Deut. 
xxx. 20; but even there, as Thol. observes, 
‘life’ seems to be a general promise, and 
length of days a particular species of 
felicity. “In the N. T.,’ he continues, 
“this idea (of life) is always exalted into 
that of life blessed and eternal :—see Matt. 
vii. 14; xviii. 8, 9; Luke x. 28.” 
6—8.] The righteousness which is of faith 
is described, in the words spoken in Scrip- 
ture by Moses of the ies pi given 

E 


418 
3 > lel 
r ch. ix. 30. €V QvT?). 
Gal. iii. 8. é 


s Deur. xxx. 
12. 

t Acts ii. 34 
reff. 


Uy chix. 
v Acts xxiii. 15 reff. 


IIPO> POMAIOTS. 


x. 


/ 
6 5€ 'éx mictewms Sixatocvvn ovTwS éyel, 
fal > \ 
SM» elmns ev th Kapdia cov Tis tavaBjoetar eis Tov 
, nr nr xX ’ 
ovpavov ; “tour éatw ypiotov Y Katayayeiv: 7% Tis 


rec (for autn) avros (from LXx), with DFE LN rel: txt ABN! 17 vulg D?-lat copt goth 


arm Damase Ruf Pel Sedul Bede. 


by him,—as not dependent on a long and 
difficult process of search, but near to 
every man, and in every man’s power to 
attain. Ibelieve the account of the follow- 
ing citation will be best found by bearing 
in mind that the Apostle is speaking of 
Christ as the end of the law for righteous- 
ness to the believer. He takes as a con- 
firmation of this, a passage occurring in 
a prophetic part of Deut., where Moses is 
foretelling to the Jews the consequences 
of rejecting God’s law, and His mercy to 
them even when under chastisement, if they 
would return to Him. He then describes 
the law in nearly the words cited in this 
verse. Now the Apostle, regarding Christ 
as the end of the law, its great central aim 
and object, quotes these words not merely 
as suiting his purpose, but as bearing, 
where originally used, an @ fortiori applica- 
tion to faith in Him who is the end of the 
law, and to the commandment to believe in 
Him, which (1 Johniii. 23) is now ‘@od’s 
commandment. If spoken of the lawasa 
manifestation of God in man’s heart and 
mouth, much more were they spoken of 
Him, who is God manifest in the flesh, the 
end of the law and the prophets. This 


view is, it is true, different from that of 


almost all eminent Commentators, ancient 
and modern,—who regard the words as 
merely adapted or parodied by the Apostle 
as suiting his present purpose. Thus, with 
minor shades of difference, Chrys., Beza, 
Grot., Vatabl. Luther, Wolf, Bengel, 
Koppe, Flatt, Riickert, De Wette, Thol., 
Stuart, Hodge, al. But we must remember 
that it is in this passage Paul’s object not 
merely to describe the righteousness which 
is of faith in Christ, but to shew it described 
already in the words of the law. The 
Commentators who have taken more or less 
the view that the Apostle cites the words as 
bearing the sense put on them, are Calvin, 
Calovius, Reiche, Meyer, Fritz., Olsh. 

But the righteousness which is of faith 
thus saith (personified, as Wisdom in the 
Proy.), Say not in thine heart (i. e. ‘think 
not,’ a Heb. idiom. The LXX has merely 
Aéywy, Yor). The Apostle cites freely, 
giving the explanation of Aéywy, viz. think- 
ing), Who shall go up to heaven (LXX, 
ava. huiv [jpar, Ajeis 7. odp., see Prov. 


xxx. 4) ?—that is (see note above :—that 
imports in its full and unfolded meaning), 
to bring down Christ:—or who shall go 
down into the abyss (LXX, ris diamepdces 
nuiv els rd wépay tis Baddoons; The 
Apostle substitutes tis kar. eis 7. &B. as 
the direct contrast to rls ar. eis 7. obp., as 
in ref. Ps.; see also Amos ix. 2:—and as 
better suiting the interpretation which 
follows) ?—that is, to bring up Christ from 
the dead. There is some difficulty in assign - 
ing the precise view with which the Apostle 
introduces these questions. Tholuck re- 
marks, “The different interpretations may 
be reduced to this, that the questions are 
regarded either (1) as questions of unbelief, 
or (2) as questions of embarrassment, or 
(3) as questions of anziety.” The first 
view is represented by De Wette, who says, 
«Tn what sense these questions, from which 
the righteousness which is of faith dissuades 
men, are to be taken, is plain from ver. 9, 
where the Resurrection of Christ is asserted 
as the one most weighty point of historical 
Christian belief:—they would be questions 
of unbelief, which regards this fact as not 
accomplished, or as now first to be aecom- 
plished. Thus also, probably, are we to 
understand the first question, as applying 
to the Incarnation of Christ.’ This is 
more or less also the view of Chrys., Theo- 
doret, Theophyl., (c., Erasm., Estius, 
Semler, Koppe, Meyer, al., Riickert (who 
refers the doubt of the unbelief to the full 
accomplishment of redemption by the 
Incarnation and Resurrection of Christ), 
Reiche, and Kéllner (who refer xara. to 
the ascended Saviour, thereby destroying 
the symmetry of the whole,—because the 
latter question undoubtedly refers to bring- 
ing Christ not from a present but from a 
past state, from which He has historically 
come). (2) The second view, that they 
are questions of embarrassment, is taken 
by L. Capellus, Wolf, Rosenm., and Stuart, 
which last says, “The whole (of Moses’s 
saying) may be summed up in one word, 
omitting all figurative expression : viz. the 
commandment is plain and accessible. You 
can have, therefore, no excuse for neglecting 
it. Soin the case before us. Justification 
by faith in Christ isa plain and intelligible 
doctrine. It is not shut up in mysterious 


6—9. 


/ > \ le) 
“kataByoetas eis THY *aBvocov ; “TobT oti YpLoTOV v= Enh 


b] fal na 
Ex vEexpav Y avayayeiv. 


TIPO} POMAIOTS. 


419 


She 
9,10. Ps. 
Cxxxviil. 8. 


>? \ / ’ 2 

8 andra Th Dreyer; 2’ Eyyds cov , Paves 
\ cn | es. > n 4 fo] 

TO pHua eotw, €v TO oTOmaT! Gou Kal év TH Kapdia cou 


only, exc. 
Rev. ix. 1, 
2,11 ald, 


Paved) » \ n fol A 
"TOUT EOTW TO *phua THs TlaTews O KNpvocopmerr 9 STL , oR. 


xxix. 3. 
i. 25. (John vi. 63. xiv. 10, plur.) 


z Devt. xxx. 14. constr., John iii. 23. vi. 19, 23. 


= Heb. xiii. 
9 


MN, 8. 
a = Actsx. 37. 1 Pet. 


8. aft Aeye: ins 7 ypapy D vulg(not demid tol) Orig, Cyr Thdrt Hil Ambrst Ruf 


Pel Sedul Bede: aft t., F. 


language.... It is like what Moses says 
of the statutes which he gave to Israel, 
plain, intelligible, accessible.... It is 
brought before the mind and heart of every 
man : and thus he is without excuse for 
unbelief.” (8) The third view, that they 
are questions of anxiety, is that of Calv., 
Beza, Pisc., Bengel, Knapp, Fritz.,and Tho- 
luck :—by none perhaps better expressed 
than by Ewbank, Comm. on the Ep. 
to the Rom., p. 74: “ Personifying the 
great Christian doctrine of free justification 
through faith, herepresents it as addressing 
every man who is anxious to obtain salva- 
tion, in the encouraging words of Moses: 
‘Say not in thine heart, (it says to such an 
one) &e. ...- ? In other words, ‘ Let not 
the man, who sighs for deliverance from 
his own sinfulness, suppose that the accom- 
plishment of some impossible task is re- 
quired of him, in order to enjoy the bless- 
ings of the Gospel. Let him not think 
that the personal presence of the Messiah 
is necessary to ensure his salvation. Christ 
needs not to be brought down from heaven, 
or up from the abyss, to impart to him 
forgiveness and holiness. No. Our Chris- 
tian message contains no impossibilities. 
We do not mock the sinner by offering him 
happiness on conditions which we know 
that he is powerless to fulfil. We tell him 
that Christ’s word is near to him: so near, 
that he may speak of it with his mouth, 
and meditate on it with his heart..... ¢ 
Is there any thing above human power in 
such a confession, and in such a belief? 
Surely not. It is graciously adapted to the 
necessity of the very weakest and most sin- 
ful of God’s creatures.” (1) resumed. 
The objection to this view, as alleged by 
Tholuck, is, that in it, the contrast with 
ver. 5 is lost sight of. And this is so far just, 
that it must be confessed we thus lose the 
ideas which the Apostle evidently intended 
us to grasp, those of insuperable difficulty 
in the acquisition of righteousness by the 
law, and of facility,—by the gospel. Also, 
—it puts too forward the allegation of the 
great matters of historical belief, which are 
not here the central point of the argument, 
but introduced as the objects which faith, 


Ist eorw bef Ist to pnua (see LXX) DF vss lat-ff. 


itself that central point, apprehends. (2) 
The last objection has some force as against 
this view. The regarding the questions as 
mere questions of difficulty and intellectual 
bewilderment does not adequately repre- 
sent the (7Aos 0eov predicated of the Jews, 
on the assumption of which the whole pas- 
sage proceeds. Here, however, it seems to 
me, we have more truth than in (1): for 
the plainness and simplicity of the truths to 
be believed is unquestionably one most im- 
portant element in the righteousness which 
is of faith. (3) Here we have the im- 
portant element just mentioned, not indeed 
made the prominent point of the questions, 
but, as it appears to me, properly and suffi- 
ciently kept in view. The anxious follower 
after righteousness is not disappointed by 
an impracticable code, nor mocked by an 
unintelligible revelation : the word is near 
him, therefore accessible ; plain and sim- 
ple, and therefore apprehensible; and, 
taking (1) into account, we may fairly add, 
—deals with definite historical fact, and 
therefore certain: so that his salvation is 
not contingent on an amount of perform- 
ance which is beyond him, and therefore 
inaccessible: irrational, and therefore in- 
apprehensible : undefined, and therefore 
involved in uncertainty. Thus, it seems 
to me, we satisfy all the conditions of the 
argument: and thus also it is clearly 
brought out, that the words themselves 
could never have been spoken by Moses of 
the righteousness which is of the law, but 
of that which is of faith. 8.] But 
what says it? The word is near thee, 
in thy mouth (to confess), and in thine 
heart (to believe): that is (see above), the 
word of faith (which forms the substratum 
and object of faith, see Gal. iii. 2; 1 Tim. 
iv. 6) which we (ministers of Christ: or 
perhaps, I Paul) preach. This verse has 
been explained in dealing with vv.6 and 7. 

9.] Because (explanation of the 
word being near thee: so Thol., De Wette, 
Stuart, al. Others take 67: here as in ver. 
5, merely recitantis, making éay «.7.A. the 
piwa preached. But as Thol. observes, 
(1) the duty of confessing the Lord Jesus 
can hardly be called part of the contents of 


E £2’ 


420 IIPO> POMAIOTS. X. 
b=Jonnix. €av  oworoyions °év TH °oTOMATL cov KU piov ‘Inoby, ABD: 
itm, Kal 4qiotevons ev TH Kapdia cov *6Tt 6 Beds avdTov cate 
c = ch. xv. 6 m 
only Ps. e 7 10 

only. Ps © ryerpev €x vexpav, awOnoy 1° Kapdia yap TuoTeveTaL off 
d Acts ix. 26 


reff. 


f >? Py yf , be 
ELS OLKALOTUIYNY, TTOMATL OE 


b © lal f > / 
omodoyetTat ‘Eels TwWTHPLAV. 


e = 1 Cor. xv a e > a 
ae reyes yap 1) Sypadyn Ilas 6 »wictevwv em” aiT@ ov 
vv. ws y, . ’ 
g sing. ch. ix. h KatacxuvOncetar. 2 ob yap éotw ‘ diactoX) ‘lov- 
h ch. ix. 33, s NG, € \ rem , , 
fromiss. Oalov te Kat “EXAnvos' 6 yap avTos KUpLOS TaVTwY 
xxviii. 16. \ , 
cee Si... K govT@ay eis Tavtas Tous | émiKadoupévous avTov. 
1C 7 
saree iieed. Viii. 23. k = Luke xii. 21. 1 Tim. vi. 18. Exod. xxx. 15. 1 Acts ii. 21 


reff. JoEt ii. 32. 


9. aft ouodAoynons ins To pnua B71 Clem Cyr. 
inoous B Clem Cyr: so, addg eoriv, copt Hil Aug. 
nyetpev bef avrov A b k o copt Cyr-jer Cyrsepe- 


Bas. 


for kuptov tnoouy, oTt Kuptos 
aft invovy ins xpiorov A Petr 


11. ins un bef kataicxuvOnoerau (see ch ix. 23 v. r.) DF. 


12. tovdaiw kat eAAnu D. 


the preaching of faith, but the prominence 
‘ given to that duty shews a reference to the 
words of Moses: (2) the making 67: render 
a reason for éyyls oov «.7.A. suits much 
better the context and form of the passage: 
(3) the fact of the confession with the mouth 
standing first, also shews a reference to 
what has gone before : for when the Apostle 
brings his own arrangement in ver. 10, he 
puts, as natural, the belief of the heart first), 
if thou shalt confess with thy mouth (same 
order as ver. 8) the Lord Jesus (not, I 
think, ‘ Jesus as the Lord’ [see the readg 
of B al.]: this might very well be,—and 
kvptoy wight, as Thol., be the predicate 
placed first for emphasis, did not Paul fre- 
quently use «v¥pios *Incots for ‘the Lord 
Jesus,’ —see [ch. xiv. 14 after a prep. ] 
1 Cor. i. 3 al.; Phil. [ii. 19] iii. 20; Col. 
iii. 17 [1 Thess. i. 1; iv. 1]. 1 Cor. xii. 
3 is hardly an example on the other side : 
see note there, but 2 Cor. iv. 5 is, ef. note 
there), and believe in thine heart that 
God raised Him from the dead (here, 
as in 1 Cor. xv. 14, 16, 17, regarded as the 
great central fact of redemption), thou 
shalt be saved (inherit eternal life). 
Here we have the two parts of the above 
question again introduced: the confession 
of the Lord Jesus implying his having 
come down from heaven, and the belief in 
His resurrection implying His having been 
brought up from the dead. 10.| For 
(refers back to ver. 6, where the above 
words were ascribed to 7 é« rlorews dixato- 
ctvn, and explains how maoreto. év tH 
raps. refer to the acquiring of righteous- 
ness) with the heart faith is exercised 
(muoreverar, men believe) unto (so as to 
be available to the acquisition of) right- 
eousness, but (q. d. ‘not only so: but 
there must be an outward confession, in 


order for justification to be carried forward 
to salvation’) with the mouth confession 
is made unto salvation. Clearly the 
words 6:k. and owt. are not used heres as 
De W.., al., merely as different terms for 
the same thing, for the sake of the paral- 
lelism: but as Thol. quotes from Crell., 
owt. is the ‘terminus ultimus et apex 
justificationis,’ consequent not merely on 
the act of justifying faith as the other, but 
on a good confession before the world, 
maintained unto the end. 11.] For 
(proof of the former part of ver. 10) the 
Scripture saith, Every one who believeth 
on Him shall not be ashamed. as is 
neither in the LXX nor the Heb., but is 
implied in the indefinite participle. The 
Apostle seems to use it here as taking up 
mavtTl T@ mirTevovTt, ver. 4. See ch. ix. 33. 

12.] For (an explanation of the 
strong expression mas 6 mioTevwy, as im- 
plying the universal offer of the riches of 
God’s merey in Christ) there is no dis- 
tinction of Jew and Greek (Gentile. See 
ch, ili. 22); for the same Lord of all (viz. 
Christ, who is the subject here: vy. 9, 11, 
13 cannot be separated. So Orig., Chrys., 
(Ec., Calov., Wolf, Bengel, Riick., Meyer, 
Fritz., De Wette, Tholuck, al. So ravrwy 
képios of Christ, Acts x. 36. Most modern 
Commentators make 6 airés the subject, 
and xvpios the predicate. But I prefer the 
usual rendering, both on account of the 
strangeness of 6 atrés thus standing alone, 
and because this Apostle uses the expres- 
sion 6 ards kvptos, 1 Cor. xii. 5, and even 
6 avrds Oeds, ib. 6, for ‘the same Lord,’ 
and ‘it is the same God.’ Stuart supplies, 
‘(there is) the same Lord:’ but this is 
harsh,—and unnecessary, if the participle 
mAouTav be taken as cuvTeA@y k. cuvT. in 
ch. ix. 28) is rich towards all (‘by ets 


10—16. IIPOS; POMAIOTS. 42 


1 


constr., 
Eurip. Med, 
751, OMVU_LE 
we CULLEVELY 
a@ gov KA\vw, 
n w. €ls, Acts 


a A a x / 

13 tas yap os dy | émixadéontar Td dvowa Kuplov™ 
/ d lal i 

awoOncerat. lads obv | émixadécwrvtat ™ cis by ovK 
/ A > 

"ériotevoay ; TAS Sé TicTEVowoW ™ OU ovK °iKOVCA) ; 


an \ > & A « 
Tas € akovcwow yuwpls Knpvtocovtos ; 5 ras 8é Knpvk- =e gen, 
2\ Nie 32 a \ , c e = here only. 
wow €av pn aToctadoow ; Ka0as yéypatrrat ‘Os ? wpator Xen. Mem. 
Hom. Od. a, 


ot modes THY [" edayyedtfouéven * eipnvnv, Tov] 4 evarye- 
ALouévwv ayabd. 


lii. 7.) 


289. see 

Acts xxiii. 16. 
Acts iii. 2 
reff. (Isa. 

s Acts vi. 7 reff. 


> ’ 
16°AXN’ ov mavrTes § UTNKOVoOAD T® p 


q = Lukei. 19. ii. 10. r Acts x. 36 reff. 


14. rec emikadecovta: (see note), with KL rel Clem Thdor-mops Chr Thdrt Damase 
Ge Thi: txt ABDFR a. ins 7 bef Ist wws de F latt. rec mioTevcovctr, 
with AKL rel Clem Ath Chr Thdrt Damase (ec Thl: txt BDFX Chr-ms. rec 
akovoovory, with L rel Clem Chr-montf Thdrt (ic Thi: axovcovra: DFKN! d Damasc: 
txt A?BX3 m 17 Ath Chr-2-mss. (A! illegible.) 

15. rec knpvtovow, with rel Clem Chr Thdrt Damase Ee Thl: xnpvocovew F: 
akovowow c: txt ABDKLN a 17 Chr-2-mss, kafatep B: cada Chr-ms. 
om evayyeACouevay epnyny Twy (homeotel) ABCN! coptt 2th Clem Orig Epiph,(Thdor- 
mops) Damase Ruf: ins D(F)KLN3 rel latt syrr goth arm Chr Thdrt (ec Thl Iren-int 
Tert, Ambr, Jer, Hil,.—om tev F.—evang. bona evang. pacem Iren-int Tert, Hil,.— 


om evang. bona Kpiph, Hil,. 


rec ins Ta bef ayaa, with D?-3K LN! rel Clem Chr 


Thdrt He Thl: om ABCD!FR3 Orig Damase. 
16. aft vrnxovcay ins ev (but marked for erasure) X}. 


is signified the direction in which the 
stream of grace rushes forth.’ Olsh.) who 
call upon Him. 13—21.] Proof 
Srom Scripture of this assertion, and ar- 
gument thereon. 13.]| For every one, 
whosoever shall call upon the Name of 
the Lord (Jenovan,—but used here of 
Christ beyond a doubt, as the next verse 
shews. There is hardly a stronger proof, or 
one more irrefragable by those who deny the 
Godhead of our Blessed Lord, of the un- 
hesitating applicationto Him by the Apostle 
of the name and attributes of Jehovah) 
shall be saved. 14, 15.] It has been 
much doubted to whom these questions 
refer,—to Jews or to Gentiles? It must, 
I think, be answered, Zo neither exclu- 
sively. They are generalized by the was 
és dy of the preceding verse, to mean al, 
both Jews and Gentiles. And the infer- 
ence in what follows, though mainly con- 
cerning the rejection of the unbelieving 
Jews, has regard also to the reception of 
the Gentiles: see below on vy. 19, 20. 

At the same time, as Meyer remarks, 
“the necessity of the Gospel arocroAn 
must first be laid down, in order to bring 
out in strong contrast the disobedience of 
some.” How then (i.e. posito, that the 
foregoing is so) can they (men, represented 
by the was ds &y of ver. 13) call on (1 
have followed the majority of the chief 
Mss. in reading the aor. subjunctive in- 
stead of the future indic. So also ch. 
vi. 1) Him in whom they have not be- 
lieved (i. e. begun to believe: so ch. xiii. 
11)? But how can they believe (in Him) 


of whom they have not heard (construction 
see reff.) ? But how can they hear without 
a preacher? But how can men preach 
unless they shall have been sent? As it 
is written, How beautiful are the feet of 
those who [publish glad tidings of peace, 
who] publish glad tidings of (rd is ex- 
cluded by the strong manuscript testimony 
against it) good things. The Apostle is 
shewing the necessity and dignity of the 
preachers of the word, which leads on to the 
universality of their preaching, leaving all 
who disobey it without excuse. He there- 
fore cites.this, as shewing that their instru- 
mentality was one recognized in the pro- 
phetic word, where their office is described 
and glorified. The applicability of these 
words to the preachers of the Gospel is 
evident from the passage in Isaiah itself, 
which is spoken indeed of the return from 
captivity, but in that return has regard to 
a more glorious one under the future Re- 
deemer. We need not therefore say that 
the Apostle uses Scripture words merely as 
expressing his own thoughts in a well- 
known garb ;—he alleges the words*as a 
prophetic description of the preachers of 
whom he is writing. 16.] In this 
preaching of the Gospel some have been 
found obedient, others disobedient: and 
this was before announced by Isaiah. The 
persons here meant are as yet kept in- 
definite,—but evidently the Apostle has 
in his mind the unbelieving Jews, about 
whom his main discourse is employed. 

But not all hearkened to (historic: dur- 
ing the preaching) the good news (ov 


422 


t = John xii. 
38, from Isa. 
lit. 1. 


IIPOS POMAIOTS. 


X. 


evayyerio. “Hoaias yap réyer Kupie, tis ériotevoev TH 
£73) a ¢ a - 17 x e / u2 > lol 2 \ ? \ Py) \ 
QKON NOD ; apa n tiotis “EE axons, 7 S€ axon Oia 


1 Thess. ii. 
cba, Ypyjpatos ¥ xpiarob. 18 GNA Y Aéyeo, ¥ mi) * ovK Heovcay ; 
“itcdehny, % @evoovye “*eis Tacav thy yhv *eEnOcv o * POoyyos 
za Ke ee avT@v, Kai els Ta »Trépata THs °oiKoupevns TA pHuaTa 
«Tora, auTav. 19 adda * Neyo, * wu Lopaijr * odK eyvo ; TpPATOs 
eee Pr. y (Luke xi. 28 v. r.) ch. ix. 20 only +. z Matt. ix. 26. Mark i. 28, Psa. xviii. 4. 


alCor. xiv.7 only. Ps.l.c. Wisd. xix. 18 only 
ii, 8 al. fr. 


iii. 10. xv. 9. xvi. l4 only. Ps. lxxi. 8. 


c Paul, here only. ‘Matt. xxiv. 14. Luke ii. 1 al. 


b = Matt. xii. 42. 
Acts xi. 28 al4, 


Luke xi. 31 (Heb. vi. 16) only. Ps. 
Heb. i. 6. ii. 5. Rev. 


17. rec (for xpiorov) Oeov, with AD?:3KLN-corr!'3 rel syrr eth-pl Clem Ath Thdor- 
mops Chr Thdrt Damase (ic Thl Ruf Sedul: Dei Christi Bede: txt BCD1&! vulg 


coptt goth zth-rom Ambrst Aug Pel. 
18. om pevourye F D!-lat Ruf. 


aft macay ins yap D}(and lat!). 


19. rec ovr eyvw bef tapana (corrn for elegance ?), with D?L rel syrr Thdrt Thl: txt 


mayvtes, because mdavres, see vv. 11—13, 
were the objects of the preaching, and must 
hearken to it if they would be saved) :— 
(and this too was no unlooked-for thing, 
but predetermined in the divine counsel) 
for Esaias saith, Lord (xvpie is not in the 
Heb.), who believed our report (the hear- 
ing of us)? 17.| Faith then (con- 
clusion from ver. 16, tls état. 77 ako) 
is from report (i. e. hearing, see above. 
The publication of the Gospel produces 
belief in it), and the report (the hearing ; 
the effects of the publication of the Gospel) 
is by means of (not, ‘in obedience to,’ 
but ‘by,’ as its instrument and vehicle) 
the word of Christ (@eod has probably 
been a rationalizing correction, to suit 
better the sense of the prophecy. fjuatos 
is used possibly, as De Wette suggests, as 
a preparation for ra fphuata adr. in ver, 
18). 18.] But (in anticipation of an 
objection that Israel, whom he has espe- 
cially in view, had not sufficiently heard 
the good tidings) I say, Did they not hear 
(jxovoeay partly founded on the cognate 
axon of the last verse, partly recalling 
the jjxovoav of ver. 14)? nay rather (ch. 
ix. 20, note) into all the earth went 
forth their voice, and to the ends of the 
world their words. It is remarkable that 
so few of the Commentators have noticed 
(I have found it only in Bengel, and there 
but faintly hinted: Olsh., who defends the 
applicability of the text, does not even 
allude to it) that Psal. xix. is a comparison 
of the sun, and glory of the heavens, with 
the word of God. As far as ver. 6 the 
glories of nature are described: then the 
great subject is taken up, and the parallelism 
carried out tothe end. So that the Apostle 
has not, as alleged in nearly all the Com- 
mentators, merely accommodated the text 
allegorically, but taken it in its context,and 


followed up the comparison of the Psalm. 

As to the assertion of the preaching 
of the Gospel having gone out into all the 
world, when as yet a small part of it only 
had been evangelized,—we must remember 
that it is not the erfent, so much as the 
universality in character, of thispreaching, 
which the Apostle is here asserting; that 
word of God, hitherto confined within the 
limits of Judea, had now broken those 
bounds, and was preached in all parts of the 
earth. See Col. i. 6, 28. 19.] But (in 
anticipation of another objection, that this 
universal evangelizing and admission of all, 
had at any rate taken the Jews by surprise, 
—that they had not been forewarned of any 
such purpose of God) I say, Did Israel 
(no emphasis on Israel—they are not first 
here introduced, nor have the preceding 
verses been said only of the Gentiles ; but 
they have been during those verses in the 
Apostle’s mind, and are now named for 
distinctness’ sake, because it is not now a 
question of their having heard, which they 
did in common with all, but of their having 
been aware from their Scriptures of God’s 
intention with regard to themselves and the 
Gentiles) not know (supply, not ‘ the Gos- 
pel,’ tiv akonv, as Chrys., Estius, Rickert, 
Olsh., al.,—but, the fact that such a gene- 
ral proclamation of the Gospel would be 
made as has been mentioned in the last 
verse, raising up the Gentiles into equality 
and rivalry with themselves—so Meyer, 
Fritz., Thol., De Wette, Stuart, al.— 
Others supply variously :—Calv. and Beza, 
‘the truth of God,’—so as to have an ad- 
vantage over the Gentiles :—Bengel, ‘jus- 
titiam Dei :—Bretschneider and Reiche 
take "Iopaha for the object of yyw, and 
understand 6 @eés as its subject : ‘Did not 
God know,—acknowledge, regard with love, 
—Israel?’ But surely the context will not 


eae 
xo 
ABCD 
FL al 
cdf gl 
kimn 
017 


17—21. 


IIPOS POMAIOTS. 423 


, ’ a 
Mavoijs reyer “Eyo “rapafprdow tds ° én’ f od« Ever, 4ch.xi.11, 1. 
rT. X. 2 


e 2 \ é@ g >? / h lal c la) 
emt Over © douvétw ™ Tapopyo tps. 
ae n \ , a rn 
‘amoToAmd Kat Neyer * KvpéOny [1 év] rots ewe pry ™ Gyrod- 7a 
’ \ / an 
ow, “éeudavns éyevounv ois éeue 


on ¢ fh x E 
0 ‘Hoalas,.d6 23, 2" 
= Luke i. 29, 
al. 
: : ! = 1 Pet. iis 10, 
Mn ° errepwaToow, . Yio 


Eph. vi. 4 


21 Papos 8& tov “Iopair Réyee “Odnv tiv tyépap "ony. te 


q > , \ (= Tey \ \ 
e€emréraca Tas yeipds juou Tpos Aaov 


S ayTiNéyovTa. 


H us . 3 Kings xy. 
TameOovvtTa Kat +, 
(-o0s, Eph. 
iv. 26.) 
i here only +. 
Jos. Antt. 


xy. 10. 3. k Isa. Ixv. 1. 1=1 Tim. i. 16. m = Acts xvii. 27 (reff.) 

nly. n Acts x. 40 only. Exod. ii. 14. o =here only. Isa.l.c. Ezek. 

xx. 3 (?). p = Luke xviii. 9. xx.19. Heb. i. 7,8. q here only. Isa. Ixy. 2. 
reh.ii.8al. Deut. xxi. 20. s Luke xx. 27. Acts xiii. 45. L.P., exc. John xix. 12. Hos. iv. 4, 


ABCD!FN dm latt coptt goth arm Chr Damase Hil. 
for em, ex BC?2D m. 
rec om ev (corvn to suit LXx?), with ACD?3LN 
rel vulg syrr copt Clem Chr Thdrt Hil: ins BD'F sah goth Ambrst. 


(from Lxx) CX. 
20. om amoroAua ra DF. 


ins ev BD! Ruf. 
21. for 2nd mpos, em: D Clem. 
DY 


allow this) ?—First (in the order of the 
prophetic roll; q. d. their very earliest pro- 
phet: compare Matt. x. 2, mpa@ros Siney 
k.t.A. Thol.,after Riickert,observes, “The 
Apostle has in his mind a whole series of 
prophetic sayings which he might adduce, 
but gives only a few instead of all, and 
would shew by the mp@ros, that even in the 
earliest period the same complaint [of Is- 
rael’s unbelief] is found”) Moses saith, I 
will move you (Heb. and LXX, ‘ them’) 
to jealousy with (those who are) no na- 
tion (the Gentiles, as opposed to the people 
of God), with a foolish (522, the spiritual 
fool of Ps. xiv. 1; lili. 1; Prov. xvii. 21) 
nation will I provoke you. ‘The original 
reference of these words, as addressed to 
Israel by Moses, is exactly apposite to the 
Apostle’s argument. Moses prophetically 
assumes the departure of Israel from God, 
and his rejection of them, and denounces 
from God that as they had moved Him to 
jealousy with their ‘no-gods’ (idols) and 
provoked Him to anger by their vanities, 
—so He would, by receiving into his fa- 
vour a ‘no-nation,’ make them jealous, and 
provoke them to anger by adopting instead 
of them a foolish nation. On the interpre- 
tation of De Wette, al., that the meaning 
is, God would deliver the children of Israel, 
as a prey to the idolatrous nations of Ca- 
naan, the parallels will not hold; nor do 
the following verses in Deut. (22—25) jus- 
tify it. 20.| But (even more than 
this: there is stronger testimony yet) 
Esaias is very bold and says (i.e. as we 
say, ‘dares to say,’ ‘ventures to speak thus 
plainly. Thol. compares Aschin. de Falsa 


for Ist vuas, avrous 
for 2nd vuas, avrous 3. 


aft eyevouny 


om kat avTiAeyovra F Hil: for ayriAey., Aey. 


Leg. c. 45: Kav eOeAhon oxetaAidcew x. 
Aeyewv), I was found (so LXX, the Heb. is 
nv, ‘I was sought :’ but apparently in 
the sense of Ezek. xiv. 3; xx. 3, ‘en- 
quired of? which amounts to eipé@nv. In 
Ezek. xiv. the LXX render it doxpiveo@at 
—and so Stier here, Sd) gebe Antwort...) 
by (or among) those who sought me not, 
I became manifest to those who asked 
not after me. The clauses are inverted 
in order from the LXX. De Wette 
and other modern Commentators have 
maintained that Isa. Ixy. 1 is spoken of 
the Jews, and not of the Gentiles ; their 
main argument for this view being the 
connexion of ch. lxiv. and lxvy. But even 
granting this connexion, it does not follow 
that God is not speaking in reproach to 
Israel in ch. lxv. 1, and reminding them 
prophetically, that while they, His own re- 
bellious people, provoke Him to anger, the 
Gentiles which never sought Him have 
found Him. The whole passage is tho- 
roughly gone into and its true meaning 
satisfactorily shewn, in Stier’s valuable 
work, “ Sefaias, nicht Pfeudo-Sefaias,” 
pp- 797 ff., who remarks that ‘the nation 
which was not called by my Name,’ in 
Ixy. 1, can only primarily mean the Gen- 
tiles. 21.| But of (not ‘to,’ but ‘with 
regard to ? see reff. The words are not an 
address) Israel (evidently emphatic ;—the 
former words having been said of the Gen- 
tiles) he saith (ibid. ver. 2), All the day 
(after wov in LXX) I stretched forth my 
hands (the attitude of gracious invitation) 
to a people disobedient and gainsaying 
(rebellious; the same word 775 occurs 


424 IIPO> POMAIOTS. XI. 
oy, Ak, St Aeyw ovr, pH ™ anwaato 6 Oeos Tov aov ABCD 
u Acts vii. 27, A 
89. xii. 40 @UTOU; Y ft) yeVOLTO* Kal yap eyo ™ bpdlpaine cil, éK oat gh 
/ 
gly Lys. *oméppatos ASpaap, puars Bevapeiv. % otk Yarr@oato of 
Ezek. xliii, 9. 
See er w John i. 48. Acts ii. 22. 2 Cor. xi. 22al.+ Jos. Antt. ii. 9.1. x ch. ix. 7 reff. 


Cuar. XI. 1. for tov Aaov, rnv kAnpovoniay F Thl Ambr Ambrst Hil Sedul. 


aft avtou ins ov mpoeyyw AD1X3 Thl Ambrst-comm Aug. 


Tischdf ascribes it to his B?*3) CX m 17. ] 


Deut. xxi. 18) Cuap. XI. 1—10.] 
Yet God has not cast off His people, but 
there is a remnant according to the election 
of grace (1—6),—the rest being hardened 
(7—10). 1.] I say then (a false in- 
ference from ch. x. 19—21,—made in order 
to be refuted), Did (py, it cannot surely 
be, that) God cast off His people (as would 
almost appear from the severe words just 
adduced)? Be it not so: forI also am an 
Israelite (€x yévous *Iop., Phil. iii. 5), of 
the seed of Abraham (mentioned probably 
for solemnity’s sake, as bringing to mind 
all the promises made to Abraham), of the 
tribe of Benjamin (so Phil. iii. 5). There 
is some question with what intent the 
Apostle here brings forward himself. Three 
ways are open to us: either (1) it is as @ 
casein point, as an example of an Israelite 
who has not been rejected but is still one 
of God’s people: so almost all the Com- 
mentators—but this is hardly probable,— 
for in this case (a) he would, not surely 
bring one only exaniple to prove his point, 
when thousands might have been alleged— 
(8) it would be hardly consistent with the 
humble mind of Paul to put himself alone 
in such a place,—and (vy) uh yévorro does 
not go simply to deny a hypothetical fact, 
but applies to some deprecated consequence 
of that which is hypothetically put :—or 
(2) as De Wette, al., he implies, ‘ How can 
LI say such a thing, who am myself an 
Israelite, &e.?? Does not my very na- 
tionality furnish a security against my en- 
tertaining such an idea ?’—or (3) which I 
believe to be the right view, but which I 
have found only in the commentary of 
Mr. Ewbank,—as implying that if such 
a hypothesis were to be conceded, it would 
exclude from God’s kingdom the writer 
himself, as an Israelite. This seems better 
to agree with 7 yévoiro, as deprecating 
the consequence of such an assertion. 

But a question even more important arises, 
not unconnected with that just discussed : 
viz. who are 6 Kads avrot? In order for 
the sentence wal yap ey x.7.A. to bear 
the meaning just assigned to it, it isobvious 
that 6 Aads abr. must mean the people of 
God nationally considered. If Paul depre- 
cated such a proposition as the rejection of 


[Beviape, so A B2(R1: 


God’s people, because he himself would 
thus be as an Israelite cut off from God’s 
favour, the rejection assumed in the hy- 
pothesis must be a national rejection. It 
is against this that he puts in his strong 
protest. It is this which he disproves by 
a cogent historical parallel from Scripture, 
shewing that there is a remnant kal év 
7®@ viv kaip@ according to the election ot 
grace: and not only so, but that that part 
of Israel (considered as having continuity 
of national existence) which is for a time 
hardened, shall ultimately come in, and so 
all Israel (nationally consideredagain, Israel 
as a nation) shall be saved. Thus the 
covenant of God with Israel, having been 
national, shall ultimately be fulfilled to 
them as a nation: not by the gathering 
in merely of individual Jews, or of ail 
the Jews individually, into the Christian 
church,—but by the zational restoration 
of the Jews, not in unbelief, but as a 
Christian believing nation, to all that can, 
under the gospel, represent their ancient 
pre-eminence, and to the fulness of those 
promises which have never yet in their 
plain sense been accomplished to them. I 
have entered on this matter here, because a 
clear understanding of it underlies all intel- 
ligent appreciation of the argument of the 
chapter. Those who hold no national 
restoration of the Jews to pre-eminence, 
must necessarily confound the év 7@ viv 
kaip@ remnant according to the election of 
grace, with the of Aovrol, who nationally 
shall be grafted in again. See this more 
fully illustrated where that image occurs, 
ver. 17 ff. 2.] God did not cast 
off his people which he foreknew (xpo- 
éyyw as in reft.:—‘ which, in His own 
eternal decree before the world, He se- 
lected as the chosen nation, to be His own, 
the depositary of His law, the vehicle of 
the theocracy, from its first revelation to 
Moses, to its completionin Christ's future 
kingdom.’ It is plain that this must here 
be the sense, and that the words must not 
be limited, with Orig., Aug., Chrys., Calv., 
al., to the elect Christian people of God 
Jrom among the Jews, with Paul as their 
representative: seeon ver. 1. On this ex- 
planation, the question of ver. 1 would be 


1—6. TIPO, POMAIOTS. 425 


e \ \ \ > lal 
0 Qeds Tov Aaov avTod by Ympoéyrw. i} ovK oldaTe 7 ev 


2, y=ch. viii. 29 
(reff.). 


z see ért, 


> / / , z / e lal a 
Hla ti reyes 1) *ypady ; as *° évtuyyaver TO Oe@ » KaTA * Luke xx. 37. 


a? / 4 \ / 
tov Iopanr, ® Kupie, rovs mpopytas cou améxtewav, Ta , rt. 
/ / 
*@votactnpid cov ° Katécxaway, Kayo ‘ iTENCIPOnV ovos, %: 
Ac 


here only. 
1 Mace. viii. 


ts xxv. 24, 


Kal © fyrovow thy S~uynv pov. * adda TL Eyer abe viti. 27, 


” 5 A Cie 
ay Pas, OLTLVES OUK 


y ’ fal / 
éxapapav *yovu !'t7 Baar. 5 obtas tim i1) 


= \ > m n fal m a n a b] oO 3 \ 3K vs ee 
ovvy Kal ev “T@ vUY ™ Kalpm "AEipa KAT ° ExoynY *Krxos xix. 


e Acts xv. 16 


, , ? \ , > ” ) ” 
Pydpitos yéeyover, Sei dé yadpitt, Torn ere €E epywr, ° di non 


fhere only. Gen. xxx. 36 al. (-Aetuma, ch. ix. 27.) 
h here only. Prov. xxxi. (see xxiv.) 1. 2 Mace. ii. 4. xi. 17 only. i 
ch. xiy. 11. Eph. iii. 14. Phil. ii.10. 1 Chron. xxix. 20. see 


Amos ix. 11. 
g = Matt. ii. 20 only. Exod. iy. 19. 
= Luke xx. 31. Heb. iy. 1 


only. 3 Krnes xix. 18. k 
Acts vii. 60 reff. 1 fem. (not 1. c.), Judg. ii. 13 & iii. 7(A). Zeph.i.4. Hos. ii. 8 al. m ch, 
iii. 26 reff. n here only. Josh. xiii. 12 F (not A). 4 Kings xix. 4 only. (U76A., ch. ix. 27.) 


o ch. ix. 11 reff. 


P gen. subject., Luke iv, 22. 


q = ch. vii. 17, 20. 


2. rec at end ins Aeywv, with LN! rel Syr Ge Thl: om ABCDFN? latt coptt arm 


Eus Chr Thdrt Damase Ambr Ruf. 


3. rec ins ka: bef ta Ovciacrnpia, with DLN® rel syrr Just Chr, Thdrt : om ABCFR! 


17 latt coptt Eus, Chr). 
4. xatreXciroy ACF'L n. 
5. Awua AB'CDIFR: Anupa B2. 


self-contradictory, and this negation a 
truism. It would be inconceivable, that 
God should cast off H7s elect). Or (see 
ch. ix. 21 al. :—introduces a new objection 
to the matter impugned) know ye not 
what the Scripture saith in (the history 
of) Elias (better thus than ‘with regard 
to, as Luth., Erasm., Calv., Beza, al. 
Tholuck gives examples: from Pausan. 
viii. 37. 3,—éo7Tw ev “Hpas bpxw ta ern, 
—i.e. in that part of the Iliad [£. 278] 
where Hera swears by the Titans: from 
Thucyd. i. 9,—Kal év rod oxyjmtpov Gua 
TH Tapaddce: elpnrev ad’Toy MoAAHGt vjgToct 
k.“Apyei maytl avdooewy, i.e. in that part 
of the Iliad [8. 108] where the trans- 
mission of the sceptre is related)? how 
(depends on ov ofdare) he pleads with 
(see reff.—and note, ch. viii. 26) God 
against Israel, &c. The citation is a free 
one from the LXX. The clauses Tovs 
mpop., and Ta @vaiacr. are inverted, év 
foudala is omitted, and Kaye trercipé. 
povos is put for kal dmoAdAcimpar eyw 
povétaros. The altars, as De W. ob- 
serves, were those on the high places, 
dedicated to God. 4.| But what 
saith the divine response to him (xp7- 
patiouds, see reff. and reff. to the verb, 
Acts x. 22)? Ihave left to myself (here 
the Apostle corrects a mistake of the LXX, 
who have for katéAvmov—kartadelpers,— 
in the Complut. ed. katAef~w. He has 
added to the Heb. »mww7,—‘ T have left, 
‘kept as a remainder, —épavt@, a simple 
and obvious filling up of the sense) seven 
thousand men, who (the sense of the say- 


2 


for tn, Tw F. (to F: tw G.) 


kat exrAoyns D). 


ing, as far as regards the present purpose, 
viz. to shew that all these were faithful 
men; in the original text and LXX, it is 
implied that these were all the faithful 
men,—énTa xirAiddas avdpav, mavra yd~ 
vata & ovk SkAacay yéovulom. yévu A] TH 
B.k. wav ordua 0 ov mposextvnoer[ mpos- 
kuvhoet A} avrg. But this was not neces- 
sary to be brought out here) never bowed 
knee to Baal. “Here the LXX, accord- 
ing to the present text, have 76, not Th 
Baad : but elsewhere (see reff.) they write 
the fem. : and probably the Apostle read it 
so in his copy.” Fritz. According ‘to 
this Commentator, they wrote the fem., 
taking Baal for a female deity ; according 
to Beyer, Addit. ad Seld. de diis Syr., 
Wetst., Koppe,Olsh., Meyer,—because Baal 
was an androgynous deity ;—according to 
Gesenius, in Rosenmiiller, Rep. i. 39, to 
designate feebleness, compare the Rabbi- 
nical nimidx, ‘false gods,’ and other ana- 
logous expressions in Tholuck. ‘The 
regarding 77 BdaA as put for TH Tod Bada, 
scil. eixédyt or orhAn, as Erasm., Beza, 
Grot., Estius, al., and Bretschneider, is 
perfectly arbitrary.” De Wette. In Tobit 
i. 5 AB, we have, macat ai dvAal ai cur. 
amootaoat €Ovov ti, Baad TH SaudrAer,— 
where the golden calves of the ten tribes 
seem to be identified with Baal, and 
where a curious addition in & [in this part 
published by Tischdf. as Codex Friderico- 
Augustanus | refers expressly to their esta- 
blishment by Jeroboam. 5.| Thus 
then (analogical inference from the ex- 
ample just cited) in the present time 


426 IPOS POMAIOTS. XI. 

/, 
rch-iii.9  €grel 1) apts TovK ert yiverar yapis: [ei Se €E Epywv, aBcp 
5 Matt. vi.32. qg,%,, s eS ee Nr ee 3 Nab 
xii, $0 al. ovK €TL Yapls, Emel TO Epyov “ovK ETL éoTiv Epyov.]| cdf gh 
1 Kings xx. een Ce SI aa t a a oN t A > Ee kimn 
A ca TL ovv; oO Semutntel lopanr, ‘TovTO ovK “€mrETUXEV, 017 


eff. c \ , \ , / c 
amis =) «86 YExAOY) “ErréTUyEv" of SE AouTrOL * érwpwOncar, 


Heb. vi. 15, 
xi. 33. Jamesiv.2 only. Gen. xxxix.2. Prov. xii. 27 only. v ch. ix. 11 reff. 


= here only. 
vi. 52. viii. 17. John xii. 40. 2 Cor. iii. 14 only. Job xvii. 7 only. (-pwots, ver. 25.) 


w Mark 


6. for yweta, cots C2(appy) 54 syrr Chr Thdrt: est vulg D-lat lat-ff: erit G-lat. 
om last clause ACDFN?! 17 latt coptt ath arm Damase Ambr Ambrst Aung: 

ins (with some variations) BLN? rel syrr Chr Thdrt (‘ both, in text: they do not expl it 
in comm; but that does not prove its omn:’ Tischdf) Gennad-c He Thl. (See notes.) 
— [ree ins eort bef 3rd xapis: omd by BN*.— for epyov at end, xapis (by mistake ?) 


B.] 
7. eme(nret F 73 latt syrr lat-ff. 


rec Tovtov (grammatical corrn), with d g h |? 


Chr,-montf Thdor-mops Thdrt: txt ABCDFLX rel Chr, Chr,-2-mss (c-ms. 
erepwOnoar(sic) C (m?): eropevOnoay c: emnpwOnoay 66%: excecati sunt latt. 


also (or, even in the present time, scil. 
of Israel’s national rejection) there is a 
remnant (a part has remained faithful, 
which thus has become a Aciupa) according 
to (in virtue of,—in pursuance of) the elec- 
tion (selection, choice of a few out of many) 
of grace (made not for their desert, nor 
their foreseen congruity, but of God’s free 
unmerited favour). 6.| ‘And let 
us remember, when we say an election 
of grace, how much those words imply : 
viz. nothing short of the entire exclusion 
of all human work from the question. Let 
these two terms be regarded as, and kept, 
distinct from one another, and do not let 
us attempt to mix them and so destroy the 
meaning of each.’ So that the meaning 
of the verse is to clear up and remove all 
doubt concerning the meaning of ‘ election 
of grace, —and to profess on the part of 
the’ Apostle perfect readiness to accept his 
own words in their full sense, and to abide 
by them. This casts some light on the 
question of the genuineness of the bracketed 
clause (see authorities in var. readd.). The 
object being precision, it is much more pro- 
bable that the Apostle should have written 
both clauses in their present formal paral- 
lelism, and that the second should have 
been early omitted from its seeming super- 
fluity, than that it should have been in- 
serted from the margin. Besides which, 
as Fritz. has remarked, the words do not 
correspond sufficiently with those of the 
first clause to warrant the supposition of 
their having been constructed to tally 
with it: we have for xdpit: in the first, 
et épywy in the second,—for yivera xdpus, 
éotly epyov;—and the plur. épya would 
probably have been retained in the infer- 
ence of clause 2. But (directing attention 
to the consequence of the admission, ema. 
xapttos) if by grace (the selection has 
been made), it is no longer (when we have 


conceded that, we have excluded its being) 
of (arising out of, as its source) works: 
for (x that case) grace no longer becomes 
(i.e. becomes no longer—loses its efficacy 
and character as) grace (the freedom and 
‘proprio motu’ character, absolutely neces- 
sary to the idea of grace, are lost, the act 
having been prompted from without) :— 
but if of (arising out of, as the cause and 
source of the selection) works, no longer 
is it (the act of selection) grace; for (in 
that case) work no longer is work (the 
essence of work, in our present argument, 
being ‘ that which earns reward,’ and the 
reward being, as supposed, the election to 
be of the remnant,—if so earned, there can 
be no admixture of divine favour in the 
matter; it must be all earned, or none: 
none conferred by free grace, or all). 
These cautions of the Apostle are decisive 
against all attempts at compromise between 
the two great antagonist hypotheses, of 
salvation by God’s free grace, and salva- 
tion by man’s meritorious works. The two 
cannot be combined without destroying 
the plain meaning of words, If now the 
Apostle’s object in this verse be to guard 
carefully the doctrine of election by free 
grace from any attempt at an admixture 
of man’s work, why is he anxious to do 
this just at this point? I conceive, be- 
cause he is immediately about to enter on 
a course of exposition of the divine deal- 
ings, in which, more than ever before, he 
rests all upon God’s sovereign purpose, 
while at the same time he shews that 
purpose, though apparently severe, to 
be one, on the whole, of grace and love. 

7.) What then (what therefore 
must be our conclusion from what has been 
stated? We have seen that God hath not 
cast off his own chosen nation, but that 
even now there is a remnant. This being 
so, what aspect do matters present? This 


7-——10. 


IIPO> POMAIOTS. 


427 


8 Kabws yéypartat "Edwxev adtois 6 Oeds * mvedpa *=hyiii-19 


Yxatavveews, *opOadpors *Tod pw) Brérew, Kal ota 
2 Tov pn akovew, Ews THs ° onmepov ° npuépas. 


is. 1 Cor. 
iv. 21. 2Cor. 
iv. 13. Gal. 
vi. 1. Eph. 
i. 17 al. Isa. 
xxix. 10, 


9 Kat 


c a > fo Hare 
Aaveld réyes 4 LevnOtw 1 © tpamefa adtay “eis 8" qayida YM ouy Le 


kai “eis %OAnpav Kal eis b* 


/ , 
oKxavoarov Kai “eis | ayt- 
a € x fal 
arddoua avtois, 19 ™ cKxoticOnTwoav oi dpOardpol aditav 


(5) only. 
(-vuacew, 
Acts ii. 37. 
Sir. xx. 21.) 
z Devt. xxix. 


na \ \ fal > a \ \ 
@ Tov yun Br€rrew, Kal TOV VOTOV avToV "Ste TAVTOS 4 dinctr,1Cor. 


b Paul, Acts xxviii. 27 bis (from Isa. vi. 10). 


1 Cor. ii. 9. xii. 16 only. 


x. 13 reff. 
c Matt. xxviii. 15. / 


xx. 26. 2 Cor. iii. l4only. Josh. v. 9. d constr., Acts y. 36 reff. Psa. Ixviii. 22. e =1Cor. 
x. 21 bis. Ps. xxvii. 20. f Luke xxi. 35. 1 Tim. iii. 7. vi. 9. 2 Tim. ii. 26 only. Proy. 
vii. 23. g Ps. xxxiv. 8. h Josh. xxiii. 13. Ps. cxl. 9. ihere only, = Hos, 
v. 2. k = Matt. xvi. 23. ch. ix. 33 al. 1 Kings xviii. 21. 1 Luke xiv, 12 only. Ps. 


xxvii. 4. 2 Chron. xxxii.25. (-S0cts, Col. iii. 24.) 


ii. 25. x. 2al. Isa, xlix. 16. 
8. kafatrep BN. 
9. ins kabarep bef kar Saved C. 


he asks to bring out an answer which may 
set in view the ot Aotwot)? that which 
Israel is in search of (viz. dixaocvvn, see 
ch. ix. 31; x. 1 ff.), this it (as a nation) 
found not (on éemtuvyxdvw w. an acc., 
see Matthiw, Gr. Gr. § 363 obs.), but the 
election (the abstract, because Israel has 
been spoken of in the abstract, and to keep 
out of view for the present the mere indi- 
vidual cases of converted Jews in the idea 
of an elected remnant) found it: 

8.] but the rest were hardened (not 
‘blinded ;’ see note on Eph. iv. 18 :— 
TKAnpoTEepay 7 amiotia Thy Kapdlay avTa@y 
ameipydoato. Theodoret. It is passive, 
and implies God as the agent. his for 
the sake of the context, @wxev avtots 6 
Geds x.7.A., not necessarily for the meaning 
of the word itself, which might indicate 
‘became hard,’ but certainly does not 
here),—as it is written (if we are to 
regard these passages as merely analogous 
instances of the divine dealings, we must 
remember that the perspective of pro- 
phecy, in stating such cases, embraces all 
analogous ones, the divine dealings being 
self-consistent,—and especially that great 
one, in which the words are most pro- 
minently fulfilled), God gave to them 
(LXX and Heb., wemétixey buas) a spirit 
(see reff.) of torpor (there is at the end of 
Fritzsche’s commentary on this chapter 
an elaborate excursus on karayviéis, in 
which he has thoroughly investigated its 
derivation and meaning. He comes to 
the conclusion that it is derived from 
katavicow, ‘compungo,’ and might sig- 
nify any excitement of mind, pity, sadness, 
&c.,—but in the few places where it occurs, 
it does import stupor or numbness :—so 
ref. Ps., eméticas quads olvoy katavvtews,— 
which Hammond explains to mean the 
stupifying wine given to them that were 


m = ch, i. 21 (reff.) only. 1. c. n Acts 


6 is written twice in &. 


to be put to death. Hamm. also cites from 
Marcus Eremita, vovdec. pux., p. 948, a 
passage where he describes mévoy rijs 
karavvtews as the consequence of oivo- 
mogtat. Tholuck compares the similar 
meanings of ‘ frappé,’ struck, betroffen),— 
eyes that they should not see (such eyes 
that they might not see: in the Heb. and 
LXX the negative is joined with the verb, 
kal obk wKev KUpios 6 0. Sud K.7.A.) and 
ears that they should not hear unto this 
present day. These last words are not, 
as Beza, E. V., Griesb., Knapp, to be sepa- 
rated from the citation, and joined to 
emwpeonoay: they belong to the words in 
Deut. and are adduced by St. Paul as ap- 
plying to the day then present, as they 
did to the day when Moses spoke them : 
see 2 Cor. iii. 15. 9.] And David 
saith, Let their table be for a snare and 
for a net (@7pa more usually ‘a hunt,’ or 
the act of taking or catching,—but here 
and in ref. a net, the instrument of cap- 
ture. It is not in the Heb. nor in the 
LXX, and is perhaps inserted by the Apos- 
tle to give emphasis by the accumulation of 
synonymes), and for a stumbling-block 
and recompense to them (the LXX have 
eis maylda k. eis avtamddSoow Kk. eis oxdv- 
dadov. The Heb. of cis avtarddoctv, as 
at present pointed, is Dnirw, ‘to the se- 
cure.’ It has been supposed that the LXX 
pointed Dymbwd or nibh, ‘for retribu- 
tions.’ See Ps. xci. 8: but qu.?). 

10.] Let their eyes be darkened that 
they may not see, and their back bow 
thou down always. “Instead of bend- 
ing the back, the Heb. text speaks of 
making the loins to tremble, 1y97 om. 
This elsewhere is a sign of great terror, 
Nah. ii. 10; Dan. v. 6: and the darken- 
ing of the eyes betokens in the Psalm, 


428 
; cv 
ee CUE 
iv. 35 only. . . 
P a 1 td ow ; He) YEVOLTO 
q (=) James ii. / a a) 
10. iii. 2 (bis). TOTNPlLa TOL € VEOLY, 


2 Pet. i. 10 


IIPOS POMAIOTS. 


XI. 


, s 
11 P éyw odv, wn Térraicav iva * Téco- 
> \ a >A t , «F 
ara TM avTov ‘ TapaTT@paTL 1 


> \ r 
“eis To * mapatnra@cat avTous. 


me / lal re 
only. 1Kings 12 ef §€ TO ‘TapadTTwpa avTaV “ TAOUTOS KodopoU Kal 


r=ch. xiv. 4 
ren. 


s ch. iii. 4 reff. 

t ch. iv. 25 reff. u ch. iy. 11 reff. 
vi. 7only. Isa. xxxi.8 only. (see 2 Cor. xii. 13 reff.) 
28. ver. 24. Philem. 16, eb. ix. 14 only. 


12. om ver A. 


a weakened, humbled, servile condition, 
just as in Deut. xxviii. 65—67. Itis plain 
from 5:4 wavTds, that we must not suppose 
the infirmities of age to be meant. ‘The 
Apostle might well apply such a description 
to the servile condition of the bondmen of 
the law, see Gal. iv. 24.” Tholuck. 

11—24.] Yet this exclusion and hardening 
has not been for their destruction, but for 
mercy to the Gentiles, and eventually for 
their own restoration. 11.] I say 
then (see on ver. 1), Did they (who? see 
below) stumble in order that they should 
fall (not ‘sic, ut caderent’—as Vulg.,—so 
Orig., Chrys., Grot., al., denoting the result 
merely: neither the grammar nor the con- 
text will bear this: the Apostle is arguing 
respecting God’s intent in the wapdrTwpa 
of the Jewish nation. He here calls it by 
this mild name to set forth that it is not 
final. The subject of @rraiav is the 
avrot of the following verses, i.e. the Jews, 
as a people: not the unbelieving indivi- 
duals, who are characterized as wea ovTes, 
ver. 22. He regards the Aovrol as the re- 
presentatives of the Jewish people, who 
have nationally stumbled, but not in order 
to their final fall, seeing that God has a 
gracious purpose towards the Gentiles even 
in this mraitoua of theirs, and intends to 
raise them nationally from it in the end. 
This distinction, between the mraloayres, 
the whole nation as a nation, and the 
mwecdvtes, the unbelieving branches who 
have been cut off,is most important to the 
right understanding of the chapter, and to 
the keeping in mind the separate ideas, of 
the restoration of individuals here and 
there throughout time, and the restoration 
of Israel at the end. The stress is on 
aréowory, and it is the fa// which is denied : 
not on tva réowouv, so that the purpose 
merely should be denied, and the fall ad- 
mitted)? God forbid: but (the truer ac- 
count of the matter is) by their trespass 
(not fall, as E.V.) salvation (has come) 
to the Gentiles, in order to stir them 
(Israel) up to jealousy. ‘Two gracious 
purposes of God are here stated, the latter 
wrought out through the former. By this 


v ch. x. 19 reff. w= 


y 
zas above (y). Matt. xii. 12. 


\ x oe > a w r , lal ZL / lal 
TO *HTTnua ad’T@V “ TOVTOS EOvaV, %* ToTw@ Y pwaddov 


Heb. xi. 26. x 1 Cor. 
Matt. vii. 11. x. 25. Luke xi, 13. xii. 24, 
Heb. x. 29 only. 


stumble of the Jews out of their national 
place in God’s favour, and the admission 
of the Gentiles into it, the very people thus 
excluded are to be stirred up to set them- 
selves in the end effectually to regain, as a 
nation, that pre-eminence from which they 
are now degraded. 12.) Then the 
Apostle argues on this, as Meyer well says, 
‘a felici effectu cause pejoris ad feliciorem 
effectum cause melioris :’—But (‘posito, 
that’—as in last verse—taking for granted 
the historical fact, that the stumble of the 
Jews has been coincident with the admis- 
sion of the Gentiles) if their trespass is the 
world’s wealth (the occasion of that wealth, 
—the wealth itself being the participation 
in the unsearchable riches of Christ), and 
(this latter clause parallel to and explana- 
tory of the less plainly expressed one before 
it) their loss, the wealth of the Gentiles, 
how much more (shall) their replenish- 
ment (be all this)? On #rTnua and 
mAnpwua much question has been raised. 
I have taken both as answering strictly to 
the comparison here before the Apostle’s 
mind, viz. that of impoverishing and en- 
riching,—and the genitives adra@v as sub- 
jective: q.d. ‘if their impoverishment be 
the wealth of the Gentiles, how much 
more shall their enrichment be !” But 
several other interpretations are possible. 
(1) #77n“a may mean as in ref. 1 Cor., 
degradation, and rAjpwua would then be 
JSulness, re-exaltation to the former mea- 
sure of favour,—or perhaps, as where 
Herod. iii. 22 says dyddéKxovra érea Céns 
mwAhpwua, ‘their completion,’ ‘ their highest 
degree of favour. (2) If we regard the 
meaning of tAfpwua in ver. 25, we shall 
be tempted here to render it, ‘full num- 
ber, and similarly #77nua, ‘small num- 
ber” So the majority of Commentators : 
Chrys., Theodoret, Erasmus, Beza, Bucer, 
Grot., Bengel, Reiche, De W. (but only as 
regards mAvp.:—he renders #77. with Lu- 
ther, Sdabde) and Olsh. (see below). Thus 
the argument will stand: ‘If their unbelief 
(i.e. of one part of them) is the world’s 
wealth, and their small number (i.e. of 
believers, the other part of them), the 


11—15. 
TO *TAnpwwa avToav; 1 fyiv 
b LAM la) b [4 \ > ’ > ‘\ 

ep ocov pev ovv eit eyo 
© Suaxoviay pou “doEavw, 14 © ef 


TIIPO> POMAIOTYS. 


429 


\ , a ” =h l 
dé rey Tois EOverwy. hee only 


23 notes. 
John i. 16. 
ver. 25. 


, lal > / \ 
€Ovav amoatoXos, THY 


mos Y TapalnXwow pou ? = Matt. (ix. 


15) xxv. 40, 
45 (2 Pet. i. 


\ f / \ o / \ ? Cea 15 > \ ¢ 
Thv ‘aapka Kal Sowow Twas €& avTov. €l YAP 1 13) only. 
c 


24 reff. d = 2 Cor. iii. 10. 
g = 1 Cor. vii. 16 (bis). ix. 


Judg. ix. 9. 
22. 1Tim.iv. 16. James y. 20. 


= Acts xx. 


e ch. i. 10. f Gen. xxxvii. 27. 


13. rec (for de) yap, with DFL rel latt goth Chr Thdrt Ge Thl: ovy C: om eth: 


txt ABN syrr copt Thdrt-ms Damasce. 


D3-lat syr Chr Thdrt ie Thi Aug: om pey ovy DF goth: ins ABC copt. 
ey» An 73. 80. 108-16-8 arm Thdrt-ms,: ins bef eu: F Cyr lat-ff. 


rec om ovy (see notes), with L rel vulg 
om 
dofaow F 


46. 109 latt Thdrt,(txt,) lat-ff(but not Aug). 


14, tnv capra bef wov DF. 


wealth of the Gentiles, how much more 
their full (restored) number !’ i. e. as Olsh. 
explains it, ‘If so few Jews can do so much 
for the Gentile world, what will not the 
whole number do?’ But thus we shall 
lose the ‘ a minori ad majus’ argument— 
‘if their sin has done so much, how much 
more their conversion?’ unless indeed it 
be said that 7d #rT Hua tmplies a national 
mapantaua. Besides, it can hardly be 
shewn that #77nva will bear this meaning 
of ‘a small number. (38) Tholuck, from 
whom mostly this note is taken, notices 
at length the view of Olsh., after Origen, 
that the idea of a definite number of the 
elect is here in the Apostle’s mind,— 
that the falling off of the Jews produces 
a deficiency in the number, which is filled 
up by the elect from the Gentiles, as ver. 
25: understanding by tAjpwua both there 
and here, if I take his meaning aright, 
the number required to fill up the roll of 
the elect, whether of Jews, as here, or 
Gentiles, as there. TTholuck, while he 
concedes the legitimacy of the idea of a 
TAHpwya TaY cwlouevwy, maintains, and 
rightly, that in this section no such idea 
is brought forward: and that it would not 
have been intended, without some more 
definite expression of it than we now find. 

I have thought it best as above, con- 
sidering the very various meanings and diffi- 
culty of the word rAjpwua, to keep here to 
that which seems to be indicated by the 
immediate context, which is, besides, the 
primitive meaning of the word. It must 
be noticed, that the fact, of Israel being the 
chosen people of God, lies at the root of 
all this argument. Israel is the nation, 
the covenant people,—the vehicle of God’s 
gracious purposes to mankind. Israel, 
nationally, is deposed from present favour. 
That very deposition is, however, accom- 
panied by an outpouring of God’s riches of 
mercy on the Gentiles; not as rivals to 
Israel, but still considered as further from 
God, formally and nationally, than Israel. 


If then the disgrace of Israel has had such 
a. blessed accompaniment, how much more 
blessed a one shall Israel’s honour bring 
with it, when His own people shall once 
more be set as a praise in the midst of the 
earth, and the glory of the nations. 

13.] ‘Why, inan argument concerning the 
Jews, dwell so much on the reference to the 
Gentiles discernible in the divine economy 
regarding Israel? Why make it appear 
as if the treatment of God’s chosen people 
were regulated not by a consideration of 
them, but of the less favoured Gentiles ?? 
The present verse gives an answer to this 
question. But (apology for the foregoing 
verse :—if ydp be read, the sense will be 
much the same—For [i.e. let it be under- 
stood, that], &c.) I am speaking to you 
the Gentiles. Inasmuch therefore (pév 
ovv is surely not to be rejected as yielding 
no sense,—as De Wette and Tholuck, who 
object to it as proceeding from those who 
hold a new sentence to begin at é¢” cov, 
and duly .... €verw to refer to the fore- 
going :—but the usage of wey ody in 1 Cor. 
yi. 4 seems strictly analogous to that in our 
text, where no new sentence is begun in 
any sense which may not be true here. 

ép Seov, not ‘as long as,’ as Orig. and 
Vulg.) as I am Apostle of the Gentiles, 
I honour mine office (by striving for their 
conversion and edification at all times,—by 
introducing a reference to them and their 
part in the divine counsels, even when 
speaking of mine own people), if by any 
means I may (regarding it as a real ser- 
vice done on behalf of Israel, thus to 
honour mine office by mentioning the 
Gentiles, if this mention may) stir up to 
jealousy mine own flesh (the Jews) and 
may save some of them. 15.] For: 
(a reason for my anxiety for the salva- 
tion of Israel: not merely for the sake 
of mine own kinsmen, but because their 
recovery will bring about the blessed con- 
summation of all believers. Vv. 13, 14 
should not then be in a parenthesis) if the 


430 IIPO> POMAIOTS. XI. 
es lal LA 
hActexxvii, © GrroBodn adtav ‘xatadday) Kdcpov, Tis % } mpos- ABI 
eT Anprris, e¢ wy Con ex vexpov; 16 ei dé) “arapyn ayia ate 
i - on v.11. Ne Sy ea] yl Pov , 1) PX” YY yed 
# Lor. v \ if ‘ 
wonlyt: Kal TO ™ bvpapas Kal et 7 ™ pita wyla, Kat of °KAABOL. 017 
2 Mace. y. 20 
only. j here only t. (-AapBavecy, ch. xiv. 3. k ch. viii. 23 reff. 1 M. xv. 21. 


m ch. ix. 21 reff. n Matt. iii. 10, xiii. 6 al. 
only in Epp. Ezek. xxxi. 7. 


15. kocuw F. 
16. for de, yap A Thdrt,: om C? goth. 
ms, arm. 


rejection of them (not ‘their loss,’ as Luth. 
and Beng., by which the antithesis to mpés- 
Anus is weakened) be (the occasion of) 
the reconciliation of the world (of the 
Gentiles, viz. to God), what (‘ qualis,’ ‘of 
what kind,’ in its effect) (will be) their 
reception, but (the occasion of) life from 
the dead? {wi éx vexp. may be variously 
taken. (1) it may be metaphorical, as in 
ch. vi. 18, and may import, that so general 
a conversion of the world would take place, 
as would be like life from the dead. So, 
more or less, Calv., Calov., Estius, Bengel, 
Stuart, Hodge, al., and Theophyl., Phot., 
who explain it of a joy like that of the 
resurrection. But against this interpreta- 
tion lies the objection, that this is already 
involved in kataddAayn Kéou., and thus no 
new idea would be brought out by the 
words, which stand in the most emphatic 
position. (2) it may mean that ‘life from 
the dead’ literally should follow on the 
restoration of the Jewish people; i.e. that 
the Resurrection, the great consummation, 
is bound up with it. So Chrys., Orig. 
(“tune enim erit assumptio Israel, quando 
jam et mortui vitam recipient, et mundus 
ex corruptibili incorruptibilis fiet, et mor- 
tales immortalitate donabuntur ”’), Theo- 
doret, Reiche, Meyer, Fritzsche, Riickert 
ed. 2, Tholuck, al. The objection to this 
view seems to be, that the Apostle would 
hardly have used (wh é« vexpay thus pre- 
dicatively, if he had meant by it a fixed 
and predetermined event ;—but that, stand- 
ing as it does, it must be qualitative, im- 
plying some further blessed state of the 
reconciled world, over and above the mere 
reconciliation. This might well be de- 
signated ‘life from the dead,’ and in it 
may be implied the glories of the first 
resurrection, and deliverance from the 
bondage of corruption, without supposing 
the words (wh ek vexpav=7 avaoracts Tay 
* vex. Stuart well compares Ezek. xxxvii. 
1—14, which was perhaps before the mind 
of the Apostle:—but he gives a mere 
ethical interpretation to it. 16—24. } 
Such a restoration of Israel was to be 
expected from a consideration of their 
destination and history. Thisis set forth 


) 
Job xiv. 8. 


Nu 
o Matt. xiii. 32 al. here &c. (5 times) 


for mposd., mpod. CF k!. 


om 2nd e F 70-1. 109 lect-13 Chr- 


in similitudes, that of the root and branches 
being followed out at some length,—and 
their own position, as engrafted Gentiles, 
brought to the mind of the readers. But 
(a further argument for their restoration 
following on aAAd, ver. 11) if the first 
fruit be holy, so also the lump (not here 
the first fruit of the field, as Grot., Rosenm. 
[nor is @vpaua the cake made by the 
priests out of the first fruits which fell to 
them, Deut. xviii. 4, as Estius, Koppe, 
Kdéllner, Olsh., al.];—but the portion of 
the kneaded lump of dough [@épw], which 
was Offered as a heave-offering to the Lord, 
and so sanctified for use the rest: see ref. 
Num. where the same words occur) ;—and 
if the root be holy, so also the branches. 
Who are the amrapyy and the pita? First 
of all, there is no impropriety in the two 
words applying to the same thing. For 
though, as Olsh. remarks, the branches 
being evolved from the root, it rather 
answers to the p¥paua than to the arapxh, 
and, as Riickert, the first fruit succeeds 
the lump in time, while the root precedes 
the’ branches,—yet, as Thol. replies, the 
ay.dtns is the point of comparison, and in 
ayidrns the amapxnh precedes and gives 
existence to the @vpaua. This being so, 
(1) the dawapx7 and fifa have generally 
been taken to represent the patriarchs ; 
and I believe rightly (except that perhaps 
it would be more strictly correct to say, 
Abraham himself). The @yamnrol 8a 
Tous matépas of ver. 28 places this refer- 
ence almost beyond doubt. Origen ex- 
plains the figa to be our Lord. But 
He is Himself a branch, by descent from 
Abraham and David (Isa. xi. 1; Matt. i. 1), 
if genealogically considered ; and if mysti- 
cally, the whole tree (John xv. 1). De 
Wette prefers to take as the first fruit and 
root, the ideal theocracy founded on the 
patriarchs,—the true, faithful children of 
the patriarchs, and as the branches, those 
united by mere external relationship to 
these others. This he does, because in the 
common acceptation, the kAdSo. who are 
cut off ought to be severed from their phy- 
sical connexion with Abraham, &c., which 
they are not. This objection I do not con- 


16—18. 


TIPO} POMAIOT®. 


431 


17 ef 8€ tTwes TOY °KAdOwV ? éEeKNaTOncaY, od SE 4 aypL- Phere ke. Bee 


only. Levit. 
7 only. 


f- x r2 t f) > tr ey \ aT y 
€XaLos WV EVEKEVT PLO nS €V QAUTOLS Kab OVYKOLWWVOS 4g ver, 24 only +. 


THs "pitms THs *miuTynTos THs " édXaias eyévov, 18 wy 


r here &c. (6 times) only +. Wisd. xvi. 11 only. 
Eph. y. 11.) t here only. 
exc. (w. 0p0s) in Gospp. Gen. viii. 11. 


17. for ever., exevrpio Ons L. 
Tren-int (Cyr-jer) Aug). 


ceive applicable here: because, as we see 
evidently from ver. 23, the severing and 
re-engrafting are types, not of genealogical 
disunion and reunion, but of spiritual. 
Meanwhile, De W.’s view appears less 
simple than the ordinary one, which, as I 
hope to shew, is borne out by the- whole 
passage. (2) Then, who are indicated by 
the dvpapa and the xdado.? ISRAEL, con- 
sidered as the people of God. The lump, 
which has received its ayiétns from the 
amapxn, — Israel, beloved for the fathers’ 
sakes : the assemblage of branches, evolved 
from Abraham, and partaking of his holi- 
ness. But one thing must be especially 
borne in mind. As Abraham himself had 
an outer and an inner life, so have the 
branches. They have an outer life, de- 
rived from Abraham by physical descent. 
Of this, no cutting off can deprive them. It 
may be compared to the very organization 
of the wood itself, which subsists even after 
its separation from the tree. But they 
have, while they remain in the tree, an inner 
life, nourished by the circulating sap, by 
virtue of which they are constituted living 
parts of the tree: see our Lord’s parable 
of the vine and the branches, John xv. 1 ff. 
It is of this life, that their severance from 
the tree deprives them: it is this life, which 
they will re-acquire if grafted in again. 

See a very ingenious but artificial explana- 
tion in Olsh., who agrees in the main with 
De W.:—and the whole question admirably 
discussed in Tholuck. The ay:dtns then 
here spoken of, consists in their dedication 
to God as a people—in their being physi- 
cally evolved from aholy root. This pecu- 
liar ayidtns (see 1 Cor. vii. 14, where the 
children of one Christian parent are simi- 
larly called &yia) renders their restoration 
to their_own stock a matter, not of wonder 
and difficulty, but of reasonable hope and 
probability. I may notice in passing, that 
those expositors who do not hold a restora- 
tion of the Jewish people to national pre- 
eminence, find this passage exceedingly in 
their way, if we may judge by their expla- 
nations of this ayidtns. E.g. Mr. Ewbank 
remarks: ‘ Holy they are, inasmuch as there 
is no decree against theirrestorationto their 


June. ix. 9. 


om ev C}(appy). 
with ALN rel: om BC(D!F)X! copt Damase. 


see Isa. xliv. 
14 F(not A). 
Jer. xvii. 6. 


$1 Cor. ix. 23. Phil.i.7. Rev.i.9only+. (-ecy, 
u ver, 24. James iii. 12. Rey. xi. 4 only, 


rec ins kat bef rns miotnTOs, 
eyevou THs ™. THS cAatas DIE k 


place of life and fruitfulness.? Surely this 
is a new meaning of ‘holy :’ the same would 
be true of a Hottentot: in his case, too, 
there is no decree against his reception into 
a place (and in Mr. E.’s view, the restora- 
tion of the Jew is nothing more) of life and 
fruitfulness in the Church of God. 

17.] But (introduces a hypothesis involving 
a seeming inconsistency with the ayidrns 
just mentioned) if some of the branches 
(the twes, as Thol. remarks, depreciates 
the number, in order to check the Gentile 
pride) were broken out (from the tree), 
and thou (a Gentile believer) being a wild 
olive (aypiéAcios, the tree, spoken of a 
sprout or branch of it. Better so than, as 
Fritz., Meyer, to make a@yp. an adj., ‘of 
wild olive,’ which can only be used of that 
which is made out of the wood, as aypt- 
€Aatos oxutddAn. Thol.) wast grafted in 
(Clem. Alex. Strom. vi. § 119, p. 799 P., 
enumerates four different kinds of éyxev- 
Tpioués, using it as a general term for 
grafting and budding. The difficulty here 
is, that the Apostle reverses the natural 
process. It is the wilding, in practice, 
which is the stock, and the graft inserted 
is a sprout of the better tree. I believe 
that he does not here regard what is the 
fact in nature; but makes a supposition 
perfectly legitimate,—that a wilding graft 
on being inserted into a good tree, thereby 
becomes partaker of its qualities. No 
allusion can be intended to a practice men- 
tioned by Columella, de Re Rust. v. 9, 
of inserting a wilding graft into a good 
tree to increase the vigour and growth 
of the tree: for this would completely 
stultify the illustration—the point of which 
is, a benefit received by the wilding from 
the tree, not one conferred by the wild- 
ing on it) among them (i.e. among the 
branches,—ro?s kAddo.s: or perhaps aitots 
may imply the remnants of the branches 
broken off. The renderings, ‘in their 
stead,’ ‘in locum,’ as De W. after Chrys., 
Theophyl., Beza,—and ‘in their place,’ 
‘in loco,’ Meyer, Olsh., are surely inad- 
missible), and becamest a fellow-partaker 
(with the branches: or perhaps simply ‘a 
partaker,’ ovv not implying fellows in par- 


432 


v (=) here bis. 
ames ii. 13. 
iii. 14 only. 
Jer. xxvii. 
(1.) 11, 38 
(Zech. x. 12) 
only. 

w ch. xv. 1. 
Matt. xx. 12. 
John xvi. 12. 
4 Kings xviii. 
14. Sir. vi. 25 


only. Bel & 


IIPO> POMAIOTS. 


XI. 


‘ 6 A , , / 
only. Bl & Oeos Tov Kata » draw °KrAddwv ovK ° épelcato, [4 uA 


x Matt. xv. 7. 
John iv. 17 al. 2 Kings iii. 13. 
vi. 17 only t. see ch. xii. 16 reff. 
below (1). 
d = 1 Cor. viii. 9. ellips., here only. 


18. for karakavxacat, ov Kavxaca DF Ambrst. 


19. for efexAavOnoay, ec KAacOnoay F. 


y =ch. iii. 3. Heb. iii. 19. dat. of cause, see ver. 30. 
a = ch. ix. 11. 2 


c Paul (Acts xx. 29. ch. viii. 32. 1 Cor. vii. 28 al.) only, exc. 2 Pet. ii. 4, 5. 


z1 Tim. 
b here &c. (3ce) only+. see 
Ezek. xxxvi. 21. 


Col. iii. 22. 


[aAaAa, so BD!N. | 
rec ins o bef kAadut, with D! b co 


Thdrt Thl: om A B(Tischdf, expr) CD3FLX rel Chr Thdrt-ms Damase (Ke. 
20. for efexAacOnoay, exAacOnoay B(Tischdf, expr) D'F: txt ACD*LX rel Chr Thdrt. 


* Unda Ppover ABN. 


21. «: yap is written over an erasure by Nl. 


rec ins uy mws, with DFL rel vss 


(Orig) Chr(kat odk elrev O5E cod peloeTat, GAAG Mf mws ovdé cov delonrat, broTeu- 


ticipation, but merely the participation 
itself) of the root of the fatness (of that 
root, on union with which all the develop- 
ment of life and its fertility depend: which 
is the source of the fatness. With kal, it 
will mean, of the source of life, and also of 
the development of that life itself in all 
richness of blessing) of the olive-tree, 

18.] do not boast against the 
branches (which were broken off): but if 
thou boastest against them(knowthat..., 
or let this consideration humble thee, that 
... Similarly 1 Cor. xi. 16, et 5€ tis Soxe? 
iAdveikos elvat, Nuets TovavTny cuvybeay 
ovK €xouev, .T.A. See Winer, edn. 6, 
§ 66.1) it is not thou that bearest the 
root, but the root thee. The ground of 
humiliation is—“‘Thou partakest of thy 
blessings solely by union with God’s spi- 
ritual church, which church has for its 
root that father of the faithful, from whom 
they are descended. Regard them not 
therefore with scorn.” This is expanded 
further in ver. 20. 19.] Thou wilt 
then (posito, that thou boastest, and de- 
fendest it) say, Branches (it would look 
as if the art. had been erased, to square 
this sentence with ver. 17, where tives 7. 
xAddwv only were broken off. Or we 
might think, as Matthii has remarked 
[Thol.], that, ‘Gentilis loquitur arrogan- 
tius,’ using of kA. in his pride, to signify 
that the branches, generically, have now 
become subject to excision on his account. 
But the fact, now ascertained by Tischdf., 
that B omits the art., makes nearly the 
whole manuscript authority against it) 
were broken off that I (emphatic) might 
be grafted in. 20.| Well (the fact, 
involving even the purpose, assumed in 
iva, is conceded. When Thol. denies this, 


he forgets that the prompting cause of 
their excision, their unbelief, is distinct 
from the divine purpose of their exci- 
sion, the admission of the Gentiles, and 
belongs to a different side of the subject): 
—through their unbelief (or perhaps, 
‘through unbelief, abstract. There is often 
a difficulty in distinguishing the possessive 
from the abstract (i.e. generic) article. 
Thol. observes that the instrumental use of 
the dat. and that of d:¢ with the gen. differ 
in this, that the latter expresses more the 
immediate cause, the former the mediate 
and more remote. The explanation of this 
would be, that the dative only acquires its 
instrumental use through another, more 
proper attribute of the case, that of refer- 
ence to, form or manner in which : see 
Bernhardy, Syntax, ch. iii. 14, pp. 100— 
105) they were broken off, but thou by thy 
faith (see above:—‘through’ indicates bet- 
ter the prompting eause of a definite act,— 
‘by,’ the sustaining condition of a con- 
tinued state. Thus we should always say 
that we are justified through, not by, faith, 
—but that we stand by, not through, faith) 
standest (in thy place, in the tree, opposed 
to éfexAda@noav. Thol. prefers the sense 
in ch. xiv. 4, and certainly the adoption of 
meadvres ver. 22, seems to shew that the 
figurative diction is not strictly preserved). 
—Be not high-minded, but fear: 

21.| for if God did not spare the natural 
branches (the branches which grew accord- 
ing to natural development, and were not 
engrafted),—(supply ‘I fear,’ or ‘it is 
to be feared,’ or simply ‘fear,’ or ‘ take 
heed,’ as in ref.) lest He shall also not 
spare THEE. The fut. ind. with uh mas, 
the apparent incongruity of which has pro- 
bably caused the variety of reading, im- 


YKaTaKavy® Tov °KAddwov' ei S€ * KaTaKavXGoal, OV ABC 

‘ a a 
ov tiv “pitay * Bacravers, adda H “pita cé. 19 epets edt 
2 Pp > , ra} ° , ” ea r2 i» kom 
oby © ’E&€exXacOnoav ° wradou iva éeyw * éyxevtpicOo. 
20 X Karas. TH Yatuotia ® éEexNacOnaar, ov be TH TloTE 
éornxas. pn **iYnrodppover, adrAa PoBod- 1 ei yap oO 


ol 


19—24. 


d 
f 


NV h > / lol y > / k 3 / 
Hn “errimewoow TH 4 amiotia, * éyxevtpicOjnocovtar Suva- 
\ / € \ 
ToS yap éotw o Oeds wary * éyKevTplioat avtovs: ,™ 


IIPOS POMAIOTS. 


433 


Twos] ovdé cod ° geicerar. » ie ody © ypnaTéTHTa Kal °c \i.4 ref. 
amrotowiav Geod" eri ev tods *mecdvtas ‘ droromla, 
emt d€ Gé€ °ypnaoToTns Ocod, éav ©” éripelvns TH ° ypn- 
oroTnte: eel kal od + éxxomijon. 


f here bis only +. 
Set... amro- 
TOMLaV TH 
TPAoTHTe 
Meuyvuvat, 
Plut. de Lib. 
Educ. p. 13, 
D. (-sos, 
Brae = 20.) 

g = ch. xiv.4 


> a / 
23 kakeivot O€, éav 


d ’ \ \ fol / 7 , - 
*4 et yap ov éx Tis ® ata » dbow + eEexdmns ¥ drypi= incre dis 


Matt. iii. 10 


/ \ \ yg 
ehaiov kai ‘mapa 'dvow * évexevtpicOns eis ™ kaddu- | 2-¥-90- 
f f fad e c Weg 
éhatov, "Toowm ™ waddrov ovTOL ° ot * Kata ” dUowW Tike sii. 
7,9. 2 Cor. 
i. 12 only. Deut. vii. 5. k ver. 17, 1 ch. i. 26 (reff. ly. i 
de Plant.i. 6. n ver. 12. be o ellipes heat: ge only eu Rexe only toe Sea 


vduevos TOD Adyou Td poptikdy TH aupiBorlg) Thdrt Ee Thi Iren-int Cypr Ambrst : 


om (corrn to avoid fut. with un mws?) ABCR copt Damase Ruf Aug. 


rec 


getonta, with Chr-montf Chr-c Thl Gc: txt B(sic) CDFLN rel Chr-2-mss Thdrt Antch 


Damasce. 
22. ins Tov bef @cou B. 


rec amotomav (see note), with DFL &3, but v erased) 
rel Clem Eus Chr Thdrt Phot: txt ABCN! (Orig) Damasc. 


rec xpyoroTtnta, with 


D8FL rel Clem Chr Cyr Thdrt Phot : -rnros(sic) RN: txt ABCD! (Orig) Eus Damase. 
rec om Geou (see note), with D?-3FL rel demid Syr Clem Orig Chr Thdrt: ins 


ABCD! yulg copt arm Eus Damasc Pel. 


23. rec cat exervor, with L rel Chr Thdrt: ABCDFN ec d k Damase. 
o Geos bef eotry Lahk117. 


etTinevwow BDIN}, 


plies, as Herm., Soph. Aj. 272, observes 
with regard to the ind. pres., ‘uy eat 
(€crat) verentis quidem est ne quid nunc sit 
(futurum sit), sed indicantis simul, putare, 
se ita esse (futurum esse), ut veretur.’? See 
Winer, edn. 6, § 56. 2. b. B, and 64.i. 7. a, 
also Col. ii. 8; Heb. iii. 12. 22.] The 
caution of the preceding verse is unfolded 
into a setting before the Gentile of the 
true state of the matter. Behold therefore 
(posito, that thou enterest into the feeling 
prompted by the last verse) the goodness 
and the severity (no allusion to arotéuvw 
in its literal sense) of God:—towards those 
who fell (see on ver. 11. Here the 
meadvres are opposed to av, the figure being 
for the moment dropped: for mimrew can 
hardly be used of the branches, but of men) 
severity; but towards thee, the goodness 
of God (the nominatives here, as involving 
a departure from the construction, are pre- 
ferable : and the repetition of @cod is quite 
in the manner of the Apostle: see 1 Cor. i. 
24, 25. Riickert thinks that because Clem. 
Alex. Pedag. i. 8, p. 1389 P., understands 
xpnorétns, in eay emmetyns TH xpnorTe- 
Ty71, of the xpnordrns of men (TovtéoTt 
7H cis xpioTov mioret), Geovd may have been 
a marginal gloss to guard against this mis- 
take, and may have found its way into the 
text, misplaced. But this is hardly pro- 
bable: @cod is much more likely to have 
been erased as unnecessary), if thou abide 
by (reff.) that goodness; for (assuming 
Vox. II. 


for emimen., emynevns BDIN. 
for emimey., 


that thou dost not abide by that goodness) 
thou also shalt be cut off (ind. fut. The 
placing only a comma at éxkowhon, as 
Meyer,—not Lachm. [ed. 2] and Tischend. 
[ed. 7],—prevents the break evidently 
intended between the treatment of the 
case of the Gentile and that of the Jews). 

28.] And they moreover, if they 
continue not (not exactly the same mean- 
ing as before: the xpnordérns before being 
external and objective, this, as in ch. vi. 1, 
a subjective state) in their (see on ver. 20) 
unbelief, shall be grafted in: for God is 
able to graft themin again. Some, e.g. 
Grot., represent this last clause as imply- 
ing, that God’s power to graft them in 
again has always been the same, but has 
waited for their change of mind, to act: 
‘Nihil est preter incredulitatem quod 
Deum impediat eos rursum pro suis as- 
sumere et paterne tractare :—but surely 
De W.’s interpretation is far better :— 
‘The Apostle obscurely includes in the 
éyxevtp. the removal of their unbelief and 
the awakening of faith, and this last espe- 
cially he looks for from above :’—for, as he 
observes, the power of God would not be 
put forward, if the other were the mean- 
ing. 24.) For (proof that, besides 
God’s undoubted power to re-engraft them, 
the idea of their being so re-engrafted is 
not an unreasonable one ) if rHouU wast cut 
out of thy natural wild olive-tree, and 
unnaturally wast engrafted into a good 

FF 


43.4 IPOS POMAIOTS. XI. 
pai, KéyxevtpisOjcovrar tH wia *éhaia. > POd yap Oédw ABC 
xii.1. 2 Cor 


nr r / \ / r vA nf 
Me. 1 thes, UGS Payvoety, adeXpol, TO IpuvoTypioy TovTo, wa pH oat 
iy. 13. s > c a r , o s , t2 Sa , an 
= bee nute, 1 
q = see note. | Hire ey €auTols ppovepot, os TOONS: ato sii To 017 
4 li , % Lal Lal 
rMatt-axy.2, Lopanr yéyovey “aypis ov TO Y TAnpwpa Ttav eOvav 
&c. Gen. 
xli. 33. w. €V, 1 Cor. iv.10. w. mapa, ch. xii, 16. Prov. iii. 7. 
only+. (-povy, ver. 7.) tch. xv. 15,24. 2 Cor. i. 14. ii. 5 only. P. 
xiii. 9, &c. xiv. 27. Heb. ix. 5. u constr., 1 Cor. xi. 26. Gal. iii. 19 al. 
only}. (ver. 12.) 


s Mark iii.5. Eph. iv. 18 
Josh. xviii. 20. see 1 Cor. 
v = here 


25. AcAw bef yap NX: OeAw de (omg yap) m. rec (for ev) wap (see ch. xii. 19) 
with CDLX rel Thdor-mops Chr Thdrt: om F 47. 67? latt copt lat-ff: txt AB goth 


Damasce. for axpis, axpt B}. 


olive-tree, how much more shall these, 
the natural branches, be engrafted in 
their own olive-tree? It is a question, as 
Tholuck remarks, whether cara ¢iow and 
mapa pvow denote merely growth in the 
natural manner and growth (by engratt- 
ing) in an unnatural (i.e. artificial) man- 
ner,—or that the wild is the nature of the 
Gentile, and the good olive that of the Jew, 
so that the sense would be—‘ If thou wert 
cut out of the wild olive which is thine 
naturally, and wert engrafted contrary to 
(thy) nature into the good olive, how much 
more shall these, the natural branches,’ &e. 
But then the latter part of the sentence 
does not correspond with the former. We 
either should expect the of to be omitted (as 
is done in some mss.), or must, with Fritz., 
place a comma after oro, and, taking of 
as the relative, construe, ‘ How much more 
these, who shall, agreeably to (their) na- 
ture, be grafted,’ &e. Tholuck describes 
the question as being between a comparison 
of engrafting and not engrafting, and one 
of engrafting the congruous and the incon- 
gruous : and, on the above ground, decides 
in favour of the former,—kxata piow sig- 
nifying merely natural growth, wapa o., 
unnatural growth, i.e. the growth of the 
grafted scion. But however this may fit 
the former part of the sentence, it surely 
cannot satisfy the requirements of the 
latter, where the kata vow (KAddo1) are 
described as being engrafted (which would 
be mapa pvawv) into their own olive-tree. 
We must at least assume a mixture of the 
two meanings, the antithesis of xardé and 
mapa p. being rather verbal than logical,— 
as is so common in the writings of the 
Apostle. Thus in the former case, that of 
the Gentile, the fact of natural growth is 
set against that of engrafted growth: 
whereas in the latter, the fact of congruity 
of nature (77 idig édata) is set against in- 
congruity,—as making the re-engrafting 
more probable. 25 —32.] Prophetic 
announcement that this re-engrafting 
SHALL AOTUALLY TAKE PLACE (25—27), 
and explanatory justification of this 


divine arrangement (28—32). 25. | 
For (1 do not rest this on mere hope or 
probability, but have direct revelation of 
the Holy Spirit as to its certainty) I 
would not have you ignorant, brethren 
(see reff..—used by the Apostle to an- 
nounce, either as here some authoritative 
declaration of divine truth, or some facts 
in his own history not previously known 
to his readers), of this mystery (pvor. 
Tholuck in his 4th edition classifies the 
meanings thus: (1) such matters of fact, 
as are inaccessible to reason, and can 
only be known through revelation: (2) 
such matters as are patent facts, but 
the process of which cannot be entirely 
taken in by the reason. He adds a third 
sense,—that, which is no mystery in itself, 
but by its figurative import. Of the first, 
he cites chap. xvi. 25; 1 Cor. ii. 7—10; 
Eph. i. 9; iii. 4; vi. 19; Col. i. 26, al., as 
examples: of the second, 1 Cor. xiv. 2; 
xiii. 2; Eph. v. 32; 1 Tim. iii. 9, 16: of 
the third, Matt. xiii. 11; Rev. i. 20; xvii. 
5; 2 Thess. ii. 7. The first meaning is 
evidently that in our text :—‘a prophetic 
event, unattainable by human knowledge, 
but revealed from the secrets of God’) that 
ye be not wise in your own conceits (that 
ye do not take to yourselves the credit for 
wisdom superior to that of the Jews, in 
having acknowledged and accepted Jesus 
as the Son of God,—seeing that ye merely 
HNAEHOnTE 7H To’TwV ameiGeig, ver. 30),— 
that hardening (not ‘blindness :’ see above 
on ver. 7, and Eph. iv. 18 note) has hap- 
pened in part (Calvin explains it ‘qguodam- 
modo ....qua particula voluisse mihi dun- 
taxat videtur temperare verbum alioqui 
per se asperum,’—but there is no trace of 
such a desire above, ver. 7 ;—the tives ver. 
17 establishes the ordinary acceptation, 
that a portion of Israel have been hardened. 
amo p. may be joined with mépwois, or 
with yéyovey: from the arrangement ot 
the words, best with the former) to Israel, 
until (&xpis ob has been variously rendered 
by those who wish to escape from the pro- 
phetic assertion of the restoration of Israel. 


25, 26. 


IIPOS POMAIOTS. 


435 


eiséXOn, 6 Kat “ otras mas “IopaijAX cwOjoetat, Kabas v=ch.v.2 


So Calv. : “ donee non infert temporis pro- 
gressum vel ordinem, sed potius valet per- 
inde ac si dictum foret, wé plenitudo gen- 
tium ;”’—al., ‘while. ... shall come in:?’ 
but Tho]. well observes that &xp. of with 
an ind., if any thing actually happening 
is spoken of, may have the meaning of 
‘while, even with an aor.: but with a 
subj. of the aorist, a possible future event 
is indicated, which when it enters puts an 
end to the former: see reff.) the comple- 
tion of the Gentiles shall have come in 
(scil. to the Church or Kingdom of God, 
where we, the Apostle and those whom he 
addresses, are already : as we use the word 
‘come in’ absolutely, with reference to 
the place in which we are. Or the word 
may be used absolutely, as it seems to be 
in Luke vi. 52, of entering into the King- 
dom of God. In order to understand 
Td TAN. T. €6v., We must bear in mind the 
character of the Apostle’s present argu- 
ment. He is dealing with nations: with 
the Gentile nations, and the Jewish nation. 
And thus dealing, he speaks of 7d wA“%p. T. 
ey. coming in, and of ras "Iopana being 
saved: having xo regard for the time to 
the individual destinies of Gentiles or Jews, 
but regarding nations as each included 
under the common bond of consanguinity 
according to the flesh. The tAjpwua tev 
édvav I would regard then as signifying 
‘the full number,’ ‘the totality,’ of the 
nations, i.e. every nation under heaven, the 
prophetic subjects (Matt. xxiv. 14) of the 
preaching of the gospel. Stuart denies that 
TAhpowa will admit of this meaning. But 
the sense which he allows to it of ‘‘ comple- 
tion, i. q. TAjpwo.s”’ (?), amounts in this 
case to the same thing: that completion 
not arriving till a/Z have come in: the 
TAHpwoua TeV eOyGv importing that which 
mAnpot ra €0vn. The idea of an elect num- 
ber, however true in itself (‘plenitudo 
gentium in his intrat, qui secundum pro- 
positum vocati,’ Aug. cited by Tholuck), 
does not seem to belong to this passage). 

26.] And thus (when this condition 
shall have been fulfilled) all Israel shall be 
saved (Israel as a nation, see above: not 
individuals,—nor is there the slightest 
ground for the notion of the aroxatdora- 
ots). | This prophecy has been very vari- 
ously regarded. Origen, understanding by 
the ‘omnis Israel qui salvus fiet,’ the ‘re- 
liquize que elect sunt,’ yet afterwards ap- 
pears to find in the passage his notion of 
the final purification of all men,—of the 
believing, by the word and doctrine: of the 
unbelieving, by purgatorial fire. Chry- 


sostom gives no explanation: but on 
our Lord’s words in Matt. xvii. 11, he 
says, Stay ern Stu ’HAlas mev epxerat 
K. Q@mokataoTioe mwavta, avToy ?HAlay 
nol, «. Thy TéTE Eeoomevny TOV “Lovdalav 
émotpopyv,—and shortly after calls him 
THs devtépas Tapovolas mpddpouos. Simi- 
larly Theodoret and Gregory of Nyssa (in 
Thol.) ; so also Augustine, de Civ. Dei xx. 
29, vol. vii. p. 704,—‘ ultimo tempore 
ante judicium (per Eliam, exposita sibi 
lege) Judzeos in Christum verum esse cre- 
dituros, celeberrimum est in sermonibus 
cordibusve fidelium.’ Similarly most of 
the fathers (Estius), and schoolmen (Thol.) ; 
—Jerome, however, on Isa. xi. 11, vol. iv. 
p- 162, says, ‘Nequaquam juxta nostros 
Judaizantes, in fine mundi quum intraverit 
plenitudo gentium, tune omnis Israel salvus 
fiet : sed hzee omnia de primo intelligamus 
adventu.’ Grotius and Wetst. believe it to 
have been fulfilled after the destruction of 
Jerusalem, when puplo ex mepitouys be- 
came believers in Christ (Eus. H. E. iii. 35). 
But Thol. has shewn that neither could 
the number of Gentiles received into the 
Church before that time have answered to 
the mAjpwpua tr. eOvdv, nor those Jews to 
mas “IopanaA, which expression accordingly 
Grotius endeavours to explain by a Rab- 
binical formula, that ‘‘all Israel have a 
part in the Messiah;” which saying he 
supposes the Apostle to have used in a spi- 
ritual sense, meaning the Israel of God, as 
Gal. vi. 16. The Reformers for the most 
part, in their zeal to impugn the millenarian 
superstitions then current, denied thefuture 
general conversion of the Jews, and would 
not recognize it even in this passage :— 
Luther did so, at one time, but towards the 
end of his life spoke most characteristically 
and strongly of what he conceived to be the 
impossibility of such national conversion 
(see extract in Tholuck’s note, p. 616) :— 
Calvin says: ‘Multi accipiunt de populo 
Judaico, ac si Paulus diceret instaurandum 
adhue in religionem ut prius: sed ego 
Israelis nomen ad totum Dei populum ex- 
tendo, hoc sensu, Quum Gentes ingressz 
fuerint, simul et Judzi ex defectione se ad 
fidei obedientiam recipient. Atque ita 
complebitur salus totius Israelis Dei, quem 
ex utrisque colligi oportet: sic tamen ut 
priorem locum Judi obtineant, ceu in 
familia Dei primogeniti.’” Calovius, Ben- 
gel, and Olshausen, interpret was “Icp. of 
the elect believers of Israel :— Beza, Estius, 
Koppe, Reiche, Kéllner, Meyer, Tholuck, 
De Wette, al., hold that the words refer, as 
Ihave explained them above, to a national 


Fr2 


436 IIPO> POMAIOTS. xe 

xch vii eyéypamrTal "HEer éx Yuwv 6 * popevos, y arroorpewet Apel 
€ c SA 2 
icra, ZaoeBelas ato “laxwB: 27 nal *avtn avtois 4 Tap’ cwod ed ¢ 
xd — > SeaOn«en, * OTav apéopat Tas * dwaptlas aitav. *8 Kata xis 
1 Thess. iii. aU07)K1); ya pap ! ‘s 


5 al. 
y Acts iii. 26 


Eayarntol ia Tovs 


al John v. 2. 


w. éav, 
1 John ii. 3. 
b = Luke i. 72 b : 
Acts iii. 25. Ps. xxiv. 14. ce mid., Luke xvi. 3 only. 
xlvii. 11 e = Gal. iv. 16. 


cvii. 6. h absol., Acts vii. 19 reff. 


f ch. ix. 11 reff. 
i 2 Cor. vii. 10 only +. 


pev TO evayyedov © exOpot bv buds, Kata dé THY f ExRoyny 
) qratépas. 


29 i quetapédnta yap Ta 


Kyapiopata Kat 7) |Kdjows TOD Oeod. 9 asmrep yap Upeis 


Isa. xxvii. 9. Sir. 
Ps. 


d Heb. x. 4. 
g Matt. iii. 17. ch. i. 7 al. 
k ch. y. 15, 16. vi. 23. 1 Paul 


Hos. ii. 9. 


(1 Cor. i. 26. vil. 20. Eph. i. 18. Phil. iii. 14 al yioniy; exc. Heb. iii. 1. 2 Pet. i. 10. Jer. xxxviii. (xxxi.) 6. Judith 


xii. 10 A only. 


26. rec ins kat bef awoorpeer (as LXX), with D?%L rel vss Orig Chr Thdrt: om 


ABCD!FR.—aroorpepat F goth. 
80. om ver N}. 
and 2-mss): om ABCD!FR-corr! a 


restoration of Israel to God’s favour. 

I have not mixed with the consideration of 
this prophecy the question of the restora- 
tion of the Jews to Palestine, as being 
clearly irrelevant to it: the matter here 
treated being, their reception into the 
Church of God. xaQas yéyp-| This 
quotation appears to have for its object to 
shew that the Redeemer was to come for 
the behoof of God’s own chosen people. 
For ék Sidv, the LXX have évexey Sidy 
(y¥)), the E. V. ‘to Zion.’ The Apostle 
frequently varies from the LXX, and a 
sufficient reason can generally be assigned 
for the variation: here, though this reason 
is not apparent, we cannot doubt that such 
existed, for the LXX would surely have 
suited his purpose even better than éx, 
had there been no objection to it. It 
may be that the whole citation is in- 
tended to express the sense of prophecy 
rather than the wording of any particular 
passage, and that the Apostle has, in é« 
Ziv, summed up the prophecies which 
declare that the Redeemer should spring 
out of Israel. 6 pudp. is in the Heb. ‘a 
deliverer’—the Apostle adopts the LXX, 
probably as appropriating the expression 
to Christ. atrootp. «.7.A.| Heb. and 
E. V. ‘and unto them that turn from trans- 
gression in Jacob.’ étav adéX. from 
another place in Isa. (ref.),—hardly from 
Jer. xxxi. (LXX, xxxviii.) 34, as Stuart ;— 
and also containing a general reference to 
the character of God’s new covenant with 
them, rather than a strict reproduction of 
the original meaning of any particular 
words of the prophet. ‘How came the 
Apostle, if he wished only to express the 
general thought, that the Messiah was 
come for Israel, to choose just this cita- 
tion, consisting of two combined passages, 
when the same is expressed more directly 
in other passages of the Old Testament ? JT 


rec ins kat bef yuers, with D?3LN% rel vulg syrr Chr(montf 
a copt goth eth Chr Damase Thl Jer Augyep- Ruf.— 


believe that the #&e: gave occasion for the 
quotation: if he did not refer this directly 
to the second coming of the Messiah, yet it 
allowed of being indirectly applied to it.” 
Tholuck. 28.) With regard indeed 
to the gospel (i.e. ‘viewed from the gospel 
side,’ looked on as we must look on them 
if we confine our view solely to the prin- 
ciples and character of the Gospel), they 
(the Jewish people considered as a whole) 
are hated (@cov: not nov, as Theodoret, Lu- 
ther, Grot., al.—scil. in a state of exclusion 
from God’s favour : not active, ‘enemies to 
God,’ as Grot., Bengel) for your sakes; 
but with regard to the election (viz. of 
Israel to be God’s people, see vv. 1, 2— 
not that of Christians, as Aug. al. :—i. e. 
‘looked on as God’s elect people’), they are 
beloved for the fathers’ sakes (i. e. not 
Sor the merits of the fathers, but because 
of the covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and 
Jacob, so often referred to by God as a 
cause for His favourable remembrance of 
Israel). 29.| For (explanation how 
God’s favour regards them still, though for 
the present cast off) the gifts (generally) 
and calling (as the most excellent of those 
gifts. That calling seems to be intended 
‘qua posteros Abrahe in feedus adoptavit 
Deus,’ Calv. A very similar sentiment is 
found ch. iii. 3, where the same is called 
) twlotts T. Oeod. But the words are true 
not only of this calling, but of every other. 
Bengel says, ‘dona, erga Judzos: vocatio, 
erga gentes similarly of kAjots, De W., 

“die Seaniug durd) das Ev.” But thus 
the point of the argument seems to be lost, 
which is, that the Jews being once chosen 
as God’s people, will never be entirely cast 
off) are irretractable (do not admit of a 
change of purpose. The E. V., ‘ without 
repentance,’ is likely to mislead. Compare 
Hosea xiii. 14). 30. | For (illustra- 
tion of the above position) as ye (manu- 


27—38. TIPOS: POMAIOTS. 437 


m \ >’ vd n lal fal an 
Tore "nTevOncate TH Oe@, vov Sé °7jrEHOnTE TH TOUT@V m= Joimix. 
”, Parevleia, 3! ottws Kai ob Ov ® AarelO Shea Cp an 
a a, § Kat ovToL viv" nTrELOncay, TH 4 KueTEepo 2%, is g 
» 2 Y \ aaa n 31. Det 
DY édées Siva Kal avtol °édenbdow. 32 * gypéxrevcev yap 6 xxi.%0. 
o ch. ix. 15, &e. 


\ \ / 
feh eos * Tovs Yaravtas “els Parre(Oevav, va ‘tovs Y rdvras pass., Matt, 
3 mi ; : r pele or. 
7 °éhenon. %3 & ¥ Babos *¥ rrovTOU Kal  codlas Kal ¥? yyad- PF. 1. 
1 Tim. i. 13, 


16. 1 Pet. ii. 10. Prov. xxi. 10, Hos. ii. 23 (25) A. p here bis. Eph. ii. 2. v.6. Col. iii. 6. Heb 
iy. 6, 11 only +. (-Oys, ch. i. 30.) constr., ver. 20. q = 1 Cor. xv. 31. see ch. xy. 4, rl ake 
i. 50, &c. ch. ix. 23. Eph. ii. 4. Ps. exliii. 2. 8 inversion of words, 2 Cor. ii. 4 reff. t Duke 
y.6. Gal. iil, 22,23 only. Josh. vi. 1 al. uhere only. Ps. Ixxvii. 50,62. ets TOLAVTHY apunxaviav 
ovykActaGeis, Diod. Sic. xix. 19. So Dion, Hal. viii. p. 520. Polyb. iii. 63. 3, and fr. v1Co 
ix. 22. x. 17. 2Cor.v. 10,14. Eph. iv. 13. Phil. ii. 21. P. wch. viii, 39. Eph. iii.18 al. Isa. 
vii. 11. x ch. ii. 4 reff. y Rey. y. 12 only. z=1Cor. i. 21 EB oh, iii 10. 
al Cor. xii. 8. b 1 Cor, xiii. 2. i weal G 2 ANE 


mote bef vuers A: more Kat umes b oO. vuve B Chr. edenOnre C (m?) Thi. 
31. for ovro:, avtor D'F. aft avrot ins vorepoy 5. 17. 93: wadw Cyr; vuv 
(possibly mechanical repetition) BD!(&) Damase.—om aura X!. 
$2. for Ist tous mavtas, ta mavta D! latt Iren-int, Jer, wayvra F. 


script evidence is too decided against the cat 
to allow of its being retained: but we may 
suspect that it has been struck out as super- 
fluous, in ignorance {'Thol.] of the Greek 
usage which often doubles kal in two pa- 
rallel clauses) once disobeyed God (natio- 
nally—as Gentiles, before the Gospel) but 
now have (lit. ‘ were compassionated,’ his- 
torical) received mercy (scil. by admission 
into the church of God) through (as the 
occasion ; the breaking off of the natural 
branches giving opportunity for the graft- 
ing in of you) the disobedience of these 
(i. e. unbelief, considered as an act of resist- 
ance to the divine will: see 1 John iii. 23), 
so these also have now (under the Gospel) 
disobeyed (are now in a state of unbeliev- 
ing disobedience), in order that through 
the mercy shewed to you (viz. on occasion 
of the fulness of the Gentiles coming in) 
they also may have mercy shewn them 
(‘the objective view corresponding to the 
subjective eis Td mapa(nA@oa abtous, ver. 
tee De W.): Some place the comma 
after éAée: instead of jael@noay, and con- 
strue, either, as Erasm., Calv., al., ‘they 
have disobeyed through (upon occasion of) 
the mercy shewn to you,’ or as Vulg., Luth., 
Estius, al., ‘they have become disobedient 
to the mercy shewn to you. But thus the 
parallelism is weakened, and the wvorhpiov 
of ver. 25 lost sight of. Examples of the 
emphatic word being placed before iva are 
found in reff. 32.]| For (foundation 
of the last stated arrangement in the divine 
purposes) God shut up (not shut up fo- 
gether ; civ, as in so many cases, imply- 
ing, not co-participation on the part of the 
subjects of the action, but the character of 
the action itself: so in ‘concludere.’ The 
sense is here as in the examples, which 
might be multiplied by consulting Schweig- 


heeuser’s Index to Polyb., ‘¢o involve in,’ 
‘to subject to.’ The aor., which should be 
kept in the rendering, refers to the time of 
the act in the divine procedure) all (the 
reading 7a adyta has probably been in- 
troduced from Gal. iii. 22) men in (into) 
disobedience (general here,—every form, 
unbelief included), that He may have 
mercy on all. No mere permissive act of 
God must here be understood. The Apostle 
is speaking of the divine arrangement by 
which the guilt of sin and the mercy of 
God were to be made manifest. He treats 
it, as elsewhere (see ch. ix. 18 and note), 
entirely with reference to the act of God, 
taking no account, for the time, of human 
agency ; which however, when treating of 
us and our responsibilities, he brings out 
into as prominent a position: see as the 
most eminent example of this, the closely 
following ch. xii. 1, 2. But there re- 
mains some question, who are the ot mavres 
of both clauses? Are they thesame? And 
if so, is any support given to the notion of 
an arokatdoracts of all men? Certainly 
they are identical: and signify all men, 
without limitation. But the ultimate dif- 
ference between the all men who are shut 
up under disobedience, and the all men 
upon whom mercy is shewn is, that by 
all men this mercy is not accepted, and 
so men become se/f-exrcluded from the 
salvation of God. Gop’s act remains 
the same, equally gracious, equally uni- 
versal, whether men accept His mercy or 
not. This contingency is here not in 
view: but simply G'od’s act itself. We 
can hardly understand the of mavres na- 
tionally. The marked universality of the 
expression recaJls the beginning of the 
Epistle, and makes it a solemn conclusion 
to the argumentative portion, after which 


438 


TIPO> POQMAIOTS. 


XI. 34—36. 


le) e c > 7 ‘\ d ‘ > r ‘\ e > 
chereonlyt. ews O€od, @s ° aveEepaiynta Ta ‘Kpiwata avTod Kat © avek- 


Prov. xxv. 
3Symm. — 
(éfepavvav, 
1 Pet. i. 10.) 


dch. v.16. Ps. 


exviil. 75. 
e Eph. iit. 8 
only. Job 


v. 9. ix. 10. na 
xxxiv. 24 only. = Acts xiii. 10. Heb. iii. 10. 
xl. 13. hhere only. 2 Kings xv. 12. 
vi. ll. 2 Macc. vii. 37 only.) 


bis. J Thess. iii. 9. 2 Thess. i. 6 only. L.P.H. 


88. ins Tov bef deov F 17. 
34. for xupiov, @cov D'(and lat!) Zeno. 


the Apostle, overpowered with the view 
of the divine Mercy and Wisdom, breaks 
forth into the sublimest apostrophe exist- 
ing even in the pages of Inspiration itself. 

83—36.] Admiration of the good- 
ness and wisdom of God, and humble 
ascription of praise to Him. 33. | 
There is some doubt whether coplas and 
yooews are genitives after mAovTov, as in 
E. V., or parallel with it. The former 
view is adopted by Thom. Aquin., Luther, 
Beza, Calvin, Estius, Reiche, and al. The 
grounds on which Reiche supports it are 
thus given and refuted by Tholuck: (1) 
«Tf these three genitives are co-ordinate, 
kat must stand either before ali, or before 
the last only.” But in the case of three 
nouns placed co-ordinately in this manner, 
«at is prefixed to the two latter only, 
see ch. ii. 7; xii. 2; Luke v. 17. (2) 
“aAovTos is no qualitative idea, but only 
a quantitative idea.” But wherein the 
riches consist, is ordinarily indicated by 
the context; and here there can be but 
little doubt on the matter, if we compare 
ch. x. 12; in Phil. iv. 19 we also read of 
the mAovros of God. This also answers 
(3) “that mAodros without an adjunct 
expresses no definite attribute of God.” 
(4) “in the following citation, vv. 34, 35, 
two only of these, copia and yv@ots, are 
mentioned.” But this may be doubted. 
Chrys. says, on ver. 36, aitbs ebper, airds 
éxolnoev, avTdos avykpotet. kal yap kal 
aovads éori, Kal ob Beira: map’ érépov 
AaBeiv Kail codds eori, Kad ob Beira cup- 
BovbrAov. tl Aéyw cuuBotrovu; obdE elB€évar 
wis BivaTar TH avTOD, GAN’ H pdvos adrds 
6 mAovows x. copds. Hom. xix. p. 653. 
Perhaps this latter is altogether too fine- 
drawn: but it is favoured by Bengel, 
Olsh., and Tholuck. I prefer therefore 
the view of Chrys., Theodoret, Grot., 
Bengel, Tholuck, Kollner, and Olsh.,—to 
take wAotrov, coplas, yvéoews, as three 
co-ordinate genitives: mA. denoting the 
riches of the divine goodness, in the 
whole, and in the result just arrived at, 


/ oy 5 \ > on 
tyvliagTol at —000t QAUTOV. 


Rey. xv. 3. Ps. xvii. 21. 


Isa. Lxiii. 7. 


34 Tis yap éyvw § vovv Kupiov ; 


, r = ot FY / 
i) tly MotvpBovros adtod eyéveto; * 7 tis | rpoédaxev 
> n \ k > 6 fa} , > lol i 86 a ] 3 > r at 
avT@ kal * avtarroboOjcetat avT@; °° OTe} €F avtov K 


g 1 Cor. ii. 16, from Isa. 


ihere only. Jor xli. 3 Heb. = Isa. xl. 14 AN. (4 Kings 


k ch, xii. 19. (and Heb. x. 30, from Deut. xxxii. 35.) Luke xiv. 14 


11 Cor. viii. 6. 


[avetepavyynta, so ABN. | 


ver. 32: god., the divine wisdom of pro- 
ceeding in the apparently intricate vicissi- 
tudes of nations and individuals: yoo. (if 
a distinction be necessary, which can hardly 
be doubted) the divine knowledge of all 
things from the beginning,— God’s compre- 
hension of the end and means together in 
one unfathomable depth of Omniscience. 
How unsearchable are His judg- 
ments (the determinations of His wisdom, 
regarded as in the divine Mind ; answering 
perhaps to yv@o1s. So Thol.: De W. how- 
ever denies this meaning to xpluara, and 
renders it decrees, referring it to the blind- 
ing of the Jews) and His ways unable to 
be traced out (His methods of proceed- 
ing, answering to godla, Thol. But this 
is perhaps too subtle). 34. | For (con- 
firmation of avetep. and avetixyv. by a cita- 
tion from Scripture. It is made from two 
separate places in the LXX, more perhaps 
as a reminiscence than as a direct quota- 
tion) who hath known the mind (yvdois, 
but see above) of the Lord? or who hath 
been His counsellor (copfa?)? 
35. |] or who hath previously given to Him, 
and it shall be repaid to him ?— from Job 
xli.3 (11 E. V.), where the LXX (xli.2) have 
tts [add éorw bs A] avtiothoerai pou, K. 
brouever; But the Heb. is Oda 2277p, 
‘who hath anticipated (i.e. by the con- 
text, conferred a benefit on) me, that 
I may repay him?’ And to this the 
Apostle alludes, using the third person. 
We can hardly doubt that this ques- 
tion refers to the freeness and richness of 
God’s merey and love. 36.) For 
(ground of vv. 33—35. Well may all this 
be true of Him, for) of Him (in their 
origin :—‘ quod dicit, “ex ipso,” hoe ip- 
sum, guod sumus indicat :’ Orig. Chrys. 
somewhat differently: see above on ver. 
33), and through Him (in their subsistence 
and disposal: —‘ “per Ipsum,” quod perejus 
providentiam dispensawur in vita:’ Orig.), 
and unto Him (‘“ in Ipso,” [so Vulg. and 
some other yss.} quod perfectio omnium et 
finis in Ipso erit tunc, cum erit Deus omnia 


ABDF 
LX ab 
cdfg 
kimr 
ol7 


SLT. 


TIPO} POMAIOTS. 


439 


’ > a \ a * 
180 avtod Kal ‘els adtov ™ta mavta: avTa % ® 86£a ™= © i.16. 
& 


Rey. iv. 11. 


> \ In > , Job viii. 3. 
Els TOUS al@vas. AUD. n= Luke ii. 14, 
vii. 18 
lo is yf SLC 4 O48 Sie mo, John ix, 2h: 
XH 3 Ilapaxar® odv dpas, ddehgoi, dua TOV fete ai 3 
A e fal a a (2 cal > 25 al. 
1 oiKTip“a@v Tod Oeod, * TapacThaar Ta cOMaTa DU@V Ps xcv.1. 
, ~ elas ae: rn ed \ t \ ellips., ch. : 
Ouciav facav, aytav, EVaAPEO TOV TO 0ed, THV oyLanv 5 gr 
iii. 21. o = and constr., Acts xxiv. 4. xxvii. 34 al. p =ch. xv. 30. 1Cor.i.10. 2Cor. 
x.1. 1 Thess. iv. 2. q2Cor.i.3. Phil. ii. 1. Col. iii. 12. Heb. x. 28 only. Isa. Ixiii. 15. 
r Luke ii. 22. ch. vi. 138, &c. Ps. vy. 3. shere bis. ch. xiv.18. 2 Cor. y.9. Eph. v. 10. Phil. 


iv. 18. Col. iii. 20. Tit. ii. 9. “Heb. xiii.2lonly+. Wisd.iv.10. ix.10 only. (-rTws, Heb. xii. 28 only. -TEtV, 


Heb. xi. 5.) 
dopay, Test. xii. Patrum, p. 547 b. 


t1 Pet. ii.2only+. mpospepovary (ot ayyedor) Kuptw.. AoyiKHY .. . TPOS~ 


86. aft awvas ins Tay awyey FG? yulg(not am). 


Cuap. XII. 1. tw dew bef evapecroy AN! vulg Augsepe- 


in omnibus: Orig.) are all things (not 
only, though chietly, men,—but the whole 
creation). Origen remarks, ‘ Vides, quo- 
modo in ultimis ostendit, quod in omnibus 
qui supra dixit signaverit, mysterium Tri- 
nitatis. Sicut enim in presenti loco quod 
ait, “‘quoniam ex Ipso, et per Ipsum, 
et in Ipso sunt omnia:” convenit illis 
dictis, quee idem Apostolus in aliis memorat 
locis, cum dicit (1 Cor. viii.6): ‘‘ Unus Deus 
Pater ex quo omnia, et unus Dominus nos- 
ter Jesus Christus, per quem omnia:” et 
item in Spiritu Dei dicit revelari omnia, 
et per hee designat, in omnibus esse pro- 
videntiam Trinitatis: itaet cum dicit “alti- 
tudo divitiarum,” Patrem, ex quo omnia 
dicit esse, significat: et sapientiz altitu- 
dinem, Christum, qui est sapientia ejus, 
ostendit: et scientiz altitudinem, Spiritum 
Sanctum, qui etiam alta Dei novit, decla- 
rat.’ And, if this be rightly understood,— 
not of a formal allusion to the Three Per- 
sons in the Holy Trinity, but of an émplicit 
reference (as Thol.) to the three attributes 
of Jehovah respectively manifested to us by 
the three coequal and coeternal Persons, — 
there can hardly be a doubt of its correct- 
ness. The objection of De Wette, that not 
eis, but év, would be the designation of the 
Holy Spirit and His relation to the Uni- 
verse, applies to that part of Origen’s Com- 
mentary which rests on the Vulg. zz ipso 
and to the idea of a formal recognition : 
but not to Tholuck’s remark, illustrated 
from 6 ém) mdvTwy Kk. 51a wayT@Y K. ev Taw 
juiv, Eph. iv. 6, as referring to eis eds, eis 
KUpLOS, EV TVEDUG. Only those who are 
dogmatically prejudiced can miss seeing 
that, though St. Paul has never definitively 
expressed the doctrine of the Holy Trinity 
‘in a definite formula, yet he was conscious 
of it as a living reality. 

XIL. 1—XV. 13.] PRactTicaL EXHOR- 
TATIONS FOUNDED ON THE DOCTRINES 
BEFORE STATED. And first, ch. xii. gene- 


ral exhortations to a Christian life. 

1.] odv may apply to the whole doctrinal 
portion of the Epistle which has preceded, 
which, see Eph. iv.i; 1 Thess. iv. 1, seems 
the most natural connexion,—or to ch. xi. 
35, 36 (sq Olsh., Meyer), or to the whole 
close of ch. xi. (so Tholuck.) Theodoret 
remarks: émep oT OpOaruds ey ThmaTi, 
TovTO TH WuxA mlotis, Kal TOY Oclwy 7 
yr@ots. Seirat 5¢ duws atitn THS MpakTi- 
Kis Gpetis, Kabdrep 6 opOaduds xeipay 
kal mod@v Kal Tay GAAwY popiwy Tod 
gomatos. Ttovtov be xdpw 6 Oetos améd- 
aToA0s Tots Soypatikots Adyors Kal Thy 
HOiKhy didacKadrlay mpostébeire. 

Sia] introduces, as in reff., an idea which 
is to give force to the exhortation. 
otktippev | viz. those detailed and proved 
throughout the former part of the Epistle. 
dC aitay otv ToitTwy, pynol, mapakade, 
80 ay eowOnte dswep ky ci Tis THY meyaAa 
evepyeTnoevta evtpewat BovAdmevos, avtoy 
Tov evepyeThoavTa ikeTny aydyo. Chrys. 
Hom. xx. p. 656. mapacTyiaat | the 
regular word for bringing to offer in 
sacrifice (reff.). T. cOpata typ. | 
Most Commentators say, merely for duas 
avTovs,—to suit the metaphor of a sacri- 
jice, which consisted of a body: some 
(Thol., al.), because the body is the organ 
of practical activity, which practical ac- 
tivity is to be dedicated to God: better 
with Olsh. and De Wette,—as an indication 
that the sanctification of Christian life is to 
extend to that part of man’s nature which 
is most completely under the bondage of 
sin. Qvotav| Chrys. strikingly says, 
mwas ty yéevoiro To caHua, dot, Ouota; 
pndev dp0aruds movnphy BaAewéeTw, Kal 
yéyove Ovota pndev  yA@roa AadrciTw 
aigxpdv, Kat yéyove mpospopay undey 7 
xelp mpartérw tapdvouov, Kad yéyovev 
dAoKaUTwua. uaAAoV Se ovK apKel TATA, 
GAAG Kal THs TeV a&yal@v juty epyaclas 
dei, Wva i mev xelp eAenuoodvnv Touj, Td 


4.4.0 IIPO> POMAIOTS. XII. 
uch-ix.dref ULarpevay Vu@v, 2 Kat pn * cvvaynpatiferOar TH * aidve 
v1 Pet. i. 14 P lied I H”) Xe r 
o ED ‘ > \ lal nw ] rd 
whukexvi.s. “ TOUT@, GANa * peTapophodobar TH Y avakawacer Tod 
T Gok 20 Zyno Thay 5 6 “ Dene i to OX 5 O00 
1Cor.1.20., 2 yo0s, *els TO oxysavew upas Tt To Oé mp bi ey 
Sey E Sate: \ x 27 
eat, TO aya0ov Kai Sevdpectov Kai ° TéXeLoy. * Aéyw yap 4 dia 
xii. 32 (xiii. A s A / \ no» Ai iNek es 
1 e e 
whe ewig THS °XApLTOS THs doelons pou TavtTt To GvTe ev vtpiv, 
Mk. 2 Cor. 
hi is only 7 Ps. xxxiii. 1 Symm. y Tit. iii. 5 only +. z—ch.i. 28. Col. ii, 18. ach. 
iv. 11 reff. b Luke xiv. 19. 1 Cor. iii. 13, Eph.v.10. Phil. i. 10. Prov. xvii. 3. c = Matt. 
y. 48. xix. 21. Phil. iii. 15 al. Gen. yi. 9. d = Gal. i. 15. iii, 18. iv. 23. Philem. 22. e1 Cor. 
i. 4 reff. 


2. [ovvexnu., so BIDFR.] 


rec -oxnuaricecbe and petauoppovabe, with 


rel latt syrr copt goth Clem Chr Cyr Thdrt Damasc: -a: and -e n 17; -e and -a 


co!: txt AB?DF gk Thl Chr. 


d& ordua evrAoyH Tovs emnpedCovras, n 6e 
aon Oelas oxordty dinveka@s axpodoeot. 
n yap Ovoia ovdev exer axdbaproy, 7 Buoia 
amapx) Tav BArAwv eotl. Kat jets Tol- 
vuv Kal xeipav Kal moday kal ordéuaros 
kal Tav BAAwY amdyTwy amapxoucda TH 
Ged. Hom. xx. p. 656 f. {acav| In 
opposition to ns Levitical @vcta, which 
were slain animals. Our great sacrifice, 
the Lord Jesus, having been slain for us, 
and by the shedding of His Blood perfect 
remission having been obtained 6a ray 
oikTipu@v Tov Geov, we are now enabled to 
be offered to God no longer by the shedding 
of blood, but as living sacrifices. This 
application of the figure of a sacrifice occurs 
in Philo, who (‘quod omnis probus liber,’ 
§ 12, vol. ii., p. 457) describes the Essenes 
as ov (a katabvovTes, GAN’ lepompemeis Tas 
éavtay Siavolas KatacKkeva ce atiodvres. 
See also Jos. Antt. xviii. 1. 5. 7G OE@ 
belongs to evdpecrov, not to mapactjrat. 

THY AoyiKynv Aatp. tp.] “This 
may certainly be in apposition with @uvctav 
(Reiche, Meyer), the acc. denoting the 
result and intention;—é@voia however 
alone can hardly be called a Aarpeia, but 
TapacTicat Ovoiay may: therefore it is 
preferable to take the acc. as in apposition 
with the whole sentence, and supply some 
verb of Eerie see 1 Tim. ii. 6; 
2 Thess. i. 5.” Tholuck. oyikyy 
(reff.) is gion to capxixjy, see Heb. vii. 
16. So Chrys.,—obdév €xovcay cwpatikdy, 
ovdey maxt, ovdev aicOnrdy. Theodoret, 
Grot., al., take it as ‘having reason,’ ‘ra- 
tional,’ opposed to sacrifices of animals 
which have no reason: Photius, Basil, and 
Calvin, ‘rational,’ as opposed to super- 
stitious. But the former meaning is far 
the best, and answers to the mvevuarixas 
Ovolas of 1 Pet. ii. 5. 2.| ovvoxy- 
pariler Gar is abt Heticative ; in sense, but 
dependent on mapakaA@. [Of course, in 
all such questions between € and a, the 


awe B. 


rel Thdrt Aug: om ABD!F copt Clem Chr-comm(appy) Cypr,. 


rec aft voos ins vywy, with DLN 
om 2nd to F. 


confusing element of itacism comes in: 
but in no case where both forms are equally 
admissible in the text, can the mere sus- 
picion of itacism be allowed to decide the 
question. | 6 aiav ovtos, here, the 
whole world of the ungodly, as contrasted 
with the spiritual kingdom of Christ. 

The dat. dvaxkawdéoe: is not the instrument 
by which, but the manner in which the 
metamorphosis takes place: that wherein it 
consists: compare TepieTuHONTE TEpiToun 
&xetpomointw, Col. ii. 11. els 7d 80- 
kipalev, that ye may prove, viz. in this 
process and the active Christian life aecom- 
panying it, compare reff. Eph., Phil.: not 
‘that ye may be able to prove, ‘acquire 
the faculty of proving,’ as Bucer, Olsh., 
Rickert : the Apostle is not speaking of ac- 
quiring wisdom here, but of practical proof 
by experience. Td Gyad. K. evap. K. 
Ted. are not epithets of 7d Anya T. bcod 
as in E. V., for in that case they would be 
superfluous, and in part (réAe:ov) inappli- 
cable: but abstract neuters, see ver. 9, 
that ye may prove what is the will of 
God (viz. that which is) good and accept- 
able (to Him) and perfect. The non- 
repetition of the art. shews that the adjec- 
tives all apply to the same thing. 
8—2l.| Particular exhortations grounded 
on and expanding the foregoing general 
ones. This is expressed by the yap, which 
resumes, and binds to what has preceded. 
And first, an exhortation to humility in 
respect of spiritual gifts, vv. 3—8. 

3.) heya, a mild expression for ‘I com- 
mand :’ enforced as a command by d:@ 7. 

‘by means of my apostolic office,’ 

‘of the grace conferred on me to guide and 
exhort the Church :’ reff. TavtTl TO 
évru év dp.,—a strong bringing out of the 
individual application of the precept. odx? 
7@ Setv. nal tH Seivi pdvov, GAG a 
Epxovts k. apxouevm, Kk. dovAw Kk. eAev- 
py, K. didn kK. TOP, kK. yuvaikl x. avpl, 


ABDE 


~ Lab 


cdfg 
kim} 
ol7 


2—6. 


TIPO> POMAIOTS. 


44.1 


bn ' Urrepppovelv & rap’ 0 det ™ dpoveiv, adra " dpoveiv * eds there only +. 


70 ‘owpoveiv, * 


TIlTTEDS. 


Job xxxi. 13 


, € a i 
éxaaT@ ws 0 Beos “éwépicev ™ wétpov $i" 
\ ’ ey , tAov 
4" xaOarep yap eV Evi T@maTL TOANA ° MEAN Fnephoo- 
” \ ae ane! / > \ sh os ” p n veovoat, 
Exowev, Ta O€ °péAN TaVTA Ov THY aUTHY Eyer PmrpAEW, Herod *’r99, 
Ripe e Va rd SRS > A INS » (See 2 Mace. 
oUTwS oi I 7rodXOl EV THU EcpeV Ev yYpLoTa, TO bE* KAD *.12,). 
t constr, inf., 
6 2 de s / \ ‘ Matt. v. 39. 
éyovtes b€ Syaplopata Kata THY Mee 


els GAANA@Y ° WEAN. 


= ch, xiv.5 


nse Nhe ft Fi Ui , V 2a W , B 
KXaply THY dobcicav mpiv duagopa, €LTE TPOPNTElay, | rll. 


xxviil. 22 al. 2 Mace. xiv. 26. 


iv. 7 only +. 


x. 13. Heb. vii. 2. Proy. xxix. 24. ‘ 
n ch. iv. 6 reff. o ch, vi. 13 reff. 
Mem. ii. 1. 6. q = ch. v. 15 reff. 


iv. 8. 3 Macc. v. 34. 
t ver. 3. 
w = 1 Cor. xii. 10. xiii. 2 al. 


i Mark v. 16. 
k and constr., 1 Cor. vii. 17. (iii. 5.) 


Luke viii. 35. 2 Cor. vy. 13. 

1= Mark vi. 41. Luke xii. 13. 
m 2 Cor. x.13. Eph. iv. 7, 13,16. = Paul only. 
p =here only. (Acts xix. 18 reff.) Sir. xi. 10. Xen. 
r Mark xiv. 19. [John viii.9.} Rey. 


Tit. ii.6. 1 Pet. 


2 Cor, 


s ch. v. 15. vi. 23. xi. 29. 1 Cor. xii. 4 al. P. only Bi iv t 
uu = Heb. ix. 10 (i. 4. viii.6) only. Deut. xxii. 9: Mee ER 
(Rey. i. 3.) see Sir, xxiy. 33. 


v so 1 Cor. iii. 22. Col. i. 16. 


8. aft xapitos ins Tov Ocou Ld fm 5. 37. 48?. 67. 73. 113-4-5-20-4 fuld guelph eth 


arm Thl Aug. 


for 8, a B?(Tischdf): om wap o Se: ppovew F 70. 


EMEpLoeV 


bef 0 @cos (see 1 Cor vii. 17) A m guelph Syr arm. 


4. for cafamep, wsrep D'F. 
Damase ec: txt BDF latt Thdrt Thl. 
Syr lat-ff. 

§. om eouey F. 


rec weAn bef wodAa, with AL rel syrr goth Chr 


mayta bef weAn F(not G), so also vulg 


rec (for to) o (alteration to suit eis), with D2-3 rel vulg(and 


F-lat) Syr Eus Chr Thdrt Thl ec: txt ABD! F-gr & Antch Damase. 


k. véw Kk. yépovtt. Chrys. Hom. xx. p. 603. 
pt trepdp. «.7.A. | There is a play on 

the words gpovety, drepppovery, and cwdpo- 
vety, which can only be clumsily conveyed 
in another language: ‘not to be high- 
minded, above that which he ought to be 
minded, but to be so minded, as to be sober- 
minded.’ Wetst. quotes from Charondas in 
Stobeeus, Sentent. xlii., mpostoe(cOw 5€é 
€xaocTos TOY TOAITGY Twoppovety waAAoOv 7} 
ppovetyv,—and from Thucyd. ii. 62,—iévat 
de Tots ex Opois dudce, uh ppovnmate wdvor, 
GAAG Kal KaTappovjmatt. But gpovety 
must not betaken, with Calvin, ‘admonet ut 
ea tantum cogitemus et meditemur, queenos 
sobrios et modestos reddere poterunt :’— 
the thoughts implied in it being, thoughts 
of one’s self. éxdotw as | = as 
éxdory (reff.), not (Aéyw) Exdor, @S.... 
pétpov miotews is the receptivity of 
xaplonara, itself no inherent congruity, 
but the gift and apportionment of God. 
It is in fact the subjective designation of 
n xdpis 7 Sobcica juty, ver. 6. But we 
must not say, that (Ewb.) “faith, in this 
passage, means those gifts or graces which 
the Christian can only receive through 
faith :” this is to confound the receptive 
faculty with the thing received by it, and 
to pass by the great lesson of our verse, 
that this faculty is nothing to be proud of, 
but God’s gift. 4.| ydp, elucidating 
the fact, that God apportions variously to 
various persons: because the Christian 
community is like a body with many mem- 
bers having various duties. See the same 
idea further worked out, 1 Cor. xii. 12 ff. 


5. 76 52 ad’ els] But as regards 
individuals. A solecism for Td 5¢ <fs Kad” 
eva, as ev xa@’ & in ref. Rev. Wetst., on 
ref. Mark, gives many examples of it. 
Members of one another = fellow-members 
with one another,—members of the body 
of which we one with another are members. 

6.] The 5¢ = “and not only so, 
but’... . xd@pis, see above, ver. 3, on 
uétp. tliat. These xaplcuara are called, 
1 Cor. xii. 7, 7 pavépwots Tod mvebuaros. 
“These xapicuara ddpopa are next spe- 
cified. The two first accusatives are gram- 
matically dependent on éxovres: by degrees 
the Apostle loses sight of the construction, 
and continues with the concrete 6d:ddcKwr, 
which still he binds on to the foregoing by 
elre,—but at 6 wetadidovs, omits this also, 
and, at ver. 9, introduces the abstract 7 
ayarn.” Thol. elite tpodyrtetay | 
There is some dispute about the construc- 
tion of these clauses. The ordinary ren- 
dering regards them as elliptical, and sup- 
plies before kara and éy, Xpntdcbw avTH 
or éste elvat ab’thy or the like. But 
Reiche, Meyer, De Wette, suppose 70 
ellipsis, joining kara thy dvar., &e. to 
the foregoing substantives, as kara Thy 
xdpw to xaplouara. This construction 
must however be dropped at év amadrnri, 
which is manifestly to be rendered with 
a verb supplied: and (2) it reduces the 
four first mentioned gifts to a bare cata- 
logue, and deprives the passage of its 
aim, which is to keep each member of 
the body in its true place and work 
without any member boasting against 


442 


here only t. 
(-yws, Wisd. 
xill. 5.) 
y Acts xx. 24 
reff. = c Z r , A 
z—Lukeiii. @ ” TapakadXWV, EV TN 
18. Acts il. 6 
a = Acts ix. 31. 
2 Cor. viii. 4. 
1 Tim. iy. 13. 
only. L.P. 
only. P. 
xxvi. 17. 


Heb. xii. 5. xiii. 22. L.P.H. 
Job xxxi. 17. Wisd. vii. 13. 
1 Chron, xxix. 17, 


e = 2 Cor. vii. 11,12. 2 Pet.i. 5. 


7. eit (sic, appy) o Siakovwy 3 (m). 


8. om ete D'F latt Ruf Pel Sedul Bede. 


another. Tholuck quotes a passage of very 
similar construction from Epictet. Dissert. 
iii. 23.5. He is speaking of reading and 
philosophizing from ostentation, and says 
that every thing which we do, must have 
its aim, its avapopd ;—Aomdy,  pey tls 
éort Kow) avapopa, 7 8 idla. mp@rov, 
W as tvOpwros. ev TovT@ TL TeplexeTa ; 
... 8 idla mpds Td emirhdevua Exdorov 
kal thy mpoalpecw" 6 Kibapwdds, ws KI- 
Oapwods 5 TeKTwY, ds TEKTwY 6 PiAdcodgos, 
&s pirdcogos: 6 phrwp, as fhrwp. Seealso 
the same construction in 1 Pet. iv. 10, 11. 
On mpopnreta, the gift of the rpopjra, 
see note, Acts xi. 27. Kat. T. ava. 
7. wiot-| (let us prophesy) according to 
the proportion (compare Justin Mart. 
Apol. i. 17, p. 54: “each will be punished 
mpos avadoylay ay tdaBe Buvduewy Tapa 
Ocod”’) of faith. But what faith? Ob- 
jective (‘fides que creditur’), or subjective 
(‘fides qua creditur’)? the faith, or our 
faith? The comparison of uérpoy ricrews 
above, and the whole context, determine it 
to be the latter ; the measure of our faith: 
‘quisque se intra sortis sue metas con- 
tineat, et revelationis suze modum teneat, 
ne unus sibi omnia scire videatur. To 
understand dvadoyla tT. 1. objectively, as 
‘the rule of faith,’ as many R.-Cath. ex- 
positors, and some Protestant, e.g. Calvin, 
‘fidei nomine significat prima religionis 
axiomata,’—seems to do violence to the 
context, which aims at shewing that the 
measure of faith, itself the gift of God, is 
the receptive faculty for all spiritual gifts, 
which are therefore not to be boasted of, 
nor pushed beyond their provinces, but 
humbly exercised within their own limits. 
7. Staxoviay| any subordinate 
ministration in the Church. In Acts vi. 
1 and 4, we have the word applied both to 
the lower ministration, that of alms and 
food, and to the higher, the dian. rod Adyou, 
which belonged to the Apostles. But here 
it seems -to be used in a more restricted 
sense, from its position as distinct from 
prophecy, teaching, exhortation, &c. 
év Tq Stax.| Let us confine ourselves 
humbly and orderly to that kind of minis- 


TIPO> POMAIOTS. 


d 1 Thess. y. 12. 
Jude 3. 


XII. 


Kata THhv * avadoylay THs tictews: 7‘ cite Y Staxoviay, év 
Th Y dvaxoviq: * cite 6 OibadoKwv, év TH SidacKaria 8 ¥ ere 
a / e b 5 , ’ 
TapaxAnze' oO ” weTad.dovs, év 
c ec , € d - /, , e 67 id f ’ cal , 
avNoTnTL oO “TpotaTamevos, Ev © aTrovon’ o * ENEOV, EV 


bch.i. 11. Luke iii, 11. Eph. iv. 28. 1 Thess. ii. 8 

e 2 Cor. viii. 2. ix. 11, 13. xi. 3. Eph. vi. 5. Col. iii. 22 

1 Tim. iii. 4,5, 12. v.17. Tit. iii. 8,14 only. P. Prov. 
Exod. xii. 11. f ch, xi, 31 reff. 


for 0 didacKkwy, SidacKareav A. 
TpotcTavomevos &. 


tration to which God’s providence has ap- 
pointed us, as profitable members of the 
body. 6 8i8dcxnwv| The prophet 
spoke under immediate inspiration; the 
d:5doKados under inspiration working by 
the secondary instruments of his will and 
reason and rhetorical powers. Paul himself 
seems ordinarily, in his personal ministra- 
tions, to have used d:dackaAla. He is no 
where called a prophet, but appears as 
distinguished from them in several places : 
e.g. Acts xi. 27; xxi. 10, and apparently 
xiii. 1. Ofcourse this does not affect the 
appearance of prophecies, commonly so 
called, in his writings. The inspired d:da- 
okados would speak, though not technically 
mpopnreias, yet the mind of the Spirit in 
all things: not to mention that the apos- 
tolic office was one in dignity and fulness of 
inspiration far surpassing any of the subor- 
dinate ones, and in fact including them all. 

év TH Si8ackadia| as before: he is 
to teach in the sphere, within the bounds, 
of the teaching allotted to him by God,—or 
for which God has given him the faculty. 

8.] The mapaxadov was not neces- 
sarily distinct from the tpopnretwy,—see 
1 Cor. xiv. 31. 6 petad.dovs appears 
to be the giver of the alms to the poor,— 
either the deacon himself, or some dis- 
tributor subordinate to the deacon. This 
however has been doubted, and not without 
reason: for a transition certainly seems to 
be made, by the omission of the efre, from 
public to private gifts. We cannot find 
any ecclesiastical meaning for éAe@y (though 
indeed Calvin, al., understand by it “ vi- 
duas et alios ministros qui curandis egrotis, 
secundum veterem Ecclesize morem, prefi- 
ciebantur”),—and the very fact of the 
three preceding being all limited to their 
respective official spheres, whereas these 
three are connected with qualitative de- 
scriptions, speaks strongly for their being 
private acts, to be always performed in the 
spirit described. Add to all, that, as Vi- 
tringa remarks, 81ad:ddvac is more pro- 
perly to distribute (Acts iv. 35), pera- 
dddva to impart of one’s own to another. 
I would therefore render it: He that be- 


ABDF 
LNab 
edfgh 
klmn 
ol7 


7—11. 


IIPO> POMAIOT®. 


44:3 


j fal \ 
8 iNapornte. 9 9 aydarn avuTroxpitos. | aToaTuyobVTEs TO § hry: 


movnpov, * co\A@pevor | TH ! ayaa: 1° 7h ™ piraderdia eis 


Prov. xviii. 
22 only. 
(-pods, 2 Cor. 
ix. 7.) 


GAAHAoUS ™ didocTopyou TH °TYLH GAXHovS P rponyoU- 12 Cor. v6. 





1 Tim. i. 5. 


ee con x = (eee NLS if 8 £6 _ 2Tim.i.6. 

pevor 1 rh © arrovdy pn) LoKvnpot *T@  mvevpate § Ceov- Fane iii ir. 
1 Pet. i. 22 

only+. Wisd. vy. 18. xviii. 16 only. constr., Heb. xiii. 5. i here only +. k = Luke 

xv. 15. Acts viii. 29. 2 Kings xx. 2. 1 ch. ii. 10 reff. m 1 Thess. iv. 9. Heb. 

xiii. 1. 1 Pet. i. 22. 2 Pet. i.7 (bis) only+. (-qos, 1 Pet. iii. 8.) nhere only+ (-yws, 

2 Macc. ix. 21. -yla, 2 Mace. vi. 20.) o = Johniv. 44. Acts xxviii. 10. ch. ii. Tal. Ps. 


xlviii. 12, 20. p here only. 
iii. 1) only. Prov. vi. 6, 9. 


9. for aroorvy., wercourTes F. 


stoweth. év amwAérqte| ordinarily, 
‘with simplicity.” But seeing that amad- 
rns, referred to alms-giving, bears another 
and an objective meaning, this hardly 
satisfies me, because omovd/ and fAapdérns 
designate not so much the inward frame 
of mind, as the outward character of the 
superintendence and the compassion: as 
might be expected, when gifts to be exer- 
cised for mutual benefit are spoken of. In 
2 Cor. viii. 2; ix. 11, 13, Jos. Antt. vii. 13. 
4 [where David admires Araunah, tijs 
amddtyTos Kal THs meyadopuxlas |, the word 
signifies ‘liberality? so perhaps amas 
also, James i. 5, but see note there. This 
meaning is not recognized by Wahl, Lex., 
but defended by Tholuck, who connects 
it with the phrase found in Stobeeus, Eclog. 
Phys. i. p. 128, arAodv tas xelpas, ‘to 
open the hands wide :’-—and I would thus 
render it here. 6 mpototdpevos | 
He that presides—but over what? If 
over the Church exclusively, we come back 
to offices again : and it is hardly likely that 
the rulers of the Church, as such, would be 
introduced so low down in the list, or by so 
very general a term, as this. In 1 Tim. 
lii. 4, 5, 12, we have the verb used of pre- 
siding over aman’s own household : andin 
its absolute usage here, I do not see why 
that also should not be included. Meyer 
* would understand it of ‘patronage of 
strangers’ (ch. xvi. 2). Stuart in his Ex- 
cursus on this place, appended to his Com- 
mentary, takes up and defends the same 
view. But, not insisting on the general 
usage of the word being preferable where it 
occurs absolutely, will év orovdh apply to 
this meaning? Of course so far as orovdh 
is applicable to everyemployment, it might, 
but more than this is required, where words 
are connected in so marked a manner as 
here. Giving mpotorduevos the ordinary 
meaning, these words fit admirably: imply- 
ing that he who is by God set over others, 
be they members of the Church or of his 
own household, must not allow himself to 
forget his responsibility, and take his duty 
indolently and easily, but must rpotcrac Oat 
omovdalws, making it a serious matter of 


Proy. xvii. 14 al. 
r = Acts xvii. 16 reff. 


2 Mace. iy. 40. q = Matt. xxv. 26 (Phil. 


s Acts xviii. 25 (reff.) only. 


continual diligence. 6 éhkeGv] See 
above: He that sheweth mercy, is the 
very best rendering: and I cannot conceive 
that any officer of the Church is intended, 
but every private Christian who exercises 
compassion. It is in exhibiting compas- 
sion, which is often the compulsory work 
of one obeying his conscience rather than 
the spontaneous effusion of love, that cheer- 
Julness is so peculiarly required, and so 
frequently wanting. And yet in such an 
act it is even of more consequence towards 
the effect,—consoling the compassionated, 
than the act itself. kxpelocwy rAdyos 
ddo1s, Sir. xviil. 17. 9—21.] Hx- 
hortations to various Christian principles 
and habits. 9.] Olsh., De Wette, 
al., would understand éoriy,—not écrw, 
—the ellipsis of the imperative being un- 
usual. But I cannot see how this can be 
here. Clearly the three preceding clauses 
are hortative ; as clearly, those which fol- 
low are so likewise. Why then depart from 
the prevalent character of the context, and 
make this descriptive ? aroortvy. | 
This very general exhortation is probably, 
as Bengel says, an explanation of ayu7é- 
kpitos :—our love should arise from a 
genuine cleaving to that which is good, and 
aversion from evil: not from any by-ends. 

10.| in brotherly love (dat. of 
the respect or regard in which), affec- 
tionate. gtAdor.] properly of love 
of near relations ; agreeing therefore ex- 
actly with PiradeApia. aponyou- 
pevor| ‘‘invicem przevenientes,” latt. 7) 
péve pidcioOar map’ Erépov, GAN adds 
emimhda TtovTw Kal Katdpxov, Chrys.: 
similarly Syr., Theophyl., Erasm., Luther : 
—or, = GAANAovs Hryovmevor bmrepéxovtTas 
éavta@y, Phil. ii. 3: so Origen, Theodoret, 
Grot.: or, as in ref. 2 Mace. ‘ setting 
an example to, ‘going before,’ which 
however does not seem to apply here, 
unless we render tH Tim, ‘in yielding 
honour? ‘in giving honour, anticipat- 
ing one another’ (so Stuart). 11. | 
in zeal (not ‘business,’ as E. V., which 
seems to refer it to the affairs of this life, 
whereas it relates, as all these in vv. 11, 12, 


4.44 IIPO> POMAIOTY. XII. 
to Actexx. Test T@ Kupieo ‘dourevovtes. 12 7H EXrride yalpovTes* TH 
a Mutt. x.22, OXAbes “ vrropévovtes* TH Y 1posevyh ‘ 7posKapTepourTes" 


xxiv. 13 ||. : 
2Tim.ii12. 13 q@q@jg W 
James v. ll. 
1 Pet. ii. 20, 


a“ r A 
xpelats TOV *aylwv ¥ KowwvodrTEs* THY * pido- 
/ a ry ‘ 14 be Dr Lal \ d } , € r 2 
eviav * 6uwKovTes. evNoyette Tos * duHKovTas Umas 
be DN lal \ \ ce r fa} 15 a \ / es 
evAoyelTe, Kal un “ Katapacbe. Yalpew peTa yarpov 
\ la \ \ ? 
x hcwixags TOV, KNalewy peta KNaLOVTwY. 16 f70f adTO Els aAAHAOUS 
eff. 
y an xv. 27. Gal. vi.6. Phil. iv. 15. 1 Tim. v.22. Heb. ii. 14. 1 Pet. iv.13. 2 John 11 only. Wisd. vi. 25. Polyb. 
ii. 32. 8 al. z Heb. xiii. 2 only+. (-vos, 1 Pet. iv. 9. a = ch. ix. 30, 31 reff. b = 1 Cor, 
. 1 Pet. iii. 9 al. ec Luke vi. 28. James ii. 9. Gen, xii. 3. d = Matt. v. 44. Acts 


eas above (c). Matt. xxv.41. Mark xi.2l only. Gen. v.29. (-pa, Gal. 
2 Cor. xiii. 11. Phil. ii. 2. iy. 2. 


w Acts xx. 34 





vii. 52 reff. 2 Kings xxi. 5. 
iii. 10.) f ch. xv. 5. 


11. Steph (for kupiw) kaipw, with D!F 5 G-lat lat-mss-mentd-by-Jer-Ruf-Bede Nys, 
Cypr Ambrstexpr: txt ABD? LN rel gr-mss-mentd-by-Jer-Ambrst-Ruf-Bede Clem Ath 
Bas Chr Thdrt Euthal Thl Gc Jer Ruf Pel Aug Primas Sedul Bede. UTOME = 
vowyres &. 7 

13. for xperots, uverars D'F mss-mentd-by-Thdor-mops(évia trav avtvypapwyv) am Chr, 
Hil Ambrst Opt Aug,: txt ABD*X rel Clem Chr, Thdrt Thdor-mops Damase Thl @e 
Aug! Bede: Ruf Sedul Pelag speak of both readings. 

14. om vuas (homeotel?) B 47. 67? am Clem: tous ex6povs nuwy Orig: om eva. T. 
diwk. um. (passing from 1st evrdoyerre to 2nd) F Ruf-ms: these words are aft katapacde 
in D!3; txt ALN rel (Orig) Chr Bas Thdrt. 

15. rec ins kat bef kAaew, with AD3L rel Syr copt (Orig) Chr Thdrt: om BD'FX 
latt syr goth arm Tert Ambrst Ruf Pel Aug Sedul Bede. 


13, to Christian duties as such: as ‘ fer- 
vency of spirit,’ ‘acting as God’s servants,’ 
‘rejoicing in hope,’ &c.) not remiss. Céwv 
7® mv. is used of Apollos, in ref. The 
Holy Spirit lights this fire within: see 
Luke xii. 49; Matt. iii. 11. T. KUpL@ 
SovA.] The external authorities, as will be 
seen in the var. read., are strongly in favour 
of this reading. The balance of internal 
probability, though not easy at once to 
settle, is I am persuaded on the same side. 
The main objection to kupiw has ever been, 
that thus the Apostle would be inserting 
here, among particular precepts, one of the 
most general and comprehensive character. 
So Hilary (in Wetst.) andal. But this will 
be removed, if we remember, of what he is 
speaking: and if I mistake not, the other 
reading has been defended partly owing to 
forgetfulness of this. The present sub- 
ject is, the character of our zeal for God. 

n it we are not to be d«vnpol, but fervent 
in spirit,—-and that, as servants of God. 
A very similar reminiscence of this relation 
to God occurs Col. iii. 22— 24: of d0dA01, 
.. = 0 day mainte, ex Wuxis epyalerbe cs 
7@ kuplw Kal odk avOparois, €iddTes Bri 
amb Kupiov aroAnuverbe Thy ayvrarddoow 
THs KAnpovoulas. TO kuplw xpiaT@ Sov- 
Aevere. The command, 7g katp@ dovacvery, 
would surely come in very inopportunely 
in the midst of exhortations to the zealous 
service of God. At the same time, it is 
not easy to give an account of the origin of 
the reading. The éfayopaCéuevor roy Kat- 
pév of Eph. v. 16 may have led to the 


filling up of the contracted xuptw (k@) with 
this word: and the notion that omovd7 
referred to worldly business, may have fa- 
voured thesense thus given. For examples 
of the phrase 7@ kaip@ dovAevew and ‘ tem- 
pori inservire,’ see Wetst. As to its appli- 
cability at all to Christians, De Wette well 
remarks, ‘‘ The Christian may and should 
certainly employ (Eph. v. 16) rdv katpdy 
(time and opportunity), but not serve it.” 
Athanas. (in Wetst.) ad Dracont. says, od 
mMpémer TH Kaip@ Sovdevew, GAA Kuplo. 
12.] The datives here are not parallet. 
7H eAmldcis the ground of thejoy in xalpov- 
Tes,—but 7H OAlWe the state in which the 
bromov7 is found. 13.] The reading 
Hvelats is curious, as being a corruption 
introduced, hardly accidentally, in favour of 
the honour of martyrs by commemoration. 
tT. ptrok. Sidk.| ode elrev épya- 
Cdpevor, GAAG SidKovtes, maidevwv Tuas 
Hh Gvaueverw tovs deouevous, mote mpds 
Heas €ABwow, GAN avtods emitpéxew Ke 
katadidxev. Chrys. Hom. xxi. p. 676. 
14.) “The Sermon on the Mount must 
have been particularly well known; for 
among the few references in the N. T. 
Epistles to the direct words of Christ there 
occur several to it: e. g. 1 Cor. vii. 10. 
James iv.9; v. 12 (we may add iv. 3; i. 2, 
22; 11. 5,18; v.2,3,10).: 1. Pet. m9, 
14; iv. 14.” Tholuck. 15.] Inf. for 
imperative: see Phil, iii. 16: and Winer, 
edn. 6, § 43. 5. d. 16.|} Having 
(the participial construction is resumed, 
as in ver. 9) the same spirit towards one 


ABDF 
LNab 
edfgh 
kimn 
ol7 


12—20. 


TIPO}, POMAIOTS. 


445 


SB hpovodvtess pun TA Minpnrda % hpovodvtTes, ANAA Tots s=~h- vii. 


a la 
K rarrewots |} cvvarrayomevot. 
” éauTots. 


q 4 Xa r > , , > fa} / 2 18 s > 
Tpovoovpevot Kada *evorriov Tavtav avOpoTr@v et 
’ a 
duvatov, ‘ro *éE buoy peta TravTov avOpwrer “ eipnvevor- 
“ 19 \ n id \ Vv > P) r w 
tes 19 wn ™ Eavtods Y éxduxodrTes, 


pn yivecOe ™ hpovipou trap’ "is. 


> h = Luke xvi. 
1 Kings 
ii. 3. 


a / : A 
17 pndevi °Kaxov Cavti KaKod °P arrodiOovTes: ich. xi. 20 vx. 


uke i, 52. 
2 Cor. (vii. 
6 reff.) x. 1. 
James i. 9. 
Isa. xi. 4. 

1 Gal. ii. 13. 

2 Pet. iii. 17 
only. Exod. 
xiv. 6 only. 


ayarntol, adda * dore 


x 4 fol ’ na / \ y° \ Za ? A ’ \ 
TOTOVY TH opyn yeypaTmTat yap Y Eqmot * éxdiknows, €y@ mw. rapa, 


here only (see 


? , , , 2 Va ae) t only 
» aytaTrobw@aw, eyes KUpLOS. 29 Gra Eay °TrELVE 6 exOpos ch. xi.% 
e reff.). Prov. 
iii. 7. n 2nd pers., 2 Cor. vii. 11 reff. o1 Thess. v.15, 1 Pet. iii. 9. (Prov. xvii. 13.) 
p = Matt. vi. 4,6. Luke x. 35 al. q 2 Cor. vili. 21. 1 Tim.y.8 only. Proy. iii.4. (-vova, 
ch. xiii. 14.) r = Actsiv. 19 reff. Mal. ii. 17. s Matt. xxiv. 24. Gal. iv. 15. 
= here only. Hom, Il. a. 525, ef euwePev. see ch. i, 15. u Mark ix. 50. 2 Cor. xiii. 11. 1 Thess. 
v.13 only. 3 Kings xxii. 45. Sir. vi. 6. v Luke xviii. 3,5. 2 Cor. x. 6. Rey. vi. 10. xix. 2 
only. 4 Kingsix.7. (-Kos, ch. xiii. 4.) w 2 Cor, vii. 1 reff. x Luke 
xiv. 9. Eph. iv. 27. Sir. iv. 5. xxxviii. 12. see Heb. xii. 17. y DeEvr., xxxii. 35. z Heb. 
x. 30. (Jer. xxviii. [1.] 6.) a as above (z). Luke xviii. 7,8. xxi. 22. Acts vii. 24. 2 Cor. 
vii. 11. 2 Thess. i. 8. 1 Pet. ii. 14 only. Judg. xi. 36. b ch. xi. 35 reff, c Matt. 


iv. 2. v.6al. Prov. xxv. 21, 22. 


17. aft kada ins evwmoy tov Oeov kar (see 2 Cor viii. 21; Prov iii. 4) A? [Polyc]; 
ov povoy evwr. T. 0. aAAa kat F vulg goth arm(not ed-1805) Lucif: om A'(appy) BDLX 


rel Syr. 


for maytwy, tay A?D1F guelph harl tol Lucif: txt (A! ?)BD3LN rel vss 


Chr (Thdrt) Damase Thl (ic Ambrst Sedul Bede. 


19. avtarodw F: retribuo goth. 


20. rec (for adAa cay) cay ovy, with D3-gr L rel syr Chr Thdrt (Ee Thi: cay (alone) 
D!-gr F guelph D3-lat goth Cypr: cay yap Syr Did Aug: txt ABN m vulg D!-lat Bas 


another, i.e. actuated by a common and 
well-understood feeling of mutual allow- 
ance and kindness. pH Ta dyp.] It 
is a question, whether tots tamewvots is 
neuter or masc. Certainly not necessarily 
neuter, as De W.: the Apostle’s antitheses 
do not require such minute correspondence 
as this. The sense then must decide. In 
7a wWNAa povotyres, the sWnAd are 
necessarily subjective, the lofty thoughts 
of the man. But in tots tamewots ouv- 
amaryouevor the adj. is necessarily obj2c- 
tive; some outward objects, with which 
the persons exhorted are cuvamdyeo@at. 
And those outward objects are defined, if 
I mistake not, by the 7d aird eis AAAHAOUS 
gpovotyres. ‘This spirit towards one an- 
other is not to be a spirit of haughtiness, 
but one of community and sympathy, con- 
descending to men of low estate, as E. V. 
admirably renders it. For ovvat.., see reff. 
and compare Zosimus, Hist. v. 6, cited by 
Tholuck, kal adth 7 Srdpry xsuvawhyero 
Th Kowh THS “EAAdSos GAdoet. The in- 
sertion of the seemingly incongruous su 
ylveobe . . EavTois is sufficiently accounted 
for by reference to ch. xi. 25, where he had 
stated this frame of mind as one to be 
avoided by those whose very place in God’s 
church was owing to His freemercy. Being 
uplifted one against another would be a 
sign of this fault being present and opera- 
tive. 17. | The construction is resumed. 


The Apostle now proceeds to exhort respect- 
ing conduct to those without. mpovoovp. 
kaha ....] from ref. Prov., which has 
évemiov kuplov Kal avOpdmay. 

18.] The ei duvardy, as well remarked by 
Thol. and De Wette, is objective only— 
not ‘zf you can, but if it be possible —if 
others will allow it. And this is further 
defined by 7d e& buay: all YouR partis to 
be peace: whether you actually live peace- 
ably or not, will depend then solely on how 
others behave towards you. 19.] So 
Matt. v. 39, 40. ayarntot| ‘The 
more difficult this duty, the more aftection- 
ately does the Apostle address his readers, 
with this word.’ Thol. Sote téTov | 
allow space, i. e. ‘interpose delay,’ to 
anger. So Livy viii. 32, “ Legati cireum- 
stantes sellam orabant, ut rem in posterum 
diem differret, et ir@ sue spatium, et con- 
silio tempus, daret.” So that we must 
not understand 77 épy, ‘your anger,’ nor 
‘ God’s anger,’ but ‘ anger,’ generally ;— 
‘give wrath room : ‘proceed not to exe- 
cute it hastily, but leave it for its legitimate 
time, when He whose it is to avenge, will 
execute it: make not the wrath your own, 
but leave it for God.’ So in the main, 
but mostly understanding +. dp. tod God, 
Chrys., Aug., Theodoret, and the great 
body of Commentators. Some Fathers 
interpret it, ‘yield to the anger (of your 
adversary) ;’ but this meaning for ddr 


446 
d 1 Cor, xiii. 3 
only, Num. ‘ BS ” \ 
clu ax Yap moudy * avOpaxas Tupos 
35, 37, 42. 
Toh xxii. 7. aUuTOv. 


f Matt. x. 42. 
1 Cor. iii. 2, 
&c. xii. 13. 
Rey. xiv. 8. 
Judg. iv. 19. 

g here only. 1. c. 
Ps. xvii. 8, 12. 
(-«ta, John 


BW get aes 
i @ya0a ‘70 | Kaxkov. 


taccéa bw. 


xviii. 18.) 
h 2 Tim. iil. 6 
only. l.c. 2 a 
Judith xyv..11 only. ich. ii. 9, 10 (reff.). 
ii. 43 reff. m = 1 Cor. xv. 24. 


xiii. 48. xv. 2. q Acts xviii. 6 reff. 


Damase Ruf Bede. 


21. un vixov A. for vio, amo I. 


Cuap. XIII. 1. for tava Wuxn . « 


Tren-int Ambrst. 
amo DIF Orig Thdrt Damase. 


IITPO> POMAIOTS. 


cou, *apile abtov. éav ° dupa,  roTie adrov. 


\ 5 ¢ \ la) Lf eee 
dé ovcat bro Ocod P TeTaypévat eEiciv. 


Eph. iii. 10, vi. 12. 
ii. 3. iii. 8. iv. 7) only. Gen. xli. 40. (-ox7, 1 Cor. ii. 1.) 


THs Kepadns B. 


umoTaccedOw, Tagais .. 
* jaro ABD3LX rel Bas Isid Chr Thdrt-ms Thl-comm (e-comm : 
rec aft ovoa ins efovora, with DL rel syrr Chr 


XIT. 21. 


TOUTO 


hgwpevoess emt THY Kearny 


21 wn viK® vO ‘tod iKaKod, adr vika * ev 1 To 


XIII. 1 Waoa !yuyn ™ eEovaiais " brepeyovoats ° vrro~ 
> / | m 3 JA > \ * > \ lal e 
ov yap éotw ™ é€ovcla ef pn * aro Oeod, ai 


2 @sTe O TavTt- 


Mark xiy. 1 al. 1 Acts 
n = I Pet. ii. 13 (Phil. 
p Luke vii. 8. Acts 


= Matt. xii. 27, 28. 
Tit) su, Ll. 
o ch. viii.7 reff. 


. urotacoecbe D1F harl 


Thdrt Thl dic: om ABD!FR latt copt goth xth arm Orig Iren-int, Did-int Ambrst 


Aug. 
Chr Damase Th! ce. 


7émov is hardly borne out. The citation 
varies from the LXX, which has év 7uépa 
exdichoews avTaTodmow ;—and is nearer 
the Heb.,— pw 072, “mine is revenge 
and requital.” It is very remarkable, that 
in Heb. x. 30 the citation is made in the 
same words. 20.| The otv would 
mean ‘ quod cum ita sit ;;— carrying on the 
sentence with the assumption of the last 
thing stated. This perhaps may not have 
been understood, and hence may have 
arisen the alteration or omission of ody in 
the mss. But the evidence is very strong 
for its omission. What is meant by 
avOpakas jupds owpevoets ? The expres- 
sion dp. mvp. occurs more than once in 
Ps. xviii., of the divine punitive judgments. 
Can those be meant here? Clearly not, in 
their bare literal sense. For however true 
it may be, that ingratitude will add to the 
enemy’s list of crimes, and so subject him 
more to God’s punitive judgment, it is 
impossible that to bring this about should 
be set as a precept, or a desirable thing 
among Christians. Again, can the expres- 
sion be meant of the glow and burn of 
shame which would accompany, even in the 
case of a profane person, the receiving of 
benefits from an enemy? This may be 
meant ; but is not probable, as not sufficing 
for the majesty of the subject. Merely to 
make an enemy ashamed of himself, can 
hardly be upheld as a motive for action. 
I understand the words, ‘ For in this doing, 
you will be taking the most effectual ven- 
geance ;’ as effectual as if you heaped coals 
of fire on his head. 21.) If you suf- 
fered yourselves to be provoked to revenge, 
you would be yielding to the enemy,— 


rec ins tov bef @cov, with LX* rel Orig Thdrt Chr-ms, : om ADFR' 1m 


overcome by that which is evil: do not 
thus,—but in this, and in all things, over- 
come the evil (in others) by your good. 
Cuap. XIII. 1—7.] The duty of cheer- 
ful obedience to the powers of the state. 
It has been well observed (Calv., Thol., De 
Wette. See Neander, Pflanzung u. Leitung, 
&e. 4th ed. p. 460 ff.) that some special 
reason must have given occasion to these 
exhortations. We can hardly attribute it 
to the seditious spirit of the Jews at Rome, 
as their influence in the Christian Church 
there would not be great; indeed, from 
Acts xxviii. the two seem to have been 
remarkably distinct. But disobedience to 
the civil authorities may have arisen from 
mistaken views among the Christians them- 
selves as to the nature of Christ’s kingdom 
and its relation to existing powers of this 
world. And such mistakes would naturally 
be rifest there, where the fountain of 
earthly power was situated : and there also 
best and most effectually met by these 
precepts coming from apostolic authority. 
The way for them is prepared by vv. 17 ff. 
of the foregoing chapter. 1 Pet. ii. 13 ff. 
is parallel : compare notes there. 
1.| trotaccéo Aw, see 1 Cor. xvi. 16, is 
reflective, subject himself, i.e. ‘be subject 
of his own free will and accord.’ For 
there is no authority (in heaven or earth 
—no power at all) except from God: and 
(so d€, 2 Cor. vi. 15, 16. It introduces a 
second clause as if wéy had stood in the 
first) those that are (the existing powers 
which we see about us), have been ordained 
by God. We may observe that the Apostle 
here pays no regard to the question of the 
duty of Christians in revolutionary move- 


ABDF 
LN ab 
edfgl 
klmn 
o17 


XIII. 1—6. 


/ a > / an a r a 
Tacoomevos TH ™eEovcia TH TOU Oeod * SvaTayA 
éatnKev* of dé § dvd ) sauTois *Kpiwa da} 

n € *avleoTnKoTes EavTots ‘Kpiwa AnmAporTat. 


TIIPOy POMAIOTS. 


4.4.7 
8 avo- r Acts vii. 53 
only. Ezra 


iv. 11 only. 
see Gal. ili, 
up 


e \ ” n nA 1 
of yap “apyoutes ovx eioly ¥ PoBos TH ¥ ayaOG W Eprye, + Acts vi.10 
e 0 reff. 


> \ tal nr 
anra TO KAKO. 


b 


tA aN \ an 
Perers SE 2) HoBeicOar tiv ™ éEovcian ; 
\ bd \ / a an 
To ayabov troie, Kal * es * érawov e& adths: + Oeod 
% } / 0 > \ Zz > a ‘ Za > A6 
yap otaxovos éotw col “eis * 70 * ayabon. 
X n a \ a a) 

Kaxov Tons, poBovd" ov yap °eikH THY * wdxatpav * hopel: 
0 a \ } / 4 >’ f wy Py g > g 2 \ A b \ b 

eo yap SudKovos éatuv, ' ExdiKos § eis Fopynv TOTO? Ka- 7- 


¢ tSchiaiss 
reff, 

u = Matt. ix. 
18. xx. 25 
a 


. Ir. 
éav 6é bro v = here only. 


Gen. xxxi. 
42,53. Isa, 
XXXIil. 3. 


W sing., ch. ii. 
plur., 
Acts ix. 36 


\ if x / ig 
Kov Tpdaoortt. © 610» avayKn ° vVToTaaaer Oar Od povoV BLA x ere only. 


MA ? \ . \ * 
THY Opynv, adda Kat i dua Thy ™ cvveidnow. 
a ch, ii. 10 reff. 
Col. ii. 18 only. 


see 1 Cor. xi. 17. 


19 only. 
Gal. iii. 4 (bis). iv. 11. 


Wael) Cor Kv.i2- 
xii, 2 reff. 
27. Sir. xi. 5. xl. 4 only. 
-Kyots, ch. xii. 19.) g 
x. 25, 27. 1 Pet. ii. 19. k 


e Matt. x1. 8. John xix. 5. 
f 1 Thess. iv. 6 only +. Wisd. xii. 12. Sir. xxx.6 only. (-Ketv, 

1 Thess. v. 9. 

2 Cor, i. 12 reff. 


in y ch. ii. 29 reff. 
6 Ou TOUTO Zz ch. viii. 28. 
xy. 2. Xvi. 

b ch. ii. 9 reff. ce (Matt. 

Proy. xxviii. 25 only. 

1 Cor. xv. 49 (bis). James ii. 3 only. Proy. xvi. 23, 


h = Heb. ix. 16, 23. il Cor, 


3. rec Twv ayabwv epywv a. Twv Kakwv, With DL rel syrr Chr Thdrt Thl Ge: txt 
ABD'FR latt copt goth Clem Damase Iren-int Cypr Tert Ruf Aug Pacian Sedul Bede. 


4. om oo F b! 0 116. 


om Ist ro B. 


om evs opyny D'F: es opyny bef 


exdixos D3(and lat?) X81 b e fk n 0 17 Chr Thdrt. 


5. om avayrn (making vrotacceoOar = 


ments. His precepts regard an established 
power, be it what it may. J¢, in all matters 
lawful, we are bound to obey. But even 
the parental power does not extend to 
things unlawful. If the civil power com- 
mands us to violate the law of God, we 
must obey God before man. If it com- 
mands us to disobey the common laws 
of humanity, or the sacred institutions 
of our country, our obedience is due to 
the higher and more general law, rather 
than to the lower and particular. These 
distinctions must be drawn by the wisdom 
granted to Christians in the varying cir- 
cumstances of human affairs: they are all 
only subordinate portions of the great 
duty of obedience to LAW. To obtain, 
by lawful means, the removal or alteration 
of an unjust or unreasonable law, is another 
part of this duty: for all powers among 
men must be in accord with the highest 
power, the moral sense. But even where 
law is hard and unreasonable, not disobedi- 
ence, but legitimate protest, is the duty of 
the Christian. 2.] avTitaga., see 
above on vrotagc. €avTots Kpipa A. | 
shall receive for themselves (the dat. 
incommodi) condemnation, viz. pwnish- 
ment from God, through His minister, the 
civil power. 3.] And the tendency of 
these powers is salutary: to encourage 
good works, and discourage evil. It is not 
necessary to set a note of interrogation 
after efovclay: the clause may be treated 
as hypothetical,—see 1 Cor. vii. 18. Tho- 
luck observes, that this verse is a token 
that the Apostle wrote the Epistle before 


-0e) DF goth Iren-int Sedul,. 


the commencement of the Neronian per- 
secution. Had this been otherwise, the 
principle stated by him would have been 
the same; but he could hardly have 
passed so apparent an exception to it 
without remark. 4.] Thv paxatpay, 
perhaps in allusion to the dagger worn 
by the Czsars, which was regarded as 
a symbol of the power of life and death: 
so Tacitus, Hist. iii. 68, of Vitellius, 
“adsistenti Consuli exsolutum a latere 
pugionem, velut jus necis viteeque civium, 
reddebat.” Dio Cassius also, xlii. 27, men- 
tions the wearing of 7d étdos on all occa- 
sions by Antony, as a sign that he rhy 
povapxlay evedetxvuro. In ancient and 
modern times, the sword has been carried 
before sovereigns. It betokens the power 
of capital punishment: and the reference 
to it here is among the many testimonies 
borne by Scripture against the attempt to 
abolish the infliction of the penalty of death 
for crime in Christian states. eis Gpyyv 
seems to be inserted for the sake of paral- 
lelism with «is aya@év above: it betokens 
the character of the ékdlxnows,—that it 
issues in wrath. The épyi is referred to 
in thy dpyhy, ver. 5. 5.] 816, because 
of the divine appointment and mission of 
the civil officer. avayxy —it follows 
that we must subject ourselves—there is 
a moral necessity for subjection :—one not 
only of terror, but of conscience : compare 
51a Toy KUpiov, 1 Pet. ii. 13. 6.] Sa 
TovTo .. Kal is parallel with 51d, ver. 5,— 
giving another result of the divine appoint- 
ment of the civil power;—not dependent on 


448 


here 3ce. 


IPOS POMAIOTS. 


XITT. 


nw ’ 
ree. 9, yap Kab !dopous ™ TeAEiTe ™AevToupyol yap Oeod eiawy eis 


xxiii. 2 only. o reas Wer = Pp a 7 q > aS a A 
Jude.i-2s. © auto °TodTO ? TposKapTepodv TEs. ATOOOTE TAGW TAS 
m — Matt. xvu. 
24 only F. > Me A yf l L ‘\ ] nd A Xe UL x 
(ch. i zi a.) *opethas, TH * tov | Popov tov ‘Popov, T@® To *TEAOS TO 
n ch, xv. e A , \ , lal \ \ \ 
phi izs. 'réNos, T@ Tov poPoy Tov PoPov, TH THv TLunv THY 
B0eRe saat \ I > \ \ , 
from Pst yumy, 8 Mndevi pndev oeirete, €¢ put) TO AAAHAOUS 
only. Josh. > ~ c \ >’ a u ‘ ov , Vv ot , Fy 
iia). ayaTav. 0 yap ayaT@v “Tov ETepoy vowoy ¥ Tema pwoKev 
Suche , / > / > 
oActsxxiv.19 Ir yap You pouyevoels, ov hovevoes, ov KEYES, OVK 
Acts i. 14 / Cuays; b , a , 
‘ ref . 2 éemiOupnoes, Kat * el Tis * eTépa EVTOAH, EV TO OYH 
q ch. xii. - “ = 5 A > - . “ 
ff. Z a b b a 
vrei, TovT@ Y avaxehadaovTat, [ev * TH] * ayarrnoeLs Tov 7 
32. Jor. e li ir > s fal 
vigonly+, lov Gov ws aeavTov. 19% ayarn TOS ” wAnTiovy KaKoV 
Ss te on s ellips., 2 Cor. viii. 15. Phil. iii. 14. Winer, edn. 6, 3 64. i. 4. t = here bis. Matt. 
xvii. 25 only. Num. xxxi. 28, &c. 1 Macc. x. 31. u ch. ii. 1 reff. v= ch, viii. 4 al. 


w Exop. xx. 13, &c. x 1 Tim. i, 10. 
y. 14. see ch. viii. 26 reff. 


al. fr. Exod. ii, 13. 


6. om kau F (but F-lat has ef). 


a LEvIT. xix. 18. 


y Eph. i. 10 only+. Ps. Ixxi. 20 Theod. z Gal. 


ch. xvy.2. Matt. v.43. xix. 19 


7. rec aft amodore ins ovy, with D3FLN? rel syrr Chr Thl @ec Ambrst: om ABD!X! 
am(with demid tol) coptt (Orig,) Damase Cypr Ruf Aug Cassiod. 


8. opiAovres N1 cc: 


-Ante 88: -Aerre B(Tischdf.). 


rec ayaray bef adAAndovus 


(corrn of order to agree with next clause?), with L rel syr coptt Thl ec: txt 
ABDFX m latt Syr arm Orig Chr Cyr Thdrt Damase Cypr. 


9. for to yap, yeypamrat yap F Ambr. 


rec aft KAeWels ins ov Wevdouaptupnoes 


(corrn to the decalogue), with & rel copt Chr Gc Ruf: var transp al: txt ABDFL ¢ g 


1] am(with fuld tol al) 17 Syr sah Clem, Orig, Cyr &e. 
rec Toutw bef tw Aoyw, with AL rel vss Clem Dial Cyr: txt 
om 2nd ev tw BF latt lat-ff: om ev Clem, Orig,: ins 


disapproving). 
BDFRX d m syr copt Orig,. 
ADLX rel vss Clem Orig Chr Thdrt. 


aft erepa ins eotw &}(83 


rec (for ceav.) eavtoy, with F rel Chr Cyr 


Thl Ge: mss of Clem Dial vary: cavroy g!: txt ABDX bc dh o Orig, Dial Thdrt 


Damase. 


ver. 5. reXetTe is indicative, not im- 
perative: the command follows ver. 7. 
For they (the &pxovres) are ministers 
of God, attending upon this very duty, 
viz. Ac:toupyetv,—hardly (as Koppe, Olsh., 
Meyer) gépous tedciv, for in ver. 7 the 
Apostle has evidently in view the whole offi- 
cial character of these Aevroupyol. Reiche, 
al., construe, “ For those who wait upon this 
very thing are ministers of God,” which 
would require ot «is air. T. mposk.:— 
Koppe, ‘For Ae:roupyol are of God ’— 
but this again would require of yap Aet.— 
Tertullian remarks, Apolog. xlii. vol. i. p. 
494, that what the Romans lost by the 
Christians refusing to bestow gifts on their 
temples, they gained by their conscientious 
payment of taxes. 7.| Before the ac- 
cusatives supply airotyrt, as the correlative 
of amdbore. dédpos is tax, or tribute, 
—direct payment for state purposes: Tédos, 
custom, toll, vectigal. 0Bos, to 
those set over us and having power : Tuy, 
to those, but likewise to all on whom the 
state has conferred distinction. 

8—10.| ELxhortation to universal love of 
others. 8. | odetdere is not indic. (as 
Koppe, Reiche, al.), which would require 
ovdev. ovdév,—and would be inconsistent 


with the dgpeuaal just mentioned,—but 
imperative: ‘ Pay all other debts: be in- 
debted in the matter of love alone.’ This 
debt increases the more, the more it is 
paid: because the practice of love makes 
the principle of love deeper and more ac- 
tive. Aug., Ep. excii. (Ixii.), ad Coelest. 
vol. ii. p. 868, says: “ Redditur enim 
(caritas), cum impenditur, debetur autem 
etiam si reddita fuérit; quia nullum est 
tempus quando impendenda jam non sit. 
Nec cum redditur amittitur, sed potius 
reddendo multiplicatur.” TET AN Pw- 
key, hath (in the act) fulfilled: compare 
the perfects, John iii. 18; ch. xiv. 23. 
vopov is not the Christian law, but the 
Mosaic law of the decalogue. “This 
recommendation of Love has, as also the 
similar one Gal. v. 23, kata ray Towobvrwy 
obk @oTw vduos,—an apologetic reference 
to the upholders of the law, and depends 
on this evident axiom, —‘ He who practises 
Love, the higher duty, has, even before he 
does this, fulfilled the law, the lower.” 
De Wette. 9.] avaxehaX., brought 
under one head,—‘united in the one 
principle from which all flow.’ 10. | 
All the commandments of the law above 
cited are negative: the formal fulfilment 


ABDF 
LR ab 
cedfgh 
klmn 
017 


7—12. IIPOS POMAIOTS. 44.9 


\ Me 
ovK °épyaterau ‘ ‘ Tajpoopia ovv ecu n ayarn. Ile gat ¢= ch. ti. 10 


be ° TOUTO €ld0TES TOV san sie OTe ‘dpa 500 vas €€ bmvou 
Na 

fgh » eyepOivae vov yap } 
mn a 
m= emuaTevoapey. 12 7 yok ' mposKkower, 7 O€ nwepa ™ HryryuKer* 93, "3 ‘Tenn 


5. 
"aTro0eucla odv Ta °épya Tov © cudTOUS, P évdva@pmeBa f= John xii 


ite 

d = here only f. 
(ch. xi. 12, 

| eyryUTE pov mpeey 1) gon pla, ?) OTE e EN 

) 


xiv. 15. and constr., Gen. xxix. 7. 
i= Matt. xxiv. 32 al. 
i. 13. 1 Luke ii. 52, 
Hexapl. (-Kom7, Phil. i. 12.) 

vii. 58 reff. = Col. iii. 8. 
i, 3. p = 1 Cor. xv. 53, 54 reff. 


10. om 7 ay. to epyag. A. 


de D?F spec Augsepe(txt,): yap 115: quia Syr: 
rec nuas bef dn (corrn for euphony ?), with FL rel goth 


11. doves AIFG x. 


Ezek. xxx. 3. comp., here only. 


o Eph. y. 11 only. 


Prov. vi. 9. 
1 Cor. iii. 5. xv. 2, Eph. 


g =ch.i. 10. h = Eph. v. 1d. 


k = Acts xix. 2. 


Gal. i. 14. 2 Tim. ii. Bp iii. 9,13 only. L.P.+ Ps. Mik, 5, cee in 


m = Matt. iii, 2. xxi. 34. Lam. iy. 18. n Acts 
see jenn vi. 28, 29. viii. 39,41. Gal. v.19. 1 Thess. 
for ov epy., ov katepy. D' bf 17. for ovr, 


om 93 lect-12 Oros. 


Clem Chr Thdrt Thi @e: txt ABCDN m vulg Damase Jer Ambrst.—ree nuwas, with 


DFLN? rel: om syr Ruf: txt A B(sic: 
12. nyyioev A. 


see table)CN! d m. 
for aTo0wu., aroBarwucda D'-3F, 


rec for evduc. Se, Kat 


evduc. (corrn, no contrast seeming to be implied), with C3D?*3FLN® rel Chr Cyr 


of them is therefore attained, by working 
no ill to one’s neighbour. What greater 
things Love works, he does not now say: 
it fulfils the law, by abstaining from that 
which the law forbids. 11—14. | 
Enforcement of the foregoing, and oc- 
casion taken for fresh exhortations, by 
the consideration that THE DAY OF THE 
LorpD Is AT HAND. 11.] Kat tovTo, 
and this, i.e. ‘and let us do this,’ viz., 
live in no debt but that of love (see reff.), 
for other reasons, and especially for this 
following one. Gpa non eyepPFvar | 
“The Inf. Aor. here, as after verbs of 
willing, ordering, &ec., betokens the com- 
* pletion of the act in question. See Winer, 
§ 45. 8 [edn. 6, § 44. 7]. De Wette. 
wmvos here = the state of worldly 
carelessness and indifference to sin, which 
allows and practises the épya Tod oKdrous. 
The imagery seems to be taken originally 
from our Lord’s discourse concerning His 
coming: see Matt. xxiv. 42: Mark xiii. 33, 
and Luke xxi. 28—36, where several points 
of similarity to our vv. 11—14 occur. 
eyyvT. Hy. | oor. 7 Ste emo. | cTwrnpia, 
as amoAvtpwots Luke xxi. 28, and ch. viii. 
23, of the accomplishment of our salva- 
tion. *pav may be taken with éyyttepor, 
‘nearer tous, seech.x.8. But éyyi¢e 7 
amoAvTpwots Huey, Luke xxi. 28, seems to 
favour the usual connexion with cwrnpia. 
émtot.| we first believed ;—see 
reff. | Without denying the legitimacy of 
an individual application of this truth, and 
the importance of its consideration for all 
Christians of all ages, a fair exegesis of this 
passage can hardly fail to recognize the 
tact, that the Apostle here as well as else- 
where (1 Thess. iv. 17; as.Cor. xv. .51), 
speaks of the coming of the Lord as rapidly 
approaching. Prof. Stuart, Comm. p. 521, 
\Wohig dle 


is shocked at the idea, as being inconsistent 
with the inspiration of his writings. How 
this can be, I am at a loss to imagine. 
“OF THAT DAY AND HOUR KNOWETH NO 
MAN, NO NOT THE ANGELS IN HEAVEN, 
NOR THE SON: BUT THE FATHER ONLY.” 
Mark xiii. 32. And to reason, as Stuart 
does, that because Paul corrects in 2 Thess. 
ii. the mistake of imagining it to be imme- 
diately at hand (or even actually come, 
see note on évéornxev there), therefore he 
did not himself expect it soon, is surely 
quite beside the purpose. ‘The fact, that 
the nearness or distance of that day was 
unknown to the Apostles, in no way affects 
the prophetic announcements of God’s 
Spirit by them, concerning its preceding 
and accompanying circumstances. The 
‘day and hour’ formed no part of their 
inspiration :—the details of the event, did. 
And this distinction has singularly and pro- 
videntially turned out to the edification of 
all subsequent ages. While the prophetic 
declarations of the events of that time 
remain to instruct us, the eager expecta- 
tion of the time, which they expressed in 
their day, has also remained, a token of 
the true frame of mind in which each suc- 
ceeding age (and each. succeeding age a 
fortiori) should contemplate the ever-ap- 
proaching coming of the Lord. On the 
certainty of the event, our faith is grounded : 
by the uncertainty of the time our hope is 
stimulated, and our watchfulness aroused. 
See Prolegg. to Vol. III. ch. v. §iv. 5—10. 

12.] 4 vvé, the lifetime of the 
world,—the power of darkness, see Eph. 
vi. 12: 4 Hpépa, the day of the resurrec- 
tion, 1 Thess. v. 4; Rev. xxi. 25; of which 
resurrection we are already partakers and 
are to walk as such, Col. iii. 1—4; 1 Thess. 
v. 5—8. Therefore, —let ae aside (as 

G 


450 
. \ \ a r , 

qeh. vis ref. 66 ta 1OmTAA TOU hwTos. 
r = 1 Thess. v. 

5,8. 2 Pet. 

i. 1 

s 1 Thess. iv. 

13; 


t as above (s). 


IIPOS POMAIOTS. 


Tas Kal ** acedyelats, pr) “8 Epide Kal ¥*° Ero 


XII. 18) 0m 


13 wo év 'npépa * ed ) 
npépa * evaxnnoves 


, r . \ / 
9. ‘mepiTraTiowpev, pn  Kopors Kat “** wéBais, pn *? Kol- 


14 Gra 


, aap , \ s ’ a , \ a \ 
joaiyt, Pévdvoacbe tov xvpiov ‘Incodv ypiotov, Kat TIS TapKo; 
ee 1 arp0 ) Trovetabe © eis * erriOupia 
POCHEM, 7 POVOLaV #2) TTOLELO Ss plas. 

‘Ox. Xi. > n n y , 
23, 24.) XIV. 1 Tov dé Sacbevodvta TH & ricter » rposhayBa- 
u al. Vv. - 
yas above (u). 1 Pet. iv. 8 only+. Wisd. xiv. 23. 2 Macc. vi. 4 only. w dat., ch. iy. 12. as 
above (u). Luke xxi. 34 only. Isa. xxviii.7. Hag. i. 6. Judith xiii. 15. ; y ch. ix. 10 reff. See > 
here only. z Mark vii. 22. 2 Cor. xil. 21. 1 Pet. iv.3al.+ Wisd. xiv. 26 only. a1 Cor. 
i. 1] reff. b 1 Cor. iii. 3. 2 Cor. xii. 20. Gal. v. 20. Sir. xl. 5. c = Acts xiii. 45 reff. 


d Acts xxiv. 2 only (reff.). 
h = Acts xxviii. 2 reff. 


e = ver. 4al. 


Thdrt Cypr : 

epya AD. 
13. epior x. (nAows B Ambr. 
14. [ adda, so ABD5N. | 

goth: om xp. c k Ambr. 

ev emOuuiats F latt lat-ff: 


evduc. (only) X?: 


txt ABC!D! coptt goth Clem Damasce. 


om kupioy B: 
om ka D!F Sedul. 
eis emOuutavy AC Cyr Ath Thdrt-ms-comm Damase : 


f ch. i. 24 reff. g ch. iv. 19 (reff.). 


for o7Aa, 


add nuwy sah. xp. bef inc. B 
aft cap. ins nuwy sah. 


ev 


em6uuia Ambr: txt BDX rel Clem Ps-Ign Chr Thdrt Thl ec. 


it were a clothing) the works of darkness 
(see Eph. v. 11—14, where a similar strain 
of exhortation occurs), and put on (5€ cor- 
responding to an understood pév) the ar- 
mour of light (described Eph. vi. 11 ff— 
the arms belonging to a soldier of light— 
one who is of the viol ¢wrds and viol 
nuepas, 1 Thess. v. 5,—not, as Grot. ‘arma 
splendentia ’). 18.] xotrats, in a bad 
sense: the act itself being a defilement, 
when unsanctified by God’s ordinance of 
marriage. See reff. aoedyetats, plural 
of various kinds of wantonness: so b7o- 
xploets, pOdvous, Katadadids, 1 Pet. ii. 1. 
14.] Chrys. says, on Eph. iv. 24, 
otrw Kat em) pirwy A€youev, 6 deiva Toy 
deiva evedUoaTo, THy moAAnY ayarny Aé- 
YovTEs, kK. Thy GdidAei@TOv Guvovctay. See 
examples in Wetst. The last clause is 
to be read, tis capkds mpdvoiay ph trot- 
eioGe | cis eriOuulas,—not THs capKds mpd- 
vow | wh motcOe cis emiOvutas, — and 
rendered, Take not (any) forethought for 
the flesh, to fulfil its lusts, not ‘ Take 
not your forethought for the flesh, so, 
as to fulfil its lusts’ (Qartet des Leibes, 
dod) alfo, daf er nicht geil werde, Luth.). 
This latter would be tiv mpévoiay 7. cape. 
ph mw. eis emi0.,—or Tis o. mpdv. Toreicbe 
py eis éri8.: see construction of the next 
verse. Cuap. XIV. 1—XYV. 18.] On 
THE CONDUCT TO BE PURSUED TOWARDS 
WEAK AND SCRUPULOUS BRETHREN. 
There is some doubt who the acOevoivres 
7h mlore: were, of whom the Apostle here 
treats; whether they were ascetics, or 
Judaizers. Some habits mentioned, as 
e.g. the abstinence from all meats, and 
from wine, seem to indicate the former: 
whereas the observation of days, and the 
use of such expressions as kowdy, and 


again the argument of ch. xv. 7—13, as 
plainly point to the latter. The difficulty 
may be solved by a proper combination of 
the two views. The over-scrupulous Jew 
became an ascetic by compulsion. He was 
afraid of pollution by eating meats sacri- 
ficed or wine poured to idols: or even by 
being brought into contact, in foreign 
countries, with casual and undiscoverable 
uncleanness, which in his own land he 
knew the articles offered for food would be 
sure not to have incurred. He therefore 
abstained from all prepared food, and con- 
fined himself to that which he could trace 
from natural growth to his own use. We 
have examples of this in Daniel (Dan. i.), 
Tobit (Tob. i. 10, 11),some Jewish priests 
mentioned by Josephus, Life, § 3, who 
having been sent prisoners to Rome, ovK 
efeAdovro THS cis 7d @etov edoeBelas, 
dierpepovto 5& avxois kal kapvors. And 
Tholuck refers to the Mishna as containing 
precepts to this effect. All difficulty then 
is removed, by supposing that of these over- 
scrupulous Jews some had become converts 
to the gospel, and with neither the ob- 
stinacy of legal Judaizers, nor the pride of 
ascetics (for “these are not hinted at here), 

but in weakness of faith, and the scruples 
of an over-tender conscience, retained their 
habits of abstinence and observation of 
days. On this account the Apostle charac- 
terizes and treats them mildly: not with 
the severity which he employs towards the 
Colossian Judaizing ascetics and those men- 
tioned in 1 Tim. iv. 1 ff The question 
treated in 1 Cor. viii. was somewhat dif- 
ferent: there it was, concerning meat 
actually offered to an idol. In 1 Cor. x. 
25—27, he touches the same question as 
here, and decides against the stricter view. 


ABCD 
FLN al 
cdfgl 
kimn 

017 


XIV. 1—4. 


> j - fal 
veoOe pury © eis § dtaxpicets * Stadoyiopov. 
Marvotever payeiv Tavta,!o dé ®acbevOv ™raxava eo Oiler. 


TIPO POMAIOTS. 


451 


214 Ey il Cor. xii. 10 
os bev Heb. y. 14 

only. Job 

XXxvVii. 16 


only. 
36 éoPiwy rov py éeoOiovTa pn °éEovbeve’rw, 6 O€ puny kch.i-21. 


> id \ J / \ , ¢ x \ > ‘sh 
éo0iav tov éoGiovta un PKpiwétw: 0 eds yap avTov 


1 Cor. iii. 20 
(from Ps, 
xciil. 11). 
James il. 4 al 


harposedaBeto. * od Tis et OP Kpiv@v 1 adAOTPLOV* OLKETHY ; Lhere only. see 


m = Acts xv. 11 reff. 
xviii. 9. Acts iv. 11. ver. 10. 
&c. Col.ii. 16. James iy. 11. 
x. 15,16. Ps. cviii. 11. 


Cuar. XIV. 2. os Se acd. F. 
8. for ctovdev., kpiverw A 68 lect-5. 


n Matt. xiii. 32 ||. Luke xi. 42 only. Gen. ix. 3. 
1 Cor. i. 28. vi. 4 al. i 


r Luke xvi. 13. 


Matt. xiii. 8. 
ch, ix. 21 al. 
o = Luke 


Prov. i. 7. 
Luke xvi. 12. 
Acts-x. 7. 


p = Matt. vii. 1. ch. ii. 1 
John x. 5. Acts vii. 6. ch. xv. 20. 2 Cor. 
1 Pet. ii. 18 only. Gen. ix. 25. 


ecOierw D!F latt sah ceth Ambrst Pel. 


rec (for o S€ un) kat o un, with D3LN3 


rel vulg Epiph Thdrt Thl Ge: ovde o un (omg py aft) F: txt ABCD'N! goth Clem, 


Damasc. yap bef @cos L 77. 
See the whole matter discussed in Tho- 
luck’s Comm. in loc., De Wette’s Hand- 
buch, and Stuart’s Introd? to this chap. 
in his Commentary. 1—12.] Ee- 
hortation to mutual forbearances, en- 
forced by the axiom, that every man 
must serve God according to his own 
sincere persuasion. 1.| The gene- 
ral duty of a reconciling and uncontro- 
versial spirit towards the weak in faith. 
The 8€ binds this on to the general ex- 
hortations to mutual charity in ch. xiii.: 
q-d. ‘in the particular case of the weak 
in faith,’ &e.: but also implies a contrast, 
which seems to be, in allusion to the 
Christian perfection enjoined in the pre- 
ceding verses,—‘ but do not let your own 
realization of your state as children of 
light make you intolerant of short-coming 
and infirmity in others.’ aa., see 
reff.: the particular weakness consisted in 
a want of broad and independent principle, 
and a consequent bondage to prejudices. 
aiotis therefore is used in a general 
sense, to indicate the moral soundness con- 
ferred by faith,—the whole character of 
the Christian’s conscience and practice, 
resting on faith. 7, better the faith, 
than ‘his faith: ‘weak in his (subj.) 
faith ? would be opposed to ‘strong in his 
(subj.) faith,’ ‘his faith,’ remaining in sub- 
stance the same: whereas here the (subj.) 
faith itself is weak, and ‘weak in the 
faith? = holding THE FAITH imperfectly, 
i.e. not being able to receive the faith in 
its strength, so as to be above such preju- 
dices. aposdapB. | ‘give him your 
hand,’ as Syr. (Thol.): ‘count him one of 
you :’ opposed to rejecting or discouraging 
him. py eis} but not with a view 
to: ‘donot adopt him as a brother, in order 
then to begin’... Staxpic. d1aX. | 
discernments of thoughts, lit.: i.e. ‘dis- 
putes in order to settle the points on 
which he has scruples.’ In both the reff., 
didxpiots has the meaning of ‘ discernment 


of, ‘the power of distinguishing between.’ 
And diaAoyiopol in the N. T. implies 
(ordinarily in a bad sense), ‘thoughts 
what kind of thoughts, the context must 
determine. Here, evidently, those scruples 
im him, in which his weakness consists,— 
and those more enlightened views in you, 
by which you would fain remove his seru- 
ples. Do not let your association of him 
among you be with a view to settle these 
disputes. The above ordinary meanings 
of the words seem to satisfy the sense, and 
to agree better with eis than ‘ad alterca- 
tiones disputationum,’ as Beza, or ‘ad cer- 
tamina cogitationum,’ as Estius :—and are 
adopted by most of the ancient and modern 
Commentators. 2.| The ds pév, the 
strong in faith,so indicated by what follows, 
is opposed to 6 5€ &c0ev@y (not to be taken 
6 Se, aodevay, «.T.A.), by which rby aobe- 
vouvta, of ver. 1 is resumed. TLo- 
Tevet dayeiv, cither believes that he may 
(eEcivar) eat,—or ventures to eat. The 
latter is favoured by ref. Acts, mucretouey 
cwlivat, ‘we trust to be saved ;’ though 
that also may be expanded into ‘we be- 
lieve that we shall be saved,’ as E. V. 

Ady. éo6.] See remarks introductory to 
this chapter. 8.] There is no need 
to supply wavta after eo@. and uy eo. I 
would rather take 6 éc@. as the eater, and 
6 wh eo. the abstainer. é£ov9., for 
his weakness of faith,—kKptvét, for his 
laxity of practice. For God has ac- 
cepted (adopted into his family) him (i. e. 
the eater, who was judged,—his place in 
God’s family doubted: not the abstainer, 
who was only despised, set at nought,—and 
to whom the words cannot, by the con- 
struction, apply). 4.| Who art thou 
(see ch. ix. 20) that judgest the servant of 
another (viz. as De W., of Christ,—for 6 
KUpios in this passage is marked, vv. 8, 9, 
as being Christ,—and the Master is the 
same throughout. 6 @eds before is uncon- 
nected with this verse)? to his own Mas- 


Ge2 


452 IIPO> POMAIOTS. XIV. 
r / x tg / 
ePaul(rCor. TO LOM KUpio SaTHKEL H TimTeL. YaTaOyjceTat Oé, ¥ du- 
xvi. 13. Gal. ‘ “ Y 
. a \ c , fol > , -~ A \ 
v2 Phi. patet yap o Kuplos “ otHoar avtov. © * 05 pev Y Kpivet 
1 Thess. iii. Chere Z > cm, x 8 \ y / a ae gd 
8. 2 ae nMEpav Tap NLEPaV, OS € KPUWet TTACAV nMEpaV. 
ii. 15) only, 
. Mark ¢ BI lal 2O/ oa / 6 ig b fal 
31. ae 25. EKAOTOS EV T@ ol@ vot ™AnpodopeiaOw. 1¢) ppovav 
2xod. xiv. 
cae a t = ch. xi. 11, 22. 1Cor.x.12. Prov. xi. 28. u 2 Cor. xiii. 1. v 2 Cor. 
ix. 8. xiii. 3 only +. w = here only? see ch. iii. 31. Ps, exviii. 38. x 1 Cor. xi. 21 reff. see 
ver. 2. y = Acts xiii. 46 reff. z=ch.i.25. Luke xiii.2. Ps. cxxxiv. 5. a= ch. 
iy. 21 (Col. iv. 12. 2 Tim. iy. 5,17. Luke i.1) only. Eccles. viii, 11 only. (-pla, Col. ii. 2.) b see 


ch. viii. 5 reff. 


4. rec duvatos yap eotw (more usual expression), with L rel Thdrt: dvvaros yap, 


omg eoriv, D3 syr(adding eorw with ob) Bas Chr: txt ABCDFR. 


rec for kupios, 


Geos (corrn to suit ver 3? Geos there does not vary), with C3DFL latt syr Chr Thdrt : 
txt ABC!& vulg-ms Syr(addg avrov) coptt goth arm Aug, Opt. 
5. aft os wev ins yap ACN! latt goth Ambrst Ruf: om BDEFLN% rel Dial Aug, Jer,. 


om ev A 38. 54 fuld Chr Thdrt. 


ter (dat. commodi or incommodi according 
as ot. or mint. befalls: ‘it is his own 
master’s matter, and his alone, that’) he 
stands (‘remains in the place and estima- 
tion of a Christian, from which thou would- 
est eject him ;” not, as Caly., Grot., Estius, 
Wolf, al., ‘stands hereafter in the judg- 
ment,’ which is not in question here: see 
1 Cor. x. 12) or falls (from his place, see 
above): but he shall be made to stand 
(notwithstanding thy doubts of the cor- 
rectness of his practice): for the Lord (or, 
his Lord, in allusion to 7G idlm kupio 
above) is able to make him stand (in faith 
and practice. ‘These last words are inap- 
plicable, if standing and falling at the 
great day are meant). Notice, this argu- 
ment is entirely directed to the weak, 
who uncharitably judges the stong,—not 
vice vers’. The weak imagines that the 
strong cannot be a true servant of God, 
nor retain his stedfastness amidst such 
temptation. To this the Apostle answers, 
(1) that such judgment belongs only to 
Christ, whose servant he is: (2) that 
the Lord’s Almighty Power is able to keep 
him up, and will do so. 5.| One man 
(the weak) esteems (selects for honour,— 
Kplvet atiav tuys) [one] day above (reff.) 
[another] day; another (the strong) es- 
teems (dtiav Tiujs) every day. Let each 
be fully satisfied in his own mind. It is 
an interesting question, what indication is 
here found of the observance or non-obser- 
vance of a day of obligation in the apostolic 
times. The Apostle decides nothing ; leay- 
ing every man’s own mind to guide him in 
the point. He classes the observance or 
non-observance of particular days, with the 
eating or abstaining from particular meats. 
In both cases, he is concerned with things 
which he evidently treats as of absolute in- 
difference in themselves. Now the question 
is, supposing the divine obligation of one 
day in seven to have been recognized by him 


in any form, could he have thus spoken ? 
The obvious inference from his strain of 
arguing is, that he knew of no such obliga- 
tion, but believed all times and days to be, 
to the Christian strong in faith, atrke. I 
do not see how the passage can be other- 
wise understood. If any one day in the 
week were invested with the sacred cha- 
racter of the Sabbath, it would have been 
wholly impossible tor the Apostle to com- 
mend or uphold the man who judged all 
days worthy of equal honour,—who as in 
ver. 6 paid xo regard to the (any) day. He 
must have visited him with his strongest 
disapprobation, as violating a command of 
God. Itherefore infer, that sabbatical ob- 
ligation to keep any day, whether seventh 
or first, was not recognized in apostolic 
times. It must be carefully remembered, 
that this inference does not concern the 
question of the observance of the Lord’s 
Day as an institution of the Christian 
Church, analogous to the ancient Sabbath, 
binding on us from considerations of hx- 
manity and religious expediency, and by 
the rules of that branch of the Church in 
which Providence has placed us, but not 
in any way inheriting the divinely-ap- 
pointed obligation of the other, or the strict 
prohibitions by which its sanctity was de- 
fended. The reply commonly furnished to 
these considerations, viz. that the Apostle 
was speaking here only of Jewish festivals, 
and therefore cannot refer to Christian 
ones, is a quibble of the poorest kind: its as- 
sertors themselves distinctly maintaining 
the obligation of one such Jewish festival 
on Christians. What I maintain is, that 
had the Apostle believed as they do, he 
could not by any possibility have written 
thus. Besides, in the face of macav 7pé- 
pay, the assertion is altogether unfounded. 

6.) The words in brackets were 
probably omitted from the similar ending 
ppovet of both clauses having misled some 


ABCD 
FLN at 
cdfg 
klmt 
ol7 


5—10. IPOS POMAIOTS. 453 


\ € / / tal fal . 
TV nuEepav °Kupio »dpovei[, Kal Oo pn ” hpov@v Ty © at ch. vi.2 


10 al. Winer, 


e , / > n Naf ce / dn. 6, 
neEpav, “Kupio ov » dpovel]. Kat 0 éoOiwv © kupio éoOiet, {s1.4.> 
ae? an \ n 3} a, WG 3 / c / > TO Tarpt 
evyaploTee yap TO Oew@ Kat Oo pr) écOlwv °Kupla odK ertes, 
B) / \ Atala a n n__ Dion. Hal 
eobier Kai ‘evyapiotel TS Oed. 7 oddels yap Hav © EavT@ iii. p-193 
~ \ > \ c lal 5 C , bias \ an : Oeots 
fH, Kat ovdeis Séavt@ arroOvycKke 8 dav Te yap COpev, 7OvnKev 
OvUTOS 
Gie8 ! n a7 > , Ce /,) _ Soph. Aj. 990. 
TO Kupio Couev, eay Te amoOvijcKkwpev, © TH Kupico , SPhAi-g 
> @ , »¢ 5 a 27 > / e = gen.,1 Cor 
amroOvnoKomev. édv Te odv Capev edv Te aTroOvncKwper, © ii°S3 ven 
e na / 5) , Opies c \ : \ > , ‘er ida) 
Tod Kupiou éopev. ° Seis Tobro ‘yap=xpioTos dr avey John xvii 
Kat § €€yoev, fiva Kat vexpov Kat Covtwv » Kupievon. 10 oh 2,1 som 


\ in / \ ? , x \ \ , an g= Rev.ii. 
dé ti ixpivers Tov *aderpov cou; 7) Kal ov Th} eEoubeveds * 8. x4. 
4 Kings 
h Luke xxii. 25. ch. vi. 9, 14. vii. 1. 2 Cor. i. 24. 2 Tim. vi. 15 only. L.P. Gen. iii. 16. 
k = Matt. vii. 3 al. lyer. 3 reff. 


xiii. 21. 
ivy. 3, 4 reff. 


6. om kat o wn pp. THY Hu. K. ov ¢p. (homeotel) ABCIDFN vulg copt «th Ambrst 
Ruf Jer Aug Pel; om from nuepay to nuepay 661, from evOer to eoOier 71-3 lect-19 : 
from tw §ew to tw Oew L Chr-ms,: ins CL rel syrr. Bas Chr-txt Thdrt-txt Damase 
Phot Thl dic. rec om rat [bef o eo8.]: ins ABCDFLX rel vss Bas Chr Thdrt 
Damase Th] e Ambrst Ruf Pel. for 1st 8ew, kupiw A 52: Creatori Ambrst. 

8. for Ist amobynokwper, amobvnockowev ADF a! Ephr Damasc: arodaywuey CL.1 0 
17: (both appear to be corrns: the former for uniformity, imagining that Comer, 
(wpev were both indic; the latter for the sense, as representing the state after death :) 
amo@avowev n: txt BX rel Chr Cyr Thdrt. om 2nd tw F. for amo@vnckomerv, 
amobunokwmey ER dik. aft last eay Te ins ovy F. for 2nd amoévnckwper, 
anoévnokopey ADF fm! n Thi: awodavwuey 108-35.. 219: txt BCLN 17 rel Chr Cyr 
Thdrt. 

9. rec ins kat bef ameOavey, with C*D?2LN* rel am syr Chr, Thdrt Thl @e: om 
ABC!D!1°3FR! a ¢ g 17 vulg copt Orig, Cyr-jer Chr, Cyr Anast Damase Sedul. 
rec ins koa aveoty bef Kk. e(noev (see notes), with LN? rel Thl Cc: aft, Syr: ims kau 
evertn, putting e(no. bef k. aed. «. aveotn D Iren-int Ambrst Aug, Gaud : om ABCFR! 
fuld-vict syr copt arm Dion Cyr-jer Chr Cyrzepe Anast Damase Ruf.—rec ave(noev, with 
Thdrt: aveorn F vulg Orig, Cyr, Pel Fulg: txt ABCDLN rel. 

10. aft tov adeAd. cov (Ist) add ev Tw wy eoOtew DF am? Ambrst: also g am? 


early copyists; but perhaps it may have 
been intentionally done, after the observa- 
_tion of the Lord’s Day came to be regarded 
as binding. dpovev, taking account 
of, ‘regarding.’ evxapiotet, adduced as 
a practice of both parties, shews the uni- 
versality among the early Christians of 
thanking God at meals: see 1 Tim. iv. 
3,4. The edxapioria of the uy és0iwy was 
over his ‘dinner of herbs.’ Kupt@ is 
CHRIST. 7.] This verse illustrates the 
kupt@ of the former, and at the same time 
sets in a still plainer light than before, that 
both parties, the eater and the abstainer, 
are servants of another, even Christ. 
éavt@ and xvpi» are datives commodi: 
{qv and aro8vyoKeww represent the whole 
sum of our course on earth. 8.] The 
inference,—that we are, under all circum- 
stances, living or dying (and a fortiori eat- 
ing or abstaining, observing days or not 
observing them), CHRIST’s : His property. 
9.| And this lordship over all was 
the great end of the Death and Resurrec- 
tion of Christ. By that Death and Resur- 


rection, the crowning events of his work of 
Redemption, He was manifested as the 
righteous Head over the race of man, 
which now, and in consequence man’s 
world also, belongs by right to Him alone. 

The rec. text here, aré0. x. avéorn 
k. avé(noev, May have arisen by the inser- 
tion (1) of avé(noev as clearer than é(noev, 
and (2) of avéorn from the margin, where 
it was a gloss (1 Thess. iv. 14) explaining 
avé(noev or e(noev. Or, on the other 
hand, supposing it to have been the ori- 
ginal, avé(noev may have been altered 
to joey and k. avéorn left out, to con- 
form it to vv. 7 and 8. In such a case of 
doubt, the weight of early authority must 
decide.  {noev, lived, viz. after His 
death ; = avé(noev. The historical aorist 
points to a stated event as the commence- 
ment of the reviviscence, viz. the Resur- 
rection. k. vekp. kK. Caévtwv | here, 
for uniformity with what has gone be- 
fore: in sense comprehending all created 
beings. 10.] He returns to the 
duty of abstaining,—the weak, from judg- 


454: IIPOS POMAIOT2. XIV. 


m = Acts xxvil. 


Tov, aderXpov cov; mavtTes yap ™ Tapactnoopela TO 


24. Dan. vii. 
10. / a a / \ a ry / / 
n Acts xii.21 Bypate tod Oeod. 11 yéyparrtar yap ° Za eyo, éyer 
a +s 4 id ? \ / cal f \ fa) fal 
em sy xuplos Pott eot Inkaprper Tav Iyovu, Kal Taca yAWooa 
. xxii. 24. 3 / a a ¢ Y 5 / ess \ 
Tack: ¥. ae 4 eEoponroyncetat T@ Ved. 1? Sapa [Sobv] Exaatos Huav Trept 
piss.alv.23. €auTov tdoyov [‘amoldacet TH Oem. 1 pnxéte ody adAdH- 
constr. of t t 


oath, 2 Cor. 
i.18. Judith 
xii. 4. 


s lal a \ 
Nous ixpivapev, GXAA “TODTO Y KplvaTe padov, "TO fA) 


, fal a x - 
qch-xi.trett. “ TeOévas “ mposkoppa TO AdEAP@ 1) “* cxavoarov. 1* oida 
F enV os eo, ce ; Pe ee ee 

Phila, K@b ¥ WemTEelopmat EV KUPL@ Inaod ott ovdey * Kowwov * Ot 
2 Kings xxii.  ¢ a ’ \ . »b , Z \ 3 e2 / 
50.1. c. AN3*, EAUTOU, EL MN TO NoyComevm TL * KOlWoV Eival, © EKEW@ 


s ch. v. 18 reff. 

t Acts xix. 40 
reff. 

u 2 Cor. ii. 1. 
see 1 Pet.ii. 19. 


“xowov. 15 et yap “dua *BpGpwa Oo aderpos cou ‘ruTe- 


v = Acts xvi. 4. xx. 16. 1 Cor. vii. 37. 2 Cor. ii. 1. w ch. ix. 33 (reff.). 


x = Matt. xvi. 23. 1Cor.i.23. Rev. ii.14. Ps. xlix. 21. y constr., ch. viii. 38 reff. z= Acts 
x. 14 reff. a see ch. ii. 27. ver. 20. 2 Cor. ii. 4. v. 7. b=ch. vi. 11. Phil. iii. 13. Wisd. 
xv. 15. c dat., = 1 Cor. iv. 3. d = John xy. 3. ch. xv. 15. 1 Cor. vii. 5. e Matt. 
xiv. 15 ||. Luke ili.11. 1Cor.x.3al. Hag. ii. 13. f Matt. xix. 22 ||. 2 Cor. ii. 2, &c., al. Sir. xxvi. 28. 


Ambrst aft adeA. cov (2nd) add ev Tw 08. rec for @eov, xpiorou (see note), with 
C2(appy)LN3 rel syrr goth Orig Chr Cyr Thdor-mops Thdrt Gennad Aug,(elsw, 
Domini): txt ABC!DFR?! am(with fuld harl mar tol) copt Damase Ruf(quod vero in 
presenti quidem loco tribunal Dei, ad Cor. vero tribunal Christi posuit, ego quidem 


puto nullam differentiam) Aug,. 
11. for ort, ec un D1F(G-lat has both). 


efowodoynoeTat bef tara yAwooa (so 


ixx-A) BD?-3F goth Ambrst Ruf Sedul: txt ACD?L®& rel vulg syr copt Chr Thdrt 


Damase Th] He Aug. 


12. om ovy BD!F: ins ACD3LN rel vss Chr Thdrt. 

atrodwoet: BD!F Chr: dwo0e1 ACD3LX rel Polye Chr-ms, Thdrt Thl 
om Tw dew BEF(Polyc) Cypr Aug, : 
om tposkoupa and 7 B Syr.—for 4, evs b! m n o Naz Chr-ms 


eav., avtou C, 
(Ee. 

13. xpiwere DIF. 
Cyr Antch. 

14. for kup., xpior» LD k mno. 
txt BCS dm Chr Damase Thl. 


vuwy C 116. for 


ins ACDLN rel Chr Thdrt Ambrst. 


for eavrov, avtov ADFL rel Thdrtexp, He: 


15. rec for yap, Se (see note), with 17 rel goth Chr Thdrt: txt ABCDFLX d m vulg 


syr-mg copt Damasc Ambrst Ruf Jer. 


ing his stronger brother; the strong, 
from despising the weaker. It seems 
probable that xpiorod has been sub- 
stituted for @cod in the later mss. from 
2 Cor. v. 10. The fact of Origen once 
citing it, decides nothing, in the presence 
of the expression Bjyaros Tod xpicrod in 
2 Cor. 11.] The citation is according 
to the present Alexandrine text, except that 
our (@ éyé = kat’ euavrod éuviw. 
é£ou. | shall praise, see reff. LXX-BX13a 
following the Heb. has éuetrat (dutta 8!) 
maga yA@ooa Toy Bedy(Kiptov R). 12.) 
The stress is on wept €avrod: and the next 
verse refers back to it, laying the emphasis 
on aAAfAous. ‘Seeing that our account to 
God will be of each man’s own self, let us 
take heed lest by judging one another 
(kptvopev here in the general sense of ‘ pass 
judgment on,’ including both the eéfou8evety 
of the strong and the «pivew of the weak) we 
incur the guilt of amoAAvew one another.’ 
13—23.] Exhortation to the strong 
to have regard to the conscientious scruples 


om 6 F. 


of the weak, and follow peace, not having 
respect merely to his own conscience, but 
to that of the other, which is his rule, and 
being violated leads to his condemnation. 
13.] See above. The second x«pi- 
vate is used as corresponding to the first, 
and is in fact a play on it: ‘pulchra mimesis 
ad id quod precedit,’ Bengel: see James 
ii. 4 for another instance:—but deter- 
mine this rather. mpdskoppa (see ver. 
21), an occasion of stumbling, in act: 
oxdvdaXoy (ib.), an occasion of offence, in 
thought. 14.] The general principle 
laid down, that nothing is by its own 
means,—i.e. for any thing in itself (pvce, 
Chrys.),—unelean, but only in reference 
to him who reckons it to be so. 
mémetop. év Kup. Ino.] These words give 
to the persuasion the weight, not merely 
of Paul’s own AoyiCouat, but of apostolic 
authority. He is persuaded, in his capacity 
as connected with Christ Jesus,—as having 
the mind of Christ. 15.] The reading 
yap, besides the overwhelming authority in 


11—19. 


IIPOS POMAIOTS. 


455 


> 4 eG eed g a \ ne , a aA cis 
TL, OVK ETL KATA ayaTnY © TepLTTaTEts. ft) TO © Bpw@pare § =ch- xiii. 12. 


Sie en be r CaN e \ > , 
cov éxeivoy » amrodXve, bTEp ov ypioTos améBaver. 
'Bracdnucicbw ody tudv * ro ayabov. 


1 Thess. iv. 
\ 12 al. fr. 
16 47) h = 1 Cor. viii. 
1l. xv. 18. 
James iy. 12. 


17 ? / ] > e 
OU YON COTM a races 


/, rat an a / . aoe 
™ Bacireta ToD ™ Geod " Bpdots Kal °moais, ANA P Suxaco- ‘=e 8 


, Vis ae \ q So eG s Ces 18 ¢ \ 
Ov’) Kab €LP)V) Kal Napa EV * TVEVLATL ayt@ 0 yap 


> / r / a A 

€v ToUT@ * dovAEV@Y TO YpLTTO 
“4 a 

‘ Soxtwos Tois avOpwrross. 


19 "doa “obv \ Ta THs eipnvns 


k = here only. 
(ch, ii. 10 
reff.) 


Sevdpectos TH Oem Kai 1% 1m xVi 


m = 1 Cor. iv. 


only. Gen. ii. 9 al. o John vi. 55. Col. ii. 16 only. Dan. i. 10 only. p absol., Acts 
xvil. 31 reff. 1Thess.i.6. _ v= Acts xx. 19 reff. s ch. xii. 1, 2 reff. 
t (=) ch. xvi. 10. 1 Cor. xi. 19. 2 Cor. x. 18. xiii. 7. 2 Tim. ii. 15. James i. 12 only. (1 Chron. xxviii. 18.) 


amoAve D3J,a h! k m n-marg: karadve n!: amoAAvey and kataAvew in ver 20 F(as latt). 


16. om ovy F goth arm. 
Damase Ambrst Ruf. 


nuwy DF vulg Syr copt goth eth Clem Ath-int 


18. rec tovtots (see note), with D3LN? rel syrr goth Chr Thdrt Tert: txt ABCD!FX! 


vulg coptt Orig Chr Damase Ambrst Rufexpr Aug, Pel Bede. 
AD'F: ins BCD’LX rel Chr Thdrt Damasc. 


115. 


its favour, is the more difficult and charac- 
teristic. It can hardly (as Meyer and Tho- 
luck) depend on the e wy «.7.A., for thus 
an awkwardness would be introduced into 
the connexion of the clauses: but I believe 
it to be elliptical, depending on the sup- 
pressed restatement of the precept of ver. 
13: q.d. ‘ But this knowledge is not to be 
your rule in practice, but rather,’ &c., as in 
ver.13: ‘forif, &e. Bpapa, barely put, 
to make the contrast greater between the 
slight occasion, and the great mischief 
done. The mere Avzety your brother, is 
an offence against love : how much greater 
an offence then, if this Avrezy end in amoA- 
Avew—in ruining (causing to act against 
his conscience, and so to commit sin and 
be in danger of quenching God’s Spirit 
within him) by a MEAt of thine, a brother, 
for whom Christ died! “ Ne pluris feceris 
tuum cibum, quam Christus vitam suam.” 
Bengel. See an exact parallel in 1 Cor. viii. 
TOS 16.| Your strength of faith 
(Orig., Calv., Beza, Grot., Estius, Bengel, 
Olsh., al., interpret 76 ay. ‘your freedom,’ 
as in 1 Cor. x. 29; but here the contrast is 
between the weak and the strong :—so De 
W. Chrys. leaves it doubtful: 4 thy 
miotw onotv, i) Thy péAAovoay éArida 
Tay éemdbrwy, 7) Thy annpTicouerny evoé- 
Beway) is a good thing ; let it not pass into 
bad repute: use it so that it may be 
honoured, and encourage others. 17.] 
For it is not worth while to let it be dis- 
graced and become useless for such a trifle ; 
for no part of the advance of Christ’s gospel 
can be bound up in, or consist in, meat and 
drink : but in righteousness (6 éevdperos 
Bios, Chrys., but of course to be taken in 
union with the doctrine of the former part 


om Tw [bef xpior. | 
for xp., ew B(Tischdf) 30. 


kat Soximots Tors avOpwros BG!-gr: Kae tows avOpwmors Soxiuors 77. 


of the Epistle—righteousness by justifica- 
tion,—bringing forth the fruits of faith, 
which would be hindered by faith. itself 
being disturbed), and peace (7 mpds rdy 
adeAHoy eiphyy, h evavTiodTa arn h pido- 
veixta, id.) and joy (4 ek Tis dpuovotas 
xapd, Hy avape? attn 7 emimAntis, id.) 
in the Holy Ghost: in connexion with, 
under the indwelling and influence of, as 
xalpere ev kuptw (Phil. iv. 4) and the ex- 
pressions év kup., €v xpioT@, generally :— 
not, as De W., ‘joy which has its ground 
in the Holy Ghost,’ though this is true. 
So, on the other hand, a man under the 
influence of, possessed by an evil spirit, is 
called &yOpwros ev mvevuatt aKabdpTo, 
Mark i. 23. 18.] The reading tovr@ 
is too strongly supported to be rejected for 
the rec. rodros, as is done by Thol. and 
De Wette, because the latter is the easier 
reading, and might refer to di. ep. and 
xap. I have therefore adopted it. But I 
do not understand it (as Orig., al.) of rvev- 
pat. ayl». It would be unnatural that a 
subordinate member of the former sen- 
tence, belonging only to xapd, should be at 
once raised to be the emphatic one in this, 
and the three graces just emphatically men- 
tioned, lost sight of. I believe rovrw to 
express the aggregate of the three, and év 
TovTw to be equivalent to oftws,as Baumg.- 
Crusius. 86k. T. avOp., as a man of 
peace and uprightness: ob yap ottw oc 
OavudoovTat Tis TEAELdTNTOS, ws TIS €iph- 
yns kK. THS Smovolas waytes: TovTov per: 
yap Tov Kadod mayTes GmodAavoorTal, 
éxelvov 5& ovdé cis. Chrys. Hom. xxvi. p- 
713. 19.] Inference from the fore- 
going two verses—oikod. T. eis GAX., edifi- 
cation towards one another, i. e. the 


456 


w ch. ix. 30, 31 
reff. 
x = Paul only, 


IIPO> POMAIOTS. 


XIV. 20—23. 


¢ © , fal r 
oe" 20 wn évexev ¥ Bpwmwatos * kaTddve TO *Epyov tod Oeod. 


1 Cor. (iii. 5) 
xiv. 3, &c. 
2 Cor. (vy. 1) 


( : : 
si eio pn. © Wposkoppatos é€oOiovts. 2 
iv. 29. (Matt. Sige tee ate ga f 
iv. Lal. olvov [A 
Ezek. xvii. ya a : Ee Pe ) ; é § 
oe as, 1 * cxavoanriterat 1) | dobever. 
z=Matt. \ x ” res a A 
xxv.2xxvi, 1KaTa GeauTOV EXE ™Ev@TLOY TOD Beod. 
e Acts 
v. 38. 2 Cor. v.1. Gal. ii.18. Ezra v. 12. a = Phil. i. 6. 
d= Matt. xviii. 8. 1 Cor. vii.1, &c. 1 Tim. ii.3. Gen. ii. 18. 
fch.ii.1. 1 Pet. ii. 12. g ch. ix. 32 reff. 


8. xxxv. (xxxii.) 15 only. i vv. 1,2. 


h = Matt. xv. 12. 
ch. iy. 19 reff. 


TavTa pev Kabapd, aA KaKov TO avOpoTT@ TO ” bia 


14 karov TO wn hayeiv © Kpéa 


{Vv @ 0 adedhos cou * TposKoTTEL 


99 
aw 


ov * riotw [av] * éxes( 5] 
pakaplos 6 1) 


b = ch.ii. 27 reff. c ver. 13. 
e 1 Cor. viii. 13 only. Gen. ix. 4 al. fr. 
1 Cor. viii. 13 (bis) al. fr. Sir. ix.5. xxiii. 


k Acts xiv. 9 reff. 1 Heliodor. 


vii. 16. (De W.) €xevvOer k. Kata GavTov Exe K.undevi Ppace, Jos. Antt. ii. 11.1. see Acts xxviii. 16 reff. 


m — ch. xii. 17. Acts iy. 19 reff. 


19. diwxouey ABFLN a o Chr-ms: txt CD rel vss gr-lat-ff. 


pey DF vulg(not demid) lat-ff(not Aug). 
20. amodaAve NR}. 
21. kpeas D? m. 

N}(txt N-corr’). 


at end add pvAatw- 


aft ka@apa ins Tos Kabapois X. 
mvewv F Clem: mew B'D}, 
om 7 cKavdarr(. 7 acbever ACR! Syr copt «2th Damase Ruf 


for mposkomre:, Avre:tat 


Aug: ins BDF LN? rel vulg syr Bas, Chr Thdrt Thl Ambrst Pel. 
22. rec om ny, with DFL rel vulg syrr copt Chr Thdrt Ambrst Aug,: ins ABCX fuld 


tol Ruf Aug, Pel. 
epkin‘o 17: 


work of edification, finding its exercise in 
our mutual intercourse and allowances. So 
TH ayann eis GAA., 1 Thess. iii. 12. 

20.| to Epyov t. Beod has been variously 
understood: by Fritz. and Baumg.-Crusius, 
as = bixatoc. eipnyn, Kk. xapa: by Meyer 
and Krehl, as =the Christian status of 
the offended brother, so as to be parallel 
to ver. 15: by Theodoret and Reiche, as = 
the faith of thy fellow- Christian : by Mo- 
rus, Rosenm., al., as = 7 BaoiAcla Tod 0., 
‘ the spread of the Gospel.” But I believe 
the expression oixodou4 having just pre- 
ceded is the clue to the right meaning: 
and that 7d épyov = thy oikodouqy in the 
Apostle’s mind. He calls Christians in 
1 Cor. iil. 9, @e00 yedpytov, Beod oikodouh. 
Thus it will mean, thy fellow- Christian, as 
a plant of God’s planting, a building of 
God’s raising. So, nearly, De Wette and 
Tholuck. All things indeed are pure, 
but (it is) evil to the man (‘there is cri- 
minality in the man;’ Meyer. supplies 
7) Kabapdy, Grot. 7d Bpdua, Fritz. 7d 
mdvra payeiv: but nothing need be sup- 
plied, any more than to caddy) who eats 
with offence (i.e. giving offence to his 
weak brother, as Theodoret, Calv., Beza, 
Grot., Estius, Bengel, Thol., De Wette, al. 
That this is the right interpretation is 
shewn by the sentence standing between 
two others Loth addressed to the strong 
who is in danger of offending the weak. 
But Chrys., Theophyl, (c., Meyer, al., 
take the sense of ‘ receiving offence,’ and 
understand it of the weak). 21.) It 
is good not to eat meats nor to drink 
wine, nor (to do any thing: the ellipsis is 
a harsh one. Fritzsche says, “aut supple 


rec (for ceav.) cavtoy, with rel: ceavtw F: txt ABCDLN 
om evwrioy Tov eov X'(ins X-corr?). 


gaye } mety TodTo, ev @ x.7.A., as Thl., 
Beng., Flatt, al.—or zoey [or mpdc- 
cew | TovTo ev @ k.T.A., as Grot., Meyer, &e. 
Preefero illud, quoniam per totum hune 
locum de cibo potuque agitur.” But why 
should not the Apostle, as so often, be de- 
ducing a general duty from the particular 
subject ?) in (by) which thy brother stum- 
bles, or is offended (see on ver. 13), or is 
weak (Thol. remarks that the three verbs 
from a climax ad infra). 22.| The 
faith which thou hast (this reading, which 
is the more probable on critical grounds, 
was perhaps changed into the od mlorw 
éxeis of the rec. on account of the position 
of the oJ. But this is quite in St. Paul’s 
manner: cf. ver. 4; 1 Cor. xv. 36; 2 Cor. 
ii. 10. However, the other reading is 
very ancient, and it is impossible to de- 
cide positively between them. If it is 
taken, the interrogative rendering, “Hast 
thou faith?” better suits the lively cha- 
racter of the address than the affirmative, 
“Thou hast faith”) have [it] to thy- 
self (reff.) before God. Chrys., who does 
not read the last words (év. 7. @.), says, 
miotiw éevtaida ov thy mept Soypudrar’, 
GAAG Thy wept THs TpoKeimerns brobecews 
Aéyer..., exelvn pev yap ph duodroyou- 
hévn Katactpepet, atitn Se duodoyoumevn 
axalpws. Hom. xxvi. p. 714. ‘ Before 
God,’—because He is the object of faith: 
hardly, as Erasm., “comprimens inanem 
gloriam que solet esse comes scientia,’’— 
for there is no trace of a depreciation of 
the strong in faith in the chapter,—only a 
caution as to their conduct in regard of 
their weaker brethren. With paxdpios 
begins the closing and general sentence of 


VW SioKwomev Kal YTa THS *olKObouAS THS els GAANAOUS. ABCD 
1) 47) 1) UT] 


FL a | 
edf gl 
kimn 
ol7 


Mid; 2. 


n / € Shae fee e 
KPlW@vV EQAUTOV EV @ 


ovx 'éx TrigTews, apapTia éoTiv. 
ec aA Ch at 5 \ \ u 2 fa , a < aS , Pp 
nuelts of *dvvatol ta “acbeviywata tov VY ddvvdtov "x. 
W Baotavew Kai pur *éavtois ¥ apéoxew. 
Z fal Z : / y > , a > \ a > ‘ \ b > 4 
TO * TAnolov Y apeckéTw * els TO *aya0ov Tpos ” oiKoSomunp. 


iii. 18. 

= 2 Cor. xiii. 9. 
viii. 17, Gal. vi. 2. 
reff. a ch, xiii. 4 reff, 


r ellips., ch. ii. 8 reff, 
u here only +. 


28. av B. 


IITPO> POMAIOT®. 


° Soxipater. 
2X , q , 7 b) r2 / 2 n de a0 
€av payn KATQAKEKPLTAL, OTL OUK “€K THLOTEWS* WAV OE ODO 3. 


x Ist pers., 2 Cor, iii. 1 reff. 
b = ch. xiv. 19 reff. 


457 


9 c \ , =vy 
23-6 dé P duaxpivopevos * x4" > 4 
1Cor. xvi. 
2 Cor. viii. 
8. 1 Thess. 
ii. 4. Jos. 
Antt. iii. 4.1. 
= Matt. xxi. 
Acts x. 
20. ch. iy. 20. 
James i. 6}. 
(Jer. xv. 10.) 
q ch. ii. 1 reff. 
(perf., ch. 
xii. 8. John 
Acts xvii. 29 al. 
w ch, xi. 18 reff. Matt. 
z ch, xiii. 9, 10 


XV. 1 Sodeinopev Se 
9 c a 
2 Exaotos wav 


s = Luke xvii. 10. 
y Acts xiv. 8 reff. 
y ch. viii. 8 reff, 


John xiii. 14. xix. 7. 


for 8, ro D! m 71. — om may to motews (homeotel) &} (ins X-corr’). 


aft awaptia eorw ins ch xvi. 25—27 AL rel and most other mss(nearly 200 in 
number) syr goth arm-zoh, of these A 5. 17. 109 have it in both places: om in both 
places F(but in G there is a space left here and in F a space at xvi. 24): txt BCD 
16. 80. 137-76 vulg Syr copt 2th Ambrst Ruf Pel Bede. 


Cap. XV. 1. apecroy F. 


2. rec aft exaoros ins yap: om ABCDFLX rel vulg syr copt Bas Chr Thdrt Damase 


Thl Ge Ambrst Ruf. 


&-corr!). 


the Apostle with regard to doth: itis a 
blessed thing to have no scruples (the 
strong in faith is in a situation to be 
envied) about things in which we allow 
ourselves (Olsh. refers to the addition in 
the Codex Beze at Luke vi. 4,—where our 
Lord is related to have seen a man tilling 
his land on the Sabbath, and to have said to 
him, €i mév oidas Ti molets, wakdpuos el, ef 5€ 
ph oldas, émikatdpatos, kal mapaBarns «i 
Tov vouov): 23.] but he that doubteth 
(the situation just described not being 
his), he incurs condemnation if he eat 
(the case in point particularized), because 
(he eats) not from faith (i. e. as before,—see 
Chrys. above,—from a persuasion of recti- 
tude grounded on and consonant with his 
life of faith. That ‘faith in the Son of 
God’ by which the Apostle describes his 
own life in the flesh as being lived (Gal. ii. 
20), informing and penetrating the motives 
and the conscience, will not include, will 
not sanction, an act done against the testi- 
mony of the conscience): but (introducing 
an axiom, as Heb. viii. 13) all that is not 
from (grounded in, and therefore consonant 
with) faith (the great element in which the 
Christian lives and moves and desires and 
hopes), is sin. Augustine, Thomas Aqui- 
nas, al., have taken this text as shewing 
that ‘ omnis infideliuin vita peccatum est.’ 
Whether that be the case or not, cannot be 
determined from this passage, any more 
than from Heb. xi. 6, because neither here 
nor there is the ‘infidelis’ in question. 
Here the Apostle has in view two Chris- 
tians, both living by faith, and by faith 


- vyov D?F rel vulg Bas Chr Thdrt Damase Thl Ruf 
Pel Jer Leo: txt ABCD'3LX dh kn 17 syrr copt. 


om es To ayafoy NX} (ins 


doing acts pleasing to God: and he re- 
minds them that whatever they do out of 
harmony with this great principle of their 
spiritual lives, belongs to the category of 
sin. In Heb. xi. the Writer is speaking of 
one who had the testimony of having (emi- 
nently) pleased God : this, he says, he did 
by faith ; for without faith it is impossible 
to please Him. The question touching the 
‘infidelis,’ must be settled by another en- 
quiry, can he whom we thus name have 
Jaith,—such a faith as may enable him to 
do acts which are not sinful? a question 
impossible for ws to solve. 

Cuap. XV. 1—18.] Further exhorta- 
tions to forbearance towards the weak, 
Srom the example of Christ (1—3),—and 
unanimity (4d—7) as between Jew and 
Gentile, seeing that Christ was pro- 
phetically announced as the common 
Saviour of both (8—13). 1.] By 
jets of Suv. the Apostle includes himself 
among the strong, as indeed he before 
indicated, ch. xiv. 14. 7. aoO. are 
general, not merely referring to the 
scruples before treated. apéoketv 
(reff.) to please or satisfy as a habit or 
motive of action. Tholuck quotes from 
the Schol. on Asch. Prom. 156, zap’ 
€avT@ Sikav exwy Zevs,—rdvra dicalws 
oiduevos Troseiy, avTOS EaVTG apéaKwv Kal 
Sikaov voulCwy ecivar Onep by BovAntau 
pare. 2.| The qualification, eis 
Td ay. mpds oik., excludes all mere pleasing 
of men from the Christian’s motives of 
action. The Apostle repudiates it in his 
own case, Gal. i. 10. Bengel remarks, 


458 


ec constr., 1 Cor. 
i. 31. see 


/ eae} 3 / 
éTeEgaV ET EME. 


e Psa. Ixviii. 9. 


IPOZ POMAIOT®S. 


XV. 


\ \ c \ > e ” a > Ly \ 
3 Kal yap 0 xplaTos ovy EauT@ Yipecev, “adda Kalas 
, id d > 8 A lal e , 5 ’ f > 
yéyparrtat Oi *ovevdicpot tav © ovedifovTwv ce ‘ér- 
4 60a yap ®ipoeypadn ets thy jpe- 
/ PS) 5 U > / Cs } \ fol 5 bee nr ‘ 
tépay SidacKxadiav éypadn, iva ova Tijs ‘vTomovyns Kat 


Matt. v. 11 \ Bs % a A \ ” 
a Prov. Gua THS ¥ wapakhijcews TOV |ypapov Ti éhTida Exope. 
Acts ey | e \ a 7) 1c a \ a - / 

Facer, 2 6 6€ Beds THS i vropovits Kal THS * Tapakdyjoews 
Acts viii. 16 ; ree ree ee : 4 _ ; a 
gall. | axoe, dan vuty ™TO avTo ™ dpovetv Ev aXXijAoLs ” KATA YpLOTOV 

> Gal. iii > a . e \ b (ru ts , , 

g Gantt,  "Incobv, © va ° duoOvpadov Pév evi Paotopate 1 d0EatnTe 
Jude 4donlyt. _y r x \or L A / Coe ? a a 
Esdr.vi3l TOV 'Oeov Kal 'TaTépa Tov Kupiov nuav ‘Inaovd ypLoToD. 
F(7posyp- z 5) , \ 
catia 510 SmpostauBaverGe adrjdovs, Kabas Kal O ypLOTOS 

h objective, 

: Beelous: see ch. xi. 31. 1 Cor. xv. 31. i ch. ii. 7 reff. k = 2 Cor. i. 3, &c., al. Ps. xciii. 19. 

1 plur., Acts xvii. 2 reff. m ch. xii. 16 reff. n ch. viii. 27. 2 Cor. vii. 9—11. o Acts 

i. 14 reff. pch.x.9only. Ps. Ixxxviii. 1. q = Acts xxi. 20 reff. r Paul (2 Cor. 
i. 3. xi. 31. Eph.i.3. Col. i. 3) only, exc. 1 Pet.i. 3, Rey. i. 6. see 1 Cor. xv. 24. Gal. i. 4. s = Acts 


xxviii. 2 reff. ch. xiv. 1. 


8. om 6 D'F. 


rec ememecov (as LXX-Ed-vat), with L rel: txt (as 2xx-BN: 
A def ) ABCDFX (g!?) 1 mn 17 Damase. 
4. xposeypapn DIF: eypapn B latt eth: txt ACD®LX rel. 


add zavra Bm 17. 


rec (for eypadn) mpoeypadn, with ALN? rel syr Chr Thdrt Damase Thl, Ee: 


txt BCDFN! vulg Syr copt goth «th Clem Thl, Ambrst Aug,. 


rec om 2nd é:a, 


with DF vulg syr copt goth Chr Thdrt,(and elsw-ms,) Thl (Ee Ambrst Aug Oros: ins 


ABCLNX b df gn Thdrt,. 


aft exwuey ins Tns TapakAnoews B. 


5. ino. bef xp. AC!F(not G-lat) 8 m vulg syrr Did Thdrt Ambrst. 


‘bonum, genus, edificatio, species :’—to a 
good end, and that good end his edification. 
8.] ekjy abT@ ph dvedicOjvar, ekjv mh 
mabeiy Gmep mabey, etye HOcAe TH EavTOD 
okoTretv’ GAN buws ovK nOEAnTEY, GAAG TH 
iérepov okomnoas Td éavTov Tapetde, 
Chrys. Hom. xxvii. p. 721. The cita- 
tion is made directly, without any thing 
to introduce the formula citandi, as in ch. 
ix. 7, where even the formula itself is want- 
ing :—there is no ellipsis. The words 
in the Messianic Psalm are addressed to 
the Father, not to those for whom Christ 
suffered : but they prove all that is here 
required, that He did not please Himself ; 
His sufferings were undertaken on account 
of the Father’s good purpose—mere work 
which He gave Him to do. 4.) The 
Apostle both justifies the above citation, 
and prepares the way for the subject to be 
next introduced, viz. the duty of unanimity, 
grounded on the testimony of these Scrip- 
tures to Christ. The 60a mpoeyp. applies 
to the whole ancient Scriptures, not to 
the prophetic parts only. Hyper. viz. of 
us Christians,—mpoeyp. implying mpd jar. 
tva Sia +r. tr. x.7.A.] rovréatiy, 

iva ph e«mécwpmev: TroxlAot yap of ayaves 
éowbev, tEwbev' Iva vevpodmevor Kk. mapa- 
KaAovmevor mapa Tav ypapay brouovhy 
emidertoucda’ va ev tromovi CavtTes pé- 
vomev eri tis €Amidos. TatTa yap GAATAwY 
eon) KaTacKevaoTiKd, 1) UTOMOV)) THS eATl- 
Bos, } eAmls THs Uromovas: Gmrep aupdrepa 
amd tav ypapav ylvera, Chrys. ubi 


supra. As in this comment, vmoporis, 
as well as mapakAjoews, is to be joined 
with téyv ypapay,—otherwise it stands 
unconnected with the subject of the 
sentence. The genitives then mean, the 
patience and the comfort arising from 
the Scriptures,—produced by their study. 

5, 6.] Further introduction of the 
subject, by a prayer that God, who has 
given the Scriptures for these ends, might 
grant them unanimity, that they might 
with one accord shew forth His glory. 
In the title given to God, the bropnovy 
and mapaxAnots just mentioned are taken 
up again: q. d. The God who alone can 
give this patience and comfort.” The 
later form of the opt., d¢7, is also found 
2 Tim. i. 16, 18; Eph. i. 17 al., m LXX 
Gen. xxvii. 28; xxviii. 4 al. See Winer, 
edn. 6, § 14. 1. g. Kata xp. Incody, 
according to (the spirit and precepts of) 
Christ Jesus,—see reff. 6. tov 
Qedv k. mat.] De Wette regards rdy bedy 
as independent of *Incot xp..—‘* God, and 
the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. 
The usage of the article will not decide 
the matter, because on either rendering, 
the accusatives both refer to the same 
Person: but the ordinary one, the God 
and Father .... is preferable on account 
of its simplicity. 7.| Wherefore 
(on which account, viz. that the wish of 
the last verse may be accomplished) re- 
ceive (see ch. xiv. 1) one another, as also 
Christ received you,—with a view to 


ABCD 
FLN a 
cdfg 
klm1 
o1l7 


3—11. 


*aposekaBeTo tpuds, “els So€av Tod Oeod. 


IIPOY POMAIOTS. 


459 
8 Neyo yap t ch. xiv. 3, 


and as above 


\ / an a \ 
xXplatov ‘ Siaxovoy yeyeviabas trepitopys * brép adnOelas wy ii.7 rome 


fa) > an lal 
eod * eis TOY BeBadoar Tas * érayyeNlas TOY * TaTépwr, 
nt yh |e / 
97a dé EOvn iép » éd€ovs I80Edcat Tov Oedv, Kabers 
fe A \ a c2 / / b) 2) # 
yeypamtat Ata tovto ° éEoporoyjcopal cor év &Ovecu, 


\ A : 4 / d a 
Kab T® ovowati cov “Wade. 


/ a fa) a 
gdpavOnte eOvn peta To aod avTod. 
a absol., Acts vii. 19 reff. 


lii. 16. 
reff. Psa. xvii. 49. 
e = Gal. iii. 16. see 1 Cor. vi. 16. 


v see Gal. ii. 17. 
WwW = Phils ids. 
x ch. iv. 11 reff. 
y Mark xvi. 20. 


1 Cor. i. 6, 8. 
Cor. i, 21 
Col. ii. 7 
10 ‘ ; i f i eb. ii. 3. 
e xili. 9. Ps 
Kal Tadty °reyer f Ku- ito Ps 
\ U 28 only. 
Wl Kal mado och ix. b 
(iv. 13.) Gal. 
; b ch. xi. 31 reff. ce ch, xiy. 11 
d 1 Cor. xiy. 15 (bis). Eph. v.19. James y,13 only. 1 Kings xyi. 16. 


f Acts vii. 41 reff. Dru. xxxii. 43. 


7. ree quas, with BD! rel wth Thdrt: txt ACD?-3FLN bc g 2? mno 17 syrr copt 


goth arm Chr Ambrst Ruf. 


rec om Tov, with L rel Chr Thdrt: ins ABCDFX m. 


8. rec (for yap) de (see note), with L rel syrr Chr Thdrt: txt ABCDFN vulg copt 


goth Cyr Ambrst Ruf. 


rec ins ingowy bef xpiorov, with DF harl syrr; aft xp. L 


rel vulg goth Thdrt, Thl Cc lat-ff: om ABCN b o copt Ath Epiph Chr-comm Cyr 


Damase Ambrst Ruf. 
Epiph Chr Cyr Thdrt Damase. 


9. for rovro, Tov mpopytov N!(txt N-corr!). 


ov. o. DG. 


God’s glory (that this is the meaning of 
eis Sdéav Tov cov, appears by ver. 9, Ta 5é 
€0vn brép ed€ovs Sokacar Tov Vedv). 

The Apostle does notexpressly name Jewish 
and Gentile converts as those to whom he 
addresses this exhortation, but it is evident 
from the next verse that it is so. 8.] 
For (reason for the above exhortation. 
This not having been seen, it has been 
altered to 5€) I say, that Christ hath been 
made (has come as: the effects still en- 
during. It can hardly be that the usual 
historical aorist yevéo@a [see var. readd. | 
was altered to the unusual perfect yeye- 
vijo0ct. The tendency of correction was 
entirely the other way) a minister (He 
came diaxovjoc, Matt. xx. 28) of the cir- 
cumcision (an expression no where else 
found, and doubtless here used by Paul to 
humble the pride of the strong, the Gen- 
tile Christians, by exalting God’s covenant 
people to their true dignity) on account of 
the truth of God (i.e. for the fulfilment of 
the Divine pledges given under the cove- 
nant of circumcision) to confirm the pro- 
mises of (made to, gen. obj.; cf. 7 edAoyia 
tov “ABpadu, Gal. iii. 14) the fathers 
(i. e. Christ came to the Jews in virtue of a 
long-sealed compact, to the fulfilment of 
which God’s truth was pledged): but (I 
say) that the Gentiles glorified God (or 
‘should glorify God :’ Winer, in his former 
editions, § 45. 8, took it as a perfect, and 
co-ordinate with yeyevjc@a: I would re- 
gard it [and so, apparently, Winer now, 
edn. 6, § 44. 7. c] as the historic aorist, 
and understand ‘each man at his con- 
version. Least of all can it be sub- 
ordinated to eis 7d, as is done in E. V.) on 


yeveoOa (corrm?) BC'D'F c Ath: txt AC?D3LN rel 


om ka NX}. Warw bef tw 


account of (His) mercy (the emphasis is 
on bmép éAéous: the Gentiles have no cove- 
nant promise to claim,—they have nothing 
but the pure mercy of God in grafting them 
in to allege—therefore the Jew has an ad- 
vantage), &e. The citations are from 
the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms. 
The first, originally spoken by David of his 
joy after his deliverances and triumphs, is 
prophetically said of Christ in His own 
Person. It is adduced to shew that among 
the Gentiles Christ’s triumphs were to take 
place, as well as among the Jews. 

10.| Kat mad. Ayer, viz. 7 ypap7h, or 6 beds, 
which is in substance the same: not im- 
personal: see ref. 1 Cor., note. The 
present Heb. text of Deut. xxxii. 43 will 
not bear this, which is the LXX render- 
ing. But Tholuck remarks, “ According 
to the present text the difficulty arises, that 
we must either take oa of the Jewish 
tribes, or construe p27 with an accus., in- 
stead of with } (Gesen.): the reading of 
the LXX may therefore be right.” There 
is however a reading jy-nx found in one 
and perhaps another of Kennicott’s Mss. 
which will bear the rendering of our text. 
In several passages where the Gentiles are 
spoken of prophetically, the Hebrew text 
has apparently been tampered with by the 
Jews. See Kitto’s Journal of Sacred Lite- 
rature for January, 1852, pp. 275 ff. 

11, 12.] The universality of the praise to 
be given to God for His merciful kindness 
in sending His Son is prophetically indi- 
cated by the first citation. Inthe lattera 
more direct announcement is given of the 
share which the Gentiles were to have in 


460 


rhere only. | [€éyer] fAlvetre mayta Ta evn Tov ‘KvpLoV, Kal © errat- ABC 
, ' 5 aA , th , 12 \ ' c a FLN : 
vecatwoay avTov TravTes of "aol. 1° Kati wadw “Hoaias c at; 

, ” Ca cae, n> / Ven , klm 
Neyer “Eotar n i pifa Tov ‘leccai, Kai o *avictapevos o11 


Psa. cxvi. 
(elsw., Oeov, 
Acts il. 47 
reff.) 

g Luke xvi. 8. 
1 Cor. xi. 2, 


TIPO> POMAIOTS. 


XV. 


136 b€ 


7 99 - lal > fal cl . 
zeny. 1 Gove €Ovav, ™ém ad’T@ €Ovn ™ EXmLOvaLY. 
12 (1). n , con ’ = 

nplur acts Oeog THs E€AmLOOs “TANPwWTAL Uuas °TacNsS yYapas Kal 
iv. 25 5 ty, > A , b] \ , © oi > a 
ove eipnuns Pev T@ TLoTEvEL, 1 Els TO" FEPLTTEVEW ULAS EV TH 
vu. 9. x. 11 >: 1) s2 8 re , cays 
xi. 9. xvii EATTLOL ~ EV UVVAp[LEL TTVEVLATOS aylou. 
15. 


i Isa. xi. 1, 10. 
see Rey. vy. 5. 
xxii. 16. 

k = Heb. vii. 
11, 15 and, 


butact., Acts TAMpwpevor ° Taons [THs] 


iii. 22 (from 


, b] 4 ‘ \ \ 
14 tTTévrevouar 5é, adeXpot pov, Kab avTos éyw TrEpl 

r a « \ | 
vuov OTe Kal avTol “pectot éote Y aya0wavvns, ™ Te- 


wW , 5 , \ 
YV@CEWS, UVVAPLEVOL Kab 


Deut. xviii. 7 Z x oye lo y : : 4 vv 
15), 26. aXdijrovs = * voubeTEtv ToApnpoTepov Oe &yparra 
1= Mark x.42 e a 5 / gs aA oo , c a2 sf oe 
only. Gen. Upev[, AdEAPOL,| * aro * WEPOUS, WS * ETAVaLLULYNTKOY UMAS 
i. 26, 28 al. 
m constr., Fe , 
1 Tim. iv. 10. vi. 17. Ps. xxi. 5. dat. only, Matt. xii. 21. w. €7e and acc.,1 Tim.v.5. 1 Pet. i.13 (iii.5 rec.). w. €ts, 
John v. 45. 2 Cor. i. 10. 1 Pet. iii. 5. n Acts xiii. 52 reff. o == Acts xx. 19 reff. p = Acts 
iv. 30 reff. q ch. iv. 11 reff. rch, iii. 7 reff. Sir. xix. 24. s ch. i. 4 reff. 
t constr., ch. viii. 38 reff. u ch. i. 29 reff. v Gal. v. 22. Eph. v. 9. 2 Thess.i. ll only. Neh. 
ix. 35, w = 1 Cor. i. 5 al. fr. x Acts xx. 31 reff. y here only +. Polyb. i. 17.7, 


TOAUNpOTEpoY eyxeLpery ToLs Tpaywact. (-pds, Sir. xix. 2, 3.) 


z ch. xi. 25 reff. a here only t. 


11. ins Aeyee BDF syrr copt goth eth Jer: om ACLX rel vulg Chr Thdrt Damase 


Thl ec Ambrst Bede. 


rec Tov kup. bef m. ta €Ovn (corrn to LXX, where none 


read as in txt), with CFL rel Syr Thl Ge: txt ABDR vulg syr goth arm Chr Thdrt. 
rec eraveoate (so LXX-Ed-vat[B def] 884 fe), with DFL rel Chr Thdrt: txt 


(so LxX-AXN') ABCX Chr-ms, Damasc. 
12. Aeye: bef noaas &. 


aviatavomevos & (see digest ch xii. 8). 


13. wAnpohopynra vuas [add ev B] racn xapa x. eipnvn BF. : txt ACDLX rel. 


om eis To Tepioceve (homeotel) B 57. 
Vig. 


om ev [bef rn eAmd:} D'F Chr-mss 


14. k. a. €. 7. uu. bef adeAdo: pou DF Syr Thdrt.—om pov D!F Thdrt Ambrst. 


for rept, urep B. 
F vulg Ambrst Pel. 
BX kn Clem: om ACDFL rel. 


om Kat avrot DF Chr-comm. 
ins kat bef wemAnpwpevo: DF hal?! Syr. 


for ayafwourns, ayarns 
ins Tns 


adAnAous bef Suvawevoe. and om ca D!:3FP. 


for aAAna., addous L rel vulg syrr Chr Thdrt Thl @e Ruf: txt ABCDFR 


(f?). 
15. toAunpotepws AB: txt CDFLX rel. 


Aug Ruf: ins DFLN® rel vulg Syr Thdrt Ambrst. 


the root of Jesse. The version is that of 
the LXX, which here differs considerably 
from the Heb. The latter is nearly literally 
rendered in E, V.: “ And in that day there 
shall be a root (Heb. ‘and it shall happen in 
that day, a branch’) of Jesse, which shall 
stand for an ensign of the people: to it 
shall the Gentiles seek.” 13.] The 
hortatory part of the Epistle, as well as the 
preceding section of it (ver. 5), concludes 
with a solemn wish for the spiritual wel- 
fare of the Roman church. The words 
THs éAmriSos connect with éAmovor of the 
foregoing verse, as was the case with rijs 
bropovijs kK. THS TapakAnogews in ver. 5. 
xapas x. elpyvys, as the happy result of 
fuith in God, and unanimity with one 
another ; see ch. xiv. 17. 

XV. 14—XVI. 27.] CONCLUSION 
OF THE EPISTLE. PrERsoNAL No- 
TICES, RESPECTING THE APOSTLE HIM- 


om adeAgor ABCN? copt «eth Chr Cyr 
for evavay., avapiuynokoy B: 


SELF (xv. 14—33),—RESPECTING THOSE 
GREETED (xvi. 1—16), AND GREETING: 
TOGETHER WITH WARNINGS AGAINST 
THOSE WHO MADE DIVISIONS AMONG 
THEM (xvi. 16—23) ;—aND CONCLUDING 
DOXOLOGY (xvi. 2427), 14—33. ] 
He first (14—16) excuses the boldness of 
his writing, by the allegation of his office 
as Apostle of the Gentiles. 14.) avtés 
éyo, I myself, = ‘idem,’ Lat.,—‘ notwith- 
standing what I have written :’ see ch. vii. 
25, note. Meyer understands it, ‘ without 
information from others: Bengel and 
Olsh., ‘ Imyself, as well as others? Riick- 
ert, ‘I not only wish it (ver. 13), but am 
persuaded for myself that it is so. 
Kal avroi, ye also yourselves, i. e. with- 
out exhortation of mine. 15.] awd 
oe restricts the toAunpdérepoy to cer- 
ain parts of the Epistle, e. g. ch. xi. 17, ff. 


25; chaps. xiii. and xiv. éypawa, the 


12—18. 


IIPO> POMAIOTS. 


461 


>Sia THY ° yap Tiv °do0cicdv pot Ud TOD Deod 18 4 Ely »=<2h- xiv. 15 


ec 1 Cor. i. 4reff. 


\ ? / d \ lal ’ lal e , X\ yA 
TO eval ge “AetToupyov ypiotod “Inaod “els TA EOVN, dich. aii. 6 rest 


e a a lal 
fiepoupyovvra TO ® evayyédiov Tod & Deod, 


e 


k >? 7 e / 
€V TVEULATL ayio. 


h \ lal al na i by / by ieee € / 
» “aposhopa tav eOvdv ‘ ebrrpdsdextos, * ayytacpévn 
Wléya ody tiv ™ Kavynow év 


Py , e = Col. i. 25. 

f here only +. 
wa yevnTat see notes. 

g Marki. l4, 
(Acts xx, 24.) 
ch. i. 1. 

2 Cor. xi. 7. 
1 Thess. ii. 2, 


an ? an \ \ N “4 > X / ; Ti 
n . 18 e) 8,9. (1 Tim, 
XPLoT@ Inaovd Ta 7 pos TOV Oeov OU yap TOALNOW i 11.) 1 Pet’ 
0 ~ p e > q , \ 5 > 9 Ai pls iv. 17 only. 
Tb NaXetv @V OU KATELDYACATO XPLaTOS t €{LOU ELS h Acts xxi. 
26. xxiv. 
17. Eph. y.2. Heb. x. 5 (from Ps. xxxix. 6), &c., only. iver. 31. 2 Cor. vi. 2. viii. 12.- 1 Pet. 
ii. 5 only t. k (and constr.) John xvii. 17,19. 1Cor.i.2. Heb. x. 10,29. Isa. x. 17. 11 Cor. 
xv. 31. m ch. iii. 27 reff. n Luke xiv. 32. Acts xxviii. 10. Heb. ii. 17. y. 1. 
o Phil. i. 14. see 2 Mace. iv. 2. p attr., Acts xxi. 19. 1 Cor. vii. 1. 2 Cor. xii. 17. Heb. v. 8. Winer, 


edn. 6, } 24. 2, end. q ch. ii. 9 reff. 


UTavam. 0. 
16. for ena, yeverOar DIF. 


yevndy B. 


r ch. i. 5 (reff.). 


for uro, aro BF! Damasc: txt ACDLN3 rel. 

ree ino. bef xp., with DL rel Syr copt Chr Cyr, 
Thdrt: txt ABCFN m vulg syr Orig Cyr, Thdrt Aug. 
om evmposdextos F Fulg. 


om es Ta €6yn B. 


17. rec om tnv (the art not being understood), with ALN rel Chr Thdrt : ins BCDF 


m 


: rec om toy, with b: ins ABCDFLN® rel Did Chr Cyr Damase Thdrt Ce. 
18. for ToAunow, ToAuw BN* latt Did Dial-trin Cyr(in Thdrt) Thdrt, lat-ff. 


rec AaAew bef 7, with L rel copt He: txt ABCDFN m Bas Ath Did Archel. Chr Cyr 


Thdrt—for AaAew, exrewy DF Cyr: Aeyew and AadAnoa gr-ff. 
aft 5: euov add Aoywy B. 


ins o bef xpioros F. 


dabam or scribebam of the Latins in episto- 
lary writing. @s émray. vp., aS put- 
ting you anew in remembrance. 

dua T.xapi.... ,on account of the grace, 
&c.; i.e. ‘my apostolic office was the 
ground and reason of my boldness :’—not 
= 81a THs XapiTos ch. xii. 3. 16. | That 
I might be (<is rd gives the purpose of the 
grace being given, not of the éypapa) a 
ministering priest of Christ Jesus for 
(in reference to) the Gentiles, ministering 
in the Gospel of God (fepoupyotvra, mpos- 
pépovta Ouclay, Hesych.: but the evayyéa. 
7. Geod is not the @vola, but signifies that 
wherein, in behoof of which, the fepoupyety 
took place: so Josephus, de Mace. § 7, 
speaking of the martyrs for the law, says, 
To.ovTous det elvar Tos LepovpyouvTas Tov 
vopov (die aluari, Kal yevvaty pari 
Tois mexpt Saratov madecow sbmepacTi- 
Covras), that the offering of the Gen- 
tiles (gen. of apposition: the Gentiles 
themselves are the offering ; so Theophy]l. 
alTn mot icpwotvn, TO KaTayyéAAew evary- 
yéAtov. pdxaipuy exw toy Adyor" Evata 
éoré duets) may be acceptable, sanctified 
by the Holy Ghost. The language is evi- 
dently figurative, and can by no possibility 
be taken as a sanction for any view of the 
Christian minister as a sacrificing priest, 
othefwise than according to that figure— 
viz. that he offers to God the acceptable 
sacrifice of those who by his means believe 
on Christ. “ Facit se antistitem vel sacer- 
dotem in Evangelii ministerio, qui populum, 
quem Deo acquirit, in sacrificium offerat, 
atque hoc modo sacris Evangelii mysteriis 


katnpyacato DEL. 


operetur. Et sane hoc est Christiani pas- 
toris sacerdotium, homines in Evangelii 
obedientiam subigendo veluti Deo im- 
molare: non, quod superciliose hactenus 
Papiste jactarunt, oblatione homines re- 
conciliare Deo. Neque tamen ecclesias- 
ticos pastores simpliciter hie vocat Sacer- 
dotes, tanquam perpetuo titulo: sed quum 
dignitatem efficaciamque ministerii vellet 
commendare Paulus, hac metaphora per 
oceasionem est usus. Hic ergo finis sit 
Evangelii preconibus in suo munere, ani- 
mas fide purificatas Deo offerre.”? Calvin. 

17—22.] The Apostle boasts of the 
extent and result of his apostolic mission 
among the Gentiles, and that in places 
where none had preached before him. 
I have therefore (consequent on the grace 
and ministry just mentioned) my boasting 
(i.e. ‘I venture to boast:’? not = gw 
kavxnua, ‘I have whereof I may glory,’ as 
E. V., but, as De W., = 2xyw kavxaoba, 
‘I can, or dare, boast’) in Christ Jesus 
(there is no stress on ey xp. *Ino.,—it 
merely qualifies thy katynow as no vain 
glorying, but grounded in, consistent with, 
springing from, his relation and subser- 
viency to Christ) of (concerning) matters 
relating to God (my above-named sacer- 
dotal officeand ministry). 18. | The con- 
nexion is: ‘I have veal ground for glorying 
(in a legitimate and Christian manner) ;’ 
for I will not (as some false apostles do, see 
2 Cor. x.12—18) allow myself to speak of 
any of those things which (ap for éxelywr, 
a, attr.) Christ did Nor work by me (but 
by some other) in order to the obedience 


4.62 IIPOS POMAIOT®. XV. 


s 2 Cor. x. 11. 
Col. iii. 17. 
1 John iii. 18. 
(see 1 Cor. iv. 
19, 20. 


*traxonv €Ovdv, Soyo Kat * épyo, 19 év duvaper 
onueioy Kai “tepdtov, tév duvauer mvedpatos [ayiou], 


_Liness.i5) @ete pe aro “lepoveadiy Kat ¥ KUKA@ “ wéxpe TOD "ID- 
“Ae ' upixod * wetAnpwKévat TO eEvayyédiov TOV yYpLoTOD. 
; iie3k v6, 20 ottw 5é ¥ hiroTymovpevoy * evayyeriferOat, ovy Orrov 
yy ®@vouadaOn ypiotos, tva pn em »addoTpiov © Oewédvoy 
xxxiv. 6. 


w. gen., Rey. 
AV \Os0ts tke 
vii. 11 only. 
Gen. xxxy. 5 
al. 

w of place, here 
only. (ch. v. 
14 reff.) Job 
XxxViii. 11. 

x = Col. i. 25. 
see Acts xii. 25. 


’ a ¢ e 
Toikodoue, 2! adda KaOws yéypattat Ois ov ‘ avny- 
I \ > an »” \ \ > ’ , g 
yéAn Trepl avTod, dYovTat, Kal ol ovK aknKoacw * our- 
/ 3 ; \ fal lal 
h évexomTounv ‘ra ‘toda * tov €dOeiv 
, li lal 
1 toTov éywv €v Tots 


noovow. » v0 Kat 
\ e nn 93 \ 6e / 

mpos upas: vuvt S& pnKére 

2 Cor. v. 9. 


1 Thess. iv. 11 only +. z absol., Luke ix. 6. xx.1. Acts 


y 
xiv. 7. 1 Cor. i. 17. ix. 16 bis, 18 only. Nah. i. 15. a= 2 Tim. ii.19 only. Isa. xxvi. 13. b ch. 
xiv. 4 reff. ce =1 Cor. iii. 10,11, 12. Heb. vi. 1. d= Gal. ii. 18. (€7otx., 1 Cor. iii. 12.) 
e Ver. 3. f Acts xiv. 27 reff. Isa. lii. 15. gch.iii.11. Matt. xiii. 13, &c. Eph. v.17. Ps. 
ii. 10. Prov. ii. 5. h Acts xxiv. 4 reff. ihere only. Xen. Hell. vi. 2. 30. k constr., 
Acts xiv. 18 reff. 1 = Acts xxv. 16 reff. Sir. iv. 5. 
for vrak., axonv B. fs 
19. aft 1st Svvau. ins avrov DIF. (G! also ins avrov aft 2nd Suv.) rec aft 


mvevparos ins Oeov, with D?LX rel Syr Chr-txt Cyr Thdrt Thl Ge; ayov ACD!3F c m 
17 vulg copt syr arm Ath Bas Chr-comm Cyr Dial Ruf-comm: om B Pel-comm Vig). 
wsTe TWeTANPwWOOaL aro LEP. MEXPL TOU LAA. Kal KUKAW TO DF. 
20. gidrotimovuar (corrn of constr) BDF: -povpevos 116-20: om vulg D-lat Ruf 
Pel: txt ACD?LX rel Orig. for ovx oov, orov ove D!F Chr Bede. ins 
o bef xpiotos D'F Chr. em aToAAoTpiw Jenediw I, 


21. amnyyedn C (238 ?): avnyyeAdn(sic) X ch k? o. 


av. Bm. 
22. for evexontouny, evexonny DF. 
rel Chr Thdrt. 


(subjection to the Gospel) of the Gentiles 
(then, as if the sentence were in the affirma- 
tive form, ‘I will only boast of what Christ 
has veritably done by me towards the obe- 
dience of the Gentiles,’ he proceeds) by word 
and deed, 19.] in the power of signs 
and wonders, in the power of the Holy 
Spirit (the signs and wonders (reff.) are not 
spiritual, but external miraculous acts,— 
see 2 Cor. xii. 12), so that (result of the 
xateipydoaro) from Jeruzalem (the eastern 
boundary of his preaching) and the neigh- 
bourhood («c’xAw is not to be joined with 
méxpt T. “IAA. as Caloy., al., but refers 
[reff.] to Jerusalem, meaning perhaps its 
immediate neighbourhood, perhaps Ara- 
bia [4], Gal. i. 17,—but hardly Damascus 
and Cilicia, as De W. suggests, seeing that 
they would come into the route afterwards 
specified, from Jerusalem to Illyricum) as 
far as Illyricum (Illyricum bordered on 
Macedonia to the 8. It is possible that 
Paul may literally have advanced to its 
frontiers during his preaching in Mace- 
donia ; but I think it more probable, that 
he uses it broadly as the ‘terminus ad 
quem,’ the next province to that in which 
he had preached), I have fulfilled (ref. : — 
‘executed my office of preaching, so that 
ebayyéAwov Tov xp.= Td edayyedlCecPa 


oWovra bef ois avny. 7. 


for Ta moAAa, ToAAaKis BDF: txt ACLX 


tov xp.) the Gospel of Christ. 
20.| But (limits the foregoing assertion) 
thus (after the following rule) being 
careful (reff.: the word in the Apostle’s 
usage seems to lose its primary meaning of 
‘making a point of honour.’ The par- 
ticip. agrees with pe, ver. 19) to preach the 
Gospel, not where Christ was (previously) 
named, that I might not build on the 
foundation of another, but according asit 
is written (i. e. according to the following 
rule of Scripture: I determined to act in 
the spirit of these words, forming part of a 
general prophecy of the dispersion of that 
Gospel which I was preaching), &e. The 
citation is from the LXX, zep) airod refer- 
ring to 6 mats ov, ver. 13, but being un- 
represented in the Heb. Our E. V. ren- 
ders: ‘‘That which had not been told 
them, shall they see: and that which they 
had not heard, shall they consider.” 
22.| 816, not, because a foundation had 
been already laid at Rome by another: 
this would refer to merely a secondary 
part of the foregoing assertion: 8:6 refers 
to the primary, viz. his having been so 
earnestly engaged in preaching elsewhere. 
Ta odd, these many times: 
pot, as Meyer, Fritz., ‘the greater number 
of times, —which would suggest the idea 


ABC 
FLN g 
edf¢ 
klm 
o1l7 


19—27. 


IIPO> POMAIOT®. 


463 


/ 7 rn 
™ Kripacw TovTos, " éruTobiavy Sé éyav ° TOD edAOciy 2 Cor. xi. 10. 
\ CA ta ’ \ c a a ed 
Tpos vas Pawo “ikavav *érav, Sas av Tropedapar 22"); ,{inas- 


> * / 
eis THY Yraviav, (€dirifw yap * Svatropevomevos Oedoac- 


n here only +. 
-Oetv, ch, 
i. 11.) 


e lal \ b] , lal nr lal lal 
Oat ipas Kai af’ buav “mpoteudOhvar ¥ eet, cay tudy © conse, Acts 


mpa@tov “amo “ pwépous * éumrrAncda.) 
> “VI \ y a lal moe: / 
omar els ‘lepovoadiu Y diaxovav tots * aylots. 


xiv. 9 reff. 

9 , Luke viii, 43. 

25 ypuvt S€ Topev~ Pern Ye 
9 5 reff. Luke 

26 A ey xxiii. 8 al. 

r 2 Mace. i. 20. 


i x «h hen ° 
Soxnoavy yap Maxedovia nai ’Ayaia » cowwviay tid * 3) ors: 


23. 


/ 6 cee \ \ (Nee TG AA 9 Ae 
TOWNGADUAL ~ ELS TOUS TTWXOUS THY arylov TMV €V Tepov- t absol., Luke 


Tan. 


’ \ a a an 
el yap Tols °TvEevpaTiKots avTav 'éxowa@vncay Ta eOvn, 
> \ 3 a aA Hy fol fo 
Sopeihovow Kal év Tois  capKixois ‘XecToupyhoas avrois. | U- 


Jonn xi. 8. xviii. 3. 
Polyb. i. 17. 3. 


¥v = Matt. ii. 22. 
vi. 12) only. Eccl. vi. 3. 


a= Luke xii. 32. 1Cor.i. 21. Gal.i. 15. 
only. (-vetv, ver. 27. ch. xii. 13.) 
(ch. i. 11. vii. 14. 

= 1 Cor. ix. 1] (iii. 3 reff.). 
yer. 16.) 


28. for 2nd exw, exw (corrn of constr) DF m o. 


27 @evddKnoav yap, Kal 4 


w ver. 15. 
see Acts xiv. I7. 
13. Heb. vi. 10. pres. part., Winer, edn. 6, 3 45.1.2. a. Acts vi. 11. xv. 27. 
i Ps, Ixvii. 16. 

c = 1 Cor. xvi. 1 reff. 
1 Cor. ix. 11 al.) only, exc. 1 Pet. ii. 5, bis +. 


; ; ee St a Xvill. 36 (vi. 
1. xiii. 22, 
opeireTar elolv avTav, \ 2, 
only. Zech. 
ix.8. Xen. 
Anab. ii. 2. 


u Acts xy. 3 


reff. 
x = here (Luke i. 53. vi. 25. John 
y =2Tim.i.18. Philem. 

z= Acts ix. 13 reff. 
b = 2 Cor: ix. 13. Heb. xiii. 16 
d ch. i. 14 reff. e Paul 


f ch. xii. 13 reff. g ver. 1 reff, 


i=here only. (Acts xiii. 2 reff.) 3 Kingsi.4. (-yta, 2 Cor. ix. 12. -yos, 


om tov A. rec (for 


ukavwv) ToAAwY (more usual exprn), with ADFLX rel Chr Thdrt: txt BC m Damase. 
24. rec(for av)eay, with L rel Chr, Thdrt: txt AB C(appy) DFX Chr, Damase. 


add ovy DF. 


mopevowat DF al b' cf min: -coua L 1222: txt ABCX rel Chr Thl. 


rec aft omaviay ins eAcvoouar pos vuas (to fill wp the aposiopesis: see note), 
with LN? rel syr Thdrt Thl @c: om ABCDFN! latt Syr coptt eth arm Chr Damase 


Ambrst Pel Ruf Sedul Bede. 


om yap F latt Syr copt xth Chr lat-ff (videbo 


wos et a vobis deducar Ambrst): ins ABCDLN syr Thdrt, Damase Thl e: de a2 3. 


5. 1081-20 Chr-ms Thdrt,. 
with ACLN rel Chr: txt B(amo) DF. 


mopevouevos A 62 Damasc. 


rec (for ap) ug, 


25. Siaxovnoat DF latt: diaxoynowy X!: txt ABCLN! rel. 
26. evdoxnoev B 62. 120 Thdrt,: G-lat has both (nvé. BIN m: so & m Chr-ms in 


next ver). 
ayiwv DE. 


27. for evdor. yap kat operAeTai, operA. yap DF Ambrst. 


pakadoves kat axaaxo. FY, D}-lat also has paradoves. 


TOV EV tep. 


rec avtwy bef e101, 


with FL rel: txt ABCD® vulg(with am &e agst fuld &) spec Syr copt Ambrst. 


om 2nd avrwy L. 


that there had been other occasions on 
which this hindrance had not been opera- 
tive. 23.] pye. té7. €xwv, I have 
no more occasion, viz. of apostolic work. 

The participial construction prevails 
throughout, the participles standing as 
direct verbs. This not having been seen, 
the words éActoowai rpds buas have been in- 
serted to fill up what seemed an aposiopesis. 
Now, however, I have no longer any busi- 
ness in these parts, but have had for many 
years past a desire to see you, whenever 
(as soon as) I journey into Spain. Re- 
specting the question whether this journey 
into Spain was ever taken, the views of 


Commentators have differed, according to ~ 


their conclusion respecting the libera- 
tion of the Apostle from his imprison- 
ment at Rome. I have discussed this 
in the Prolegg. to the Pastoral Epistles, 
§ ii. The reader may see, on the side of 
the completion of the journey, Neander, 


Pfl. u. Leit., ed. 4, pp. 527—552,—and 
on the other side, Dr. Davidson, Introd. 
to N. T. vol. ii. pp. 96—182, and Wie- 
seler, Chron. der Apost. Zeitalt., Ex- 
cursus I., where a copious list of books 
on both sides is given. 24.) ard 
pépovs is an affectionate limitation of 
€utAno0@, implying that he would wish 
to remain much longer than he anti- 
cipated being able to do,—and also, as 
Chrys. ovdels ydp me xpdvos eurdrjoa 
divarat, oddE eumorhoal mor Képoy Tis 
cvvovolas tua. 25.] See Acts xix. 
21; xxiv. 17; 2 Cor. viii. 19. Staxovav, 
not the future, because he treats the whole 
action as already begun: see reff. 
26.] See 2 Cor. ix. 1, ff. KoLvov. | 
See reff. Olsh. remarks, on tots 7Tw- 
Xovs T. aylwv, that this shews the com- 
munity of goods in the church at Jerusa- 
lem not to have lasted long: ef. Gal. ii. 10. 
27.| The fact is re-stated, with a 


4.64 


k 2 Cor. vii. 1. 
viii. 6, 11 bis. 
1 Kings iii. 
12. of sacred 
rites, Heb. ix. 
6. 

1 see John iii. 


Heb. xii. 11. 

James iii. 18. 
n = Matt. vill. 

19. x. 5 al. 


Wie ie 

o = Eph. iii. 
19. 

p ch. xvi. 18. 
1 Cor. x. 16. 
2 Cor. ix. 5 
al. Ezek. 
Xxxiv. 26. 

q ch. xii. 1 reff. 


“ duakovia prov *% els 


IIPO> POMAIOTS. 


XV. 28—33. 


98 fa 5 k2 / \ ] / > lal X 
238 rodto obv * émutedéoas Kai | oppayicapevos avtois TOV 
m \ la n > A ? ig la n >? / 
KapTov TodToy "amredevoouar Ov vuov els Yrraviav" 
29 oida é OTL epyopevos Tpos twas ev ° TANpwpaTL P Ev- 
_Royias ypictod édevooman. 
[aderpoi,] 16ua Tod Kupiov nuav “Incod ypioTov Kat 4 dia 


30 4 qapaxaro Se wvpas, 


a rn > 
Ths ' ayanns Tod * rvevpaTos, * cuvaywvicacOal pou ev 
fal r \ lal \ 
rais ‘arposevyais vmép ewov ‘pos tov Oeov, 3! wa 
u c lol > \ an y2 6 / ? a “iI } , \ id 
pyc0a and tév YareovvtTwv év TH ‘lovdaia, Kal 7 
‘lepovcadn YY evarposdextos Tots 
¢ a M a 
Zaylows yévntat, 32 iva *év yapa Ew Tpos vas » dia 


. / rn \ , CA c \ 
rhereorly Db Medsjatos » Oeod[, Kal ° cuvavaTravowpatr viv}. *8 0 dé 
s here only +. d \ erry, e \ , e a ’ , 

(aywv- Col. Beds TS ELpTVS META TTAVT@V ULM). aApLnV. 

iv. 12. * 
t Acts xii. 5 reff. u = ch. vii. 24 reff. v = Acts xiv. 2 reff. w = Acts vi. 1 reff. 
x ellips., ch. ii. 8 al. fr. y ver. 16 reff. Z = VV. 25, 26. a = 1 Cor. ii. 3 al. b 1 Cor. 

i. 1. 2Cor.i.1. viii.5. Eph.i.1. Col.i.1. 2 Tim.i.1 only. c here only. (see 1 Cor. xvi. 18. 2 Cor. 


vii. 13.) Isa. xi. 6 only. d ch. xvi. 20. 


xiii. 20. (2 Thess. iii. 16.) 
28. aft tovro ovy ins apa F. 
d: vuas F. 
rel: om ABDFN! m Chr. 
29. for o1da de, yewwonw yap F. 


1 Cor. xiv. 33. 
e ellips., Matt. i. 23. ch. xvi. 20 (24). 


oppayicamevors(sic) &. 
rec ins Tyv bef omavay (none om Tv in ver 24), with CLR* 


om epxouevos F. 


2 Cor. xiii. 11. Phil. iv. 9. 1 Thess. v. 23. 
1 Cor. xvi. 23, 24 al. 


om avtos B 76.108. 


Heb. 


mwAnpopopta D!F. 


rec ins tov evayyeAtov Tov bef xpiorou (prob a gloss), with L&* rel vulg syrr 


Chr Thdrt: om ABCDFRN! am(with demid harl) copt ath arm(om xp. also) Clem lat-ff. 

30. om adcAda: B 76 wth Chr: ins bef mapa. vu. a(in red) lectt (and C%-marg); bef 
vu., demid: add pou syrr copt (the variations in posn are suspicious: but may not the 
word, characteristic as it is here, have been first rejected as unnecessary, and then 
noted in the margin, and variously inserted? Lachm retains it). ins ovowaros 
tov bef kupiov La 74. 120 lectt. aft mposevxais ins vuwy DF vulg-ed(not am 
demid fuld harl*) Pel. om u7ep euov F Ruf Bede. 

31. rec aft xa: ins wa, with D?-3LN? rel syr Chr Thdrt: om ABCD! FN? latt Syr copt 
arm Damase Ambrst Ruf Pel. for Siakovia, Swpopopia (corrn to avoid harsh- 
ness of Siaxov. es tep.: see below) BDF, remuneratio D!-lat, munerum meorum minis- 
tratio Ambrst: txt AC D?:3-gr LX vss(administratio G-lat, obsequii oblatio vulg Sedul 


Bede, ministerium D?-lat Ruf) Chr Thdrt Damase Thl Cc. 
for ets, ev BD!F: txt ACD3LN rel Chr-ms 
rec yevntat bef rots ayiois, With DFL rel vss gr-lat-ff: txt ABCN m. 
for Beov, kuptov incov B: xpiorov inoov D'F : 
inoov xpiorov &!: txt ACD3LN% rel vss Chr Thdrt Damase Thl (ic lat-ff. 


37. 73. 93. 122 Thdrt, Chr-mss. 
Thdrt, Thi. 
32. cA@wv AC N}(bef xapa) 17. 


om 2nd 7 L b!'hm 


om 


kat cvvavaravowpat vuw B: ins AC(DF)L(X&) rel vss Chr Euthal Thdrt Damase Thl 
(Ec lat-ff: om cat X1.—avayviw D: avavuxw F.—ped vuwy DF latt. 


33. ins 77w bef wera D'F latt syr. 
Thdrt Damase Th! (ec lat-ff. 


view to an inference from it, viz. that the 
evddxnray was not merely a matter of 
benevolence, but of repayment: the Gen- 
tiles being debtors to the Jews for spiritual 
blessings. This general principle is very 
similarly enounced in 1 Cor. ix. 11. It is 
suggested by Grot., al., that by this Paul 
wished to hint to the Romans the duty of 
a similar contribution. 28.] Kaptrév, 
hardly, as Calyv., al., “ proventum quem ex 
Evangelii satione ad Judmos redire nuper 
dixit:” more probably said generally,— 
Jruit of the faith and love of the Gentiles. 

oppayic., as cis BaciAiKa Tamera 
evar o0euevos ws ev ATVA® K. GTPaAE. Xwpiy, 


om guny AF: ins BCDLN rel vss Chr 


Chrys. Hom. xxx. p. 739. Sv ipey, 
through your city. 29.] The fulness of 
the blessing of Christ imports that richness 
of apostolic grace which he was persuaded 
he should impart to them. So he calls his 
presence in the churches a xdpis, 2 Cor. i. 
15. See also ch.i. 11. 30 —82. | 
7. aya. T. mvevp., the love shed abroad 
in the heart by the Holy Ghost ;—a love 
which teaches us to look not only on our 
own things, but on the things of others. 
avvaywv.| “Ipse oret oportet, qui 

alios vult orare secum. Orare, agon est, 
preesertim ubi homines resistunt.” Bengel. 
31.] Compare Acts xx. 22; xxi. 


ay i-1—4. 


IIPO> POMAIOTS. 


465 


XVI. 1 fSuvicrnps S€ bpiv DoiBnv thy aderpnv jnuav, 7% 0er- ii 


ovaav *dudKovoy THs éxxAnolas THs év Keyypeais, » a 
harposdéEnabe adtiv “i év xupiw * 
"qapactThitTe avTh ev @ av buov “ypnty mpaypate 
yap avti °mpoctatis ToAAaY eyevnjOn, Kal €“od avTod. 


iii. 5 reff.) 1 
Mace. xii. 43. 

g = Phil. i. 1. 

1 Tim. iii. 8, 
12. fem., here 

\ only. 

KQl h = Phil. ii. 
29. 


2 / lol ] e / \ 
akios tav layiav Kal 


19 al. 


3 "Aotracacée IIpicxav Kat “Axvrav Tods ? cuvepyous y tiviv.1. 


poou é€v yptaTt@ “Inood, * 4oitwes bTrép Tis 'ruyts pou 
v2 3 


ii. 12. 3John6only+. Wisd. vii. 15. xvi. 1. 
m= 2 Tim. iv. 17 only. Jer. xv. 11. 

xi. 7 B al. (only?) 

(vy. 9, 21. 
q = Acts x. 41 reff. 


Cap. XVI. 1. om Se D'F eth arm Sedul. 


ins ka: BC! 47, 


Sir. xiv. 11 only. 
n Matt. vi. 32. 
o here only+ (-7s, 1 Chron. xxvii. 31. see Rom. xii. 8.) 


1 Cor. iii. 9 al8.) only, exc. 3 John 8 +. 
r = Acts xv. 26 reff. 


Phil. i. 27. 

Col. i. 10. 

1 Thess. 

y 1 = Acts ix. 13 reff. 
Luke xi. 8. xii. 30. 2 Cor. iii. lonly. Judg. 

p Paul 


2 Mace. viii. 7. xiv. 5 only. (-yetv, ch. viii. 28.) 


vuov AFP Thi. aft ovcay 


2. rec avrny bef mposdetnaGe, with ALP rel vulg Syr Chr Thdrt Ambrst: txt BCDF 


d harl syr copt Orig-int. 


eyeveto D; k. €. k. a. Tapaotareis F. 


for TPOOTATLS to e“ov, Kat E“ov Kat aAAwY TpOCTaTLs 


rec avtov bef exov, with rel Chr-c-montf 


(Ee : kat avtov kat euvov XN: txt ABCL (Treg, expr)P d m vulg syr copt Chr-2-mss Thdrt 


Damase Thl., e“ov Te avrou A. 


8. ree mpioxtdday (corrn to Acts xviii. 2, fe), with rel syrr eth Chr Thdrt(r)v 
yap UptoniAdAav 7) Upioxav, dupdtepa yap éeorw ecdpeiv ev Tots BiBAtors) Ambrst: txt 


ABCDFLPR d gh m 17. 47 vss gr-lat-ff. 


kar. ox. avt. exkA. DIF, 


10—14. The exceeding hatred in which 
the Apostle was held by the Jews, and 
their want of fellow-feeling with the Gen- 
tile churches, made him fear lest even the 
ministration with which he was charged 
might not prove acceptable to them. 
32.] Sia eA. Oeod = cay 6 Kipios OcAnon, 
1 Cor. iv. 19: otherwise in reff. 
[k. cuvav. tp., and may refresh myself 
together with you;—i.e. ‘that we may 
mutually refresh ourselves, I after my dan- 
gers and deliverance, you after your anxie- 
ties for me.’ But the text is in some 
confusion. | Cuap. XVI. 1—16.] Re- 
COMMENDATION OF PH@BE: GREETINGS. 
1, 2.] In all probability Phoebe was 
the bearer of the Epistle, as stated in the 
(rec.) subscription. Sidxovov| Dea- 
coness. See 1 Tim.iii.11,note. Pliny in 
his celebrated letter to Trajan says, “ ne- 
cessarium credidi, ex duabus ancillis que 
ministre dicebantur, quid esset veri et per 
tormenta querere.’ A minute discussion 
of their office, &c., in later times, may be 
found in Suicer, Thesaurus, sub voce ; and 
in Bingham, book ii. chap. 22, § 8. Ne- 
ander, Pfl. u. Leit., ed. 4, pp. 265—267, 
shews that the deaconesses must not be 
confounded with the xjpa of 1 Tim. v. 
3—16, as has sometimes been done. 
KENCHRER, the port of Corinth (ray 
Kopiw@iwy émiveiov, Philo in Flace. § 19, 
vol. ii., p. 5389: Kéun tis THS KoplyOov 
peylorn, Theodoret, h. 1.) on the Saronic 
gulf of the Mgean, for commerce with the 
east (Acts xviii. 18): seventy stadia from 
Vou. If. 


at end, instead of in ver 5, ins ka T. 


Corinth, Strabo viii. 380. Pausan. ii. 2, 3. 
Livy xxxii. 17. Plin. iv. 4. The Apos- 
tolical Constitutions (vii. 46, p. 1053, 
Migne) make the first bishop of the Cen- 
chrean church to have been Lucius, con- 
secrated by Paul himself (Winer, Realw.). 
The western port, on the Sinus Corinthia- 
cus, was Leche (Paus.), Leche (Plin.), 
or Lecheum (Strab., Ptol.). 2.] ev 
Kupto, in a Christian manner,—as mindful 
of your common Lord: afiws +. aytoy, 
‘in a manner worthy of saints ;’ i.e. ‘as 
saints ought to do,’—vefers to mposdétnabe, 
and therefore to their conduct to her ;— 
not, ‘as saints ought to be received.’ 

mapacTyte| Her business at Rome may 
have been such as to require the help of 
those resident there. TPOoTatis 
mo\AGy | This may refer to a part of the 
deaconess’s office, the attending on the poor 
and sick of her own sex. K. E00 
avtot}] when and where, we know not. 
It is not improbable that she may have 
been, like Lydia, one whose heart the Lord 
opened at the first preaching of Paul, and 
whose house was his lodging. 3, 4.] 
The form Prisca is also found 2 Tim. iv. 19. 
On Prisca and Aquila see note, Acts xviii. 2. 
They must have returned to Rome from 
Ephesus since the sending of 1 Cor. :—see 
1 Cor. xvi. 19: and we find them again at 
Ephesus (?), 2 Tim. iv. 19. Their en- 
dangering of their lives for Paul may have 
taken place at Corinth (Acts xviii. 6 ff.) or 
at Ephesus (Acts xix.). See Neander, Pfl. 


u. Leit., p. 441. “taoriévar est pignort 
Ea: 


466 IIPO> PQOMAIOTS. XVI. 
shereenly. coy éauTov *tpayndrov “tréOnxav, ols ovK ey@ povos ABCI 
Sir. li. 26 FLNa! 
(but not =). y 2? a Ara \ A e w2 -* l a 26 fa) 
eho YebyapioT@ GANA Kai aca ai “ exxrAnolat TOV eOVar, catg 
reff. - td \ \ x b] > > ral x > y > / klm 
ultimiv.6 8 kal tay ~Y Kat’ oixov avTav * éxxdnolav. aatdcacBe olf 


y to man, here 
only. (ch. i. 
§ reff.) 

w ver. 16 reff. 

x 1 Cor. xvi.19. 
Col. iv. 15. 
Philem. 2. 

y Acts ii. 46 
reff. 

z Acts xv. 25 


’Acias ? es ypioTov. 
4 éxotriacey eis Upas. 


reff. 
a ch. viii, 23 
reff, 
b see ch. xv. 26. c Acts x. 41 reff. 
vi. 3. Lukei. 36,58. Actsx.24al. Levit. xxv. 45. 
xxvii. 16 only. Esth.v.4. 3 Mace. vi. 1. 


d Matt. vi. 28. 


Polyb. xviii. 38. 1. 


, / aN a 
Exaivetov tov * ayarntov pov, 6s éoTw *aTrapyn TIS 
6 datracacbe Mapiay, ° itis Toda 


7 adomacacbe “Avdpovixov Kat 


, a \ Lal \ 4 

lovviav tovs °ouyyeve’s pov Kat ‘ovvarypadwtovs jou, 
fe J ? 3 / >) lal « \ ‘ 

‘oitwés elow %érionuot év Tots “amrocToXoLs, of Kal Tpo 


Ps. exxvi. 1. e ch. 
f Col. iv. 10. Philem. 23 only +. g Matt. 
Jos. Antt. v. 7. 1. h see Acts xiv. 4 note. 


Acts xx. 35 al. 


5. for amapxn, am apxns D}-gr, in principio D'-lat: a principio G-lat: om amapxn 


ns BP. 


rec for agias, axaas, with D?-3LP rel syrr Chr Thdrt Th] He: txt 


ABCD'FR latt(not harl') copt eth arm Damase Orig-int Jer Ambrst Ruf.x,, Pel Jer 
Sedul Bede. (The rec has prob been an error of the scribe, who had awapxn Tns 
axaias, 1 Cor xvi. 15, in his mind. To suppose, with De Wette, that he altered ax. 
here to ac. to avoid the inconsistency of two persons being the first fruits of Achaia, 


is surely too far-fetched.) 


for eis xpiorov, ev xpioTw DF latt syrr Orig-int. 
6. rec papiop, with DFLX rel Chr Thdrt Thl: txt ABCP Syr copt arm. 


rec 


ets quas, with C?L rel syr Chr-comm Thdrt Damase Th] ec Ruf-ms: ev yaw DF latt 
Ambrst: txt ABC!PX Syr copt eth Chr-txt(and ms,). 


7. ins tous bef cvvaixuadwrtous B. 


opponere. Demosth. in Aphobum: américa 
Thy Aevtoupyiav, brodels Thy oixlay Kar 
Tauavtov mavta,  Aschines: brelnoay 
avtG Tov TaddvTov Tas Syuoolas mpos- 
ddous.” Wetst. The ‘churches of the 
Gentiles’ had reason to be thankful to 
them, for having rescued the Apostle of 
the Gentiles from danger. It seems to 
have been the practice of Aquila and 
Priscilla (ref. 1 Cor.) and some other Chris- 
tians (reff. Col., Philem.) to hold assem- 
blies for worship in their houses, which 
were saluted, and sent salutations as one 
body in the Lord. Some light is thrown 
on the expression by the following passage 
from the Acta Martyrii S. Justini, in 
Ruinart, cited by Neander, Church Hist. i. 
330, Rose’s trans. ‘‘ The answer of Justin 
Martyr to the question of the prefect (Rus- 
ticus) ‘ Where do you assemble?’ exactly 
corresponds to the genuine Christian spirit 
on this point. The answer was; ‘Where 
each one can and will. You believe, no 
doubt, that we all meet together in one 
place ; but it is not so, for the God of the 
Christians is not shut up in a room, but, 
being invisible, He fills both heaven and 
earth, and is honoured every where by the 
faithful” Justin adds, that when he came 
to Rome, he was accustomed to dwell in 
one particular spot, and that those Chris- 
tians who were instructed by him, and 
wished to hear his discourse, assembled at 
his house. (This assembly would accord- 
ingly be 4 Kat’ olkov rot “lovarivou ék- 
xAnota.) He had not visited any other con- 


om a NI. for ot kK. Tpo EM. YEY-» TOLS 
gregations of the Church.” 5.] Epe- 
netus is not elsewhere named. amwapx%, 


the same metaphor being in the Apostle’s 
mind as in ch. xv. 16,—the first believer. 
On ’Agias see var. readd. _ eis xp., 
elliptical: the full construction would be 
Tis mpospopas eis Xp. 6.] None of 
the names occurring from ver. 5—15 are 
mentioned elsewhere (except possibly Ru- 
fus: see below). De Wette remarks, 
that, notwithstanding the manuscript au- 
thority, eis judas is perhaps the more likely 
reading, (1) because the Apostle would 
hardly mention a service done to themselves 
as a ground of salutation from him, and (2) 
because xomiay without being expressly fol- 
lowed by Ady (1 Tim. v. 17: see Phil. ii. 
16; Col. i. 29), said of women, most likely 
implies acts of kindness peculiar to the sex. 
7.) "lovvav may be fem. (Iouvfav), 

from *Iovvia (Junia), in which case she is 
probably the wife of Andronicus, —or masce., 
from “Iovvias (Junianus, contr. Junias). 
It is uncertain also whether ovyyeveis 
means fellow-countrymen, or relations. 
Aquila and Priscilla were Jews : so would 
Maria be, and probably Epznetus, being 
an early believer. If so, the word may 
have its strict meaning of ‘relations. But 
it seems to occur vy. 11, 21 in a wider 
sense. ovvarxp. | When and where, 
uncertain. erionpot év tT. atroor. | 
Two renderings are given: (1) ‘ef note 
among the Apostles,’ so that they them- 
selves are counted among the Apostles: 
thus the Greek ff. (7d dmoordAous civat, 


5—14. 


, 7 A 

€uod yéeyovap ‘ év ypioTo. 

Z > / > / 
ayarntov jou év Kuplo. 


IITPO> POMAIOTS. 


9 aotmacacbe OdpBavov tov 


467 


8 gomacacGe "ApTXiatov Tov i1Cor-. i. 20. 


Eph. ii. 13. 
1 Pet. v. 14, 


= \ aA > aA , 

Kouvepyov nuav év yploT@, Kal Yrayvy Tov * ayaTnTOv k ver. d rel. 

pov. 10 aomdacacbe ’AreAdY Tov | doKipov ‘ev YpLoTe. 1c, xiv.18 
re 


aotracacbe Tols ex ™ tav ApictoBovnrou. 


‘H yf \ e A 
podiava Tov © cuyyeviy pov. 

t \ 
Napkiccov tovs dvtas év Kupio. 


\ n \ d / > / 
vav kat Tpuddcav tas “KoTImaas év Kuplo. 


1d aomdacaabe ee 1 Cor. i. 


5) / 6 N18 by ian 
QAOTTAGAGUVE TOUS EK TOV 


2 aoracacde Tpvdha- 
aomacaa be 


\ X 
Ilepoisa thy * ayarntypy, Hrs Toda 4 éxotriacev év Kupio. 
¢ rn \ eee 
13 aotracacbe “Poddov tov ™éxdextov év Kuplw, Kat Tippy ™°b,Nii- 38 


pntépa avtTod Kal mod. 


14 gomracacbe ’“Actvyxpitov, Pré- 


a ¢ a an 
yovta, “Epunv, IlatpoBav, ‘Epyav, cat tos cv adtots 


mpo euov DE. 
xpictw add incov DF Pel Ambrst Jer. 


rec yeyovaowv, with CLP rel: txt A B(sic: see table) X. 


aft 


8. rec aumAiay, with B? C(appy) DLP rel syrr Chr Thdrt Chron Damase Thl Ge: txt 


A Bl(Tischdf) FX latt copt «th Euthal Iren-int lat-ff—om roy B!. 


F(not G). 


om pou B 


9. for xpiotw, kvpiw CDF c m arm Chr-3-mss: txt ABLPN rel syrr eth Orig-int. 


11. apioroBodovu(for -Bovdov) BIE vulg. 


12. om from ev kupiw to ev kupiw AF (and G). 


avyyevnv A B'(Tischdf) D!. 


Kotiacas C. 


14. rec epuay 7. epunyv, with D’L rel Syr syr(txt and mg-gr) arm Chr Thdrt Chron 
Ambrst: txt ABCD!F PX m am(with fuld harl flor mar) copt «th Euthal Orig-int Ruf 


Bede. 


péeya’ 7d Se Kal év Tovrors emiohmovs 
eivat, evvdnoov nAlkov éyxwmuov, Chrys.), 
Calv., Est., Wolf, Thol., K6élln., Olsh., al.: 
or (2) ‘noted among the Apostles,’ i.e. 
well known and spoken of by the Apostles. 
Thus Beza, Grot., Koppe, Reiche, Meyer, 
Fritz., De W. But, as Thol. remarks, 
had this latter been the meaning, we 
should have expected some expression like 
dia mac@v THY exkAno@y (2 Cor. viii. 18). 
I may besides remark, that for Paul to 
speak of any persons as celebrated among 
the Apostles in sense (2), would imply that 
he had more frequent intercourse with the 
other Apostles, than we know that he had; 
and would besides be improbable on any 
supposition. The whole question seems to 
have sprung up in modern times from the 
idea that of amdéoroAo: must mean the 
Twelve only. If the wider sense found in 
Acts xiv. 4,14; 2 Cor. viii. 23; 1 Thess. 
ii. 6 (compare i. 1) be taken, there need be 
no doubt concerning the meaning. 
ot kat... .] refers to Andr. and Jun., 
not to the Apostles. ‘In the use of yéyo- 
vay, there is a mixed construction—* who 
have been longer than-me,” and “who were 
before me.” 8 ff. | Ampliatus = Am- 
’ plias: see v. r. ay. év kup., beloved 
in the bonds of Christian fellowship. 
ouvepy. év xp., fellow-workman 
in (the work of) Christ. Origen and 
others have confounded Apelles with the 


well-known Apollos, but apparently with- 
out reason. Cf. Hor. Sat. i. 5. 100. 
Sdéxup. év xp., approved (by trial) in (the 
work of) Christ. It does not follow that 
either Aristobulus or Narcissus were them- 
selves Christians. Only those of their 
familie (rods é« rav) are here saluted 
who were ev kupiw: for we must under- 
stand this also after "ApsoroBovAov. 
cuyy-, see above. Grot., Neander, al., 
have taken Narcissus for the well-known 
freedman of Claudius. But this can hardly 
be, for he was executed (‘Tac. Ann. xiii. 1) 
in the very beginning of Nero’s reign, i. e. 
cir. 55 A.D., whereas (see Prolegg. § iv. 4, 
and Chronol. Table) this Epistle cannot 
have well been written before 58 A.p. 
Perhaps, as Winer (Realw.) suggests, the 
family of this Narcissus may have con- 
tinued to be thus known after his death (?). 
13.] Rufus may have been the son 
of Simon of Cyrene, mentioned Mark xy. 
21: but the name was very common. 
éxXexté6v—not to be softened, as De W., 
al., to merely ‘ eximium,’ a sense unknown 
to our Apostle ;—elect, i.e. one of the 
elect of the Lord. kat éuov the Apostle 
adds from affectionate regard towards the 
mother of Rufus: ‘my mother,’ in my 
reverence and affection for her. Jowett 
compares our Lord’s words to St. John, 
John xix. 27. 14.] These Christians 
of whom we have only the names, seem to 


H i 2 


468 


o = Acts ix. 13 
reff. 
p 1 Cor. xvi. 20 


adedgovs. 


IIPO> POMAIOT®. 


XVI. 


15 domacacbe Pircroyov Kai lovrAlav, Nypéa 


\ fal ‘\ ’ “ \ \ \ 
hoor xi Kal THY adEeAPHY avTov, Kat ‘OdvpTrav, Kai TOUS GUD 


je Ve rn / 
26. seel Pet. QUTOLS TavTas ° wylous. 


y. 14. 

q as above (p). 
Luke vii. 45. 
xxii. 48 only. 


TOU YplaTov. 


41. xvi. 5. 
ver. 4. 1 Cor. 
vii. 17. xi. 16 


5 = ch. xii. 1 


reff. 

t Luke xi. 35. 
2 Cor. iv. 18. 
Gal. yi. 1. 
Phil. ii. 4. 
iii. 17 only +. ¢ 
2 Mace. iv. 5 
only. 

u Gal. y. 20 only +. 1 Macc. iii. 29 only. 

y 1 Pet. iii. 11 (ch. iii. 12) only. Ps. xxxv1. 27. 

xxiv. 15. b here only t+. 
reff. e = here (Heb. vii. 26) only. 


15. tovviay C}F. ynpeav AF. 
Ambrst Ruf: oAvumiay D? arm. 


16. om agmaovTa.. 
TOU Xp. 


v = ch. xiv. 13 reff. 
z= Acts xx. 19 reff. 

c = here only. 
Proy. i. 4. viii. 5 al. 


16 GotracacQe addAnXouUS P év 


PL hirnpate ? ayia. aomdalovtat buds at * exkhnolar Tacat 


fal a a \ \ 
17 8|lapaxar@ dé tyas, aderpoi, 'oxotrety Tovs Tas 
\ \ 
“Scyootacias Kal Ta Y cKavoada * Tapa THY * bidaynv HY 
ig na > / a \ y > if y > b] > fal 18 c 
al. Mets €wabete trovovvtas, Kal ¥ éxxrivate Yat avTa@v. 18 ot 
a an lal lal vA 
yap TolovTOL TO KUpiw HuaVY ypicT@ ov * dovdEvOVEW, 
GANA TH EavToV * Kora, Kai dia THS > yYpnaToNoylas Kal 
yA Lal Lal 
evroylas 1éEatat@ow Tas Kapdias TOV © aKdKov. 


19 7 
w = ch. i. 26 reff. x = Acts in. 42 reff. 
a= Phil. iii. 19. Proy. 

d ch. vii. 11 


see note. (ch. xv. 29 reff.) 


odvpreda F, Olympiadem latt Orig-int 


. xpictov DF, but aft cvyy. wou ver 21 read kat at exkA. Tacat 
rec om tagcat (see note), with rel Chr Th] @c: ins ABC(DF)LPX m vss 


(Chr-comm ?) Cyr Thdrt Orig-int Ambrst Ruf Pel Bede. 


17. for mapakare, epwtw D!-3, rogo latt. 


Sing-cler. for rapa, mepi D}. 


exxAwete BCR! m Thdrt Damase. 
rec ins iqgov bef xpioTw, with L rel Syr copt «th-pl arm-mss 


18. om Tw F. 


for crore, acpadws crorerte DEF 
ins Aeyovras 7 bef wotouvt. DF Sing-cler. 


Chr: om ABCDFPX e m vulg syr zth-rom arm-ed Orig-int.—xp. bef nuwy DF. 


SovAcvoovow F. 


be persons of less repute than the former. 
Hermas (=Hermodorus, Grot.) is thought 
by Origen (in loc. “ Puto, quod Hermas 
ste sit scriptor libelli istius qui Pastor ap- 
pellatur”’), Eus. H. E. iii. 3, and Jerome, 
Catal. script. eccl., ¢. x., vol. ii., p. 846, 
to be the author of the ‘Shepherd’ But 
this latter is generally supposed to have 
been the brother of Pius, bishop of Rome, 
about 150 a.p. The civ avtots adeApol 
of ver. 14, and ctv avtots maytes Got 
of ver. 15, have been taken by De W. and 
Reiche to point to some separate asso- 
ciations of Christians, perhaps (De W.) as- 
semblies as in ver. 5: or (Reiche) unions for 
missionary purposes. 16.| The mean- 
ing of this injunction seems to be, that the 
Roman Christians should take occasion, on 
the receipt of the Apostle’s greetings to 
them, to testify their mutual love, in this, 
the ordinary method of salutation, but 
having among Christians a Christian and 
holy meaning, see reff. It became soon a 
custom in the churches at the celebration 
of the Lord’s Supper. See Suicer under 
donmacuds and PiAnua, and Bingham, xv. 
3.3. Goal. tp. aiéxd. mr. | This as- 
surance is stated evidently on the Apostle’s 
authority, speaking for the churches ; not 
implying as Bengel, “ quibuscum fui, c. xv. 
26. His significarat, se Romam scribere,” 


om kat evdAoyias (homeotel (DF 17 Chr-ms. 


but vouching for the brotherly regard in 
which the Roman church was held by all 
churches of Christ. The above misunder- 
standing has led to the exclusion of waca:. 

17—20.] WaARNING AGAINST 
THOSE WHO MADE DIVISIONS AMONG 
THEM. To what persons the Apostle re- 
fers, is not plain. Some (Thol., al.) think 
the Judaizers to be meant, not absolutely 
within the Christian pale, but endeavour- 
ing to sow dissension in it: andso, nearly, 
Neander, Pfl. u. Leit., p. 452. De W. 
thinks that Paul merely gives this warn- 
ing im case such persons came to Rome. 
Judging by the text itself, we infer that 
these teachers were similar to those pointed 
out in Phil. iii. 2, 18; 1 Tim. vi. 3; ff. 
2 Cor. xi. 13, 20: unprincipled and selfish 
persons, seducing others for their own 
gam : whether Judaizers or not, does not 
appear: but considering that the great op- 
ponents of the Apostle were of this party, 
we may perhaps infer that they also be- 
longed to it. 17. | oxometvy = Bré- 
mew, Phil.iii.2. The d:5ax4 here spoken 
of is probably rather ethical than doctri- 
nal ; compare Eph. iv. 20—24. 18. | 
xXpyoTodoyia, KoAaxeia, Theophyl. Wet- 
stein cites from Julius Capitolinus, in Per- 
tinace, 13, “omnes, qui libere conferebant, 
male Pertinacem loquebantur, chrestolo- 


emavKa 
TOUS «+ 
ABCD 
FLN a! 
cdef; 
hklm 
nol7 


IITPO> POMAIOTS. 


469 


\ id lal ££ ‘ >? / g > / S103 e a = 
yap vewy “vTakon els Tavtas Fadiketo: eh vply Ody fh. is reff 


, an U 7 
xXalpw, OéXw SE Uuas coors civat eis TO ™ ayabov, | dxe- 


g here only. 
Prov. i. 27. 
= Sir. xlvyii. 


/ - - A 16. 
paious dé eis * ro * xaxov. 70 6 S&! Beds THs! eipjvns ™ ouv- bch xii. 4 
re 


Tpiiper Tov catavav bro Tos Todas budv ” év " TayeL. 
xapls TOU Kupiou Huav “Inood [ypicTod] ° wel” Kwav. 
*l°Aaratverat tuds Tiodeos 6 P cuvepyos pou, 
Aovxws Kai “lacwv Kal Ywoiratpos of I auyyevels pov. 
2 aomdtowar buds éyw Téptios 6 yparbas * Thy emia tony 
3 aomagerat twas Vaios o * Eévos pou Kat 


év Kupio. 


4. Rey.i. 1. xxii.6 only. Deut. xxviii. 20. 
reff. q vv. 7, 11 reff. 
47. Xen. Anab. iii. 1, 4. 


19. vrakon bef vyuwy D-gr F. 


r see 1 Cor, v. 9 reff. 


‘Hi Matt. x. 16. 


Phil. ii. 15 
only +. 
k ch. ii. 9 reff. 


l ch. xv. 33 reff. 
m Matt. xii. 20. 

Kab Mark v. 4. 
xiv. 3. Luke 
ix. 39. John 
xix. 36. Rey. 
ii. 27 only. 
Gen. xix. 9. 

n Luke xviii. 8. 
Acts xii. 7. 
xxii. 18, xxy. 

o.ellips., ch. xy. 33 reff. p ver. 3 

s here only. Diod. Sic. xvii. 


rec Xaipw ovy To ep vay, with (DF)N? rel vulg 


syrr copt (arm) Chr Thdrt: ro e?” vai ocvvxaipw, omg ovy, m(m! Treg): txt ABCLPR}! 


arm Damasce Orig-int Ruf.—om ro D!F d (arm). 
rec aft copous adds wey (on account of Se follg ?), with ACPX rel syr Thl 


zeth. 


for 0. Se, rat OeAw D!F Syr 


(ic Aug: om BDFL copt Clem Czs(but om also de follg) Chr Thdrt Orig-int. 
20. cuvrpuvar A 67? vulg(am demid harl F-lat agst fuld tol) G-lat spee Orig Thdrt- 


comm Ambr. 
om xpioTov BR. 
gr-lat-ff. 


ev Taxet bef uro T. 7. nuwy A. 
elz at end adds auny, with m?(Treg); om ABCLPX rel vss 


om last clause DF Sedul. 


21. rec aoma(oyra:, with D3L rel Syr Thdrt Ge: txt ABCD!FPX m latt syr copt arm 


Chr Thl Orig-int Ambrst Ruf. 


om Ist pov B 67?. 


om 2nd ka B. 


at end DF add ka: at exxAnorat taoa Tov xv (see ver 16). 


gum eum appellantes, qui bene loqueretur 
et male faceret.”’ evAoytas, fairness 
of speech: so Plato, Rep. iii. 400 D, evAo- 
via tipa Kk. evapuootia Kk. evoxnmoctyy Kk. 
evpvOula evnOela akodovlei—or perhaps 
‘eulogies’ (flatteries), as Pind. Nem. iv. 8, 
ovde Oepudy tdwp tédcov | ye padOaKa 
Tevxet | yuia, Téocov edAoyia pdp | mryyt 
ovvdopos. 19.] See ch. i. 8. Their 
obedience being matter of universal noto- 
riety, is the ground of his confidence that 
they will comply with his entreaty, ver. 
ve Some slight reproof is conveyed 
in xalpw, 0€Aw 5€ x.T.A. They were well 
known for obedience, but had not been 
perhaps cautious enough with regard to 
these designing persons and their pre- 
tended wisdom. See Matt. x. 16, of 
which words of our Lord there seems 
to be here a reminiscence. 205] 
émeid)) yap eime Tovs Tas SixooTaclas 
K. T% okdvdada motodvTas, elrev ecipnyns 
Oedv, iva Oaponowot mep) THs Tol’TwY 
amadAayjs. Chrys. Hom. xxxii. p. 755: 
and so most Commentators. De W. 
prefers taking 6 0. ris eip. more gene- 
rally as ‘the God of salvation;’ and 
the usage of the expression (see reff.) 
seems to favour this. GuvTp. T. 
oat. is a similitude from Gen. iii. 15. 

ovvtpiper, not as Stuart, ‘for 
optative,’ nor does it express any wish, 
but a prophetic assurance and encourage- 
ment in bearing up against all adver- 


saries, that it would not be long before 
the great Adversary himself would be 
bruised under their feet. 7 xapts 
k.T.A.| It appears as if the Epistle was 
intended to conclude with this usual bene- 
diction, but the Apostle found occasion to 
add more. This he does also in other 
Epistles: see 1 Cor. xvi. 23, 24; similarly 
Phil. iv. 20, and vv. 21—28 after the dox- 
ology,—2 Thess. iii. 16, 17, 18 :—1 Tim. vi. 
16, 17 ff. :—2 Tim. iv. 18, 19 ff. 21— 
24, | GREETINGS FROM VARIOUS PERSONS. 
21.] Lucius must not be mistaken 
for Lucas (= Lucanus),—but was proba- 
bly Lucius of Cyrene, Acts xiii. 1, see note 
there. Jason may be the same who is 
mentioned Acts xvii. 5, 7, as the host of 
Paul and Silas at Thessalonica. A 
‘ Sopater (son) of Pyrrhus of Berea’ 
occurs Acts xx. 4, but it is hardly likely 
that this Sosipater is the same person. 
ot ouyyevets, see above, ver. 7. These 
persons may have been Jews; but we can- 
not tell whether the expression may not be 
used in a wider sense. 22.] There is 
nothing strange (as Olsh. supposes) in this 
salutation being inserted in the first person. 
It would be natural enough that Tertius 
the amanuensis, inserting domd(erar ip. 
Tépt. 6 yp. T. em. év kup., should change 
the form*into the first person, and after- 
wards proceed from the dictation of the 
Apostle as before. Beza and Grot. sup- 
pose him to have done this on transcribing 


470 


tacts». t 6Ans THS ' exKANoLas. 


1 Cor. xiv. 23. 


u = here only. vOpOS THS Tronews, Kal 


(Luke xvi. 
&c. 1 Cor. 
iv. 1, 2.) 
E sth. viii. 9. 
Jos. Antt. xi. 
re ntt. x esi 
v1 Tim. i. 17. 
Jude 24. 
w ch. i. 11. 
Luke xxii. 32 al. 


appv. | 


Ps. 1. 12 (14). 


23. rec tT. exkAno.as bef oAns, with L rel Chr Thdrt: oda: at exxAnoin F eth: 
exkAnota vulg(not am) copt(eccl. omnis) Pel Sedul : 
(24. om ver ABCN am(with fuld har! &c) copt xth-rom Ruf: 


IPOS POMAIOTS. 


xapis Tov Kupiou nuav “Incod yxpictod 


Ay \ / e a 
25 Te ¥ oe Suvapévo twas 


x ch. ii. 16. 2 Tim. ii. 8 only. 


XVI. 


> / e an At ec u > 
domaberat vuas ’Epactos o “ oiko- 


Kovaptos 6 aderdpos. [?*"H 


\ / 
° METH TAVTOV 


‘f 
VW otnplEa Kata TO * evayyédov 


see 2 Cor. iv. 3. 1 Thess. i.5. 2 Thess. ii. 14. 


oAN 7 
txt ABCDPX m am syrr. 


ins DFL rel Chr 


Thdrt Th] Ge Sedul Bede; and (but aft ver 27) Orig-int P 17. 80 Syr-mss syr 
weth-pl Ambrst.—for nuev, yuwy L: om P.—om ino. xp. F.] 
25, 26, 27. These verses are variously placed: (1) in BCDX 16. 80. 137-76 latt 


the Epistle. Thol. notices this irregularity 
as a corroboration of the genuineness of 
the chapter. On the supposed identity of 
Tertius with Silas see note on Acts xv. 22. 

23.] Gaius is mentioned 1 Cor. i. 
14, as having been baptized by Paul. The 
host of the whole church probably implies 
that the assemblies of the church were held 
in his house :—or perhaps, that his hospi- 
tality to Christians was universal. —_ Eras- 
tus, holding this office (oixovémos, the pub- 
lic treasurer, 6 em) rijs Snwoclas tparé(ns, 
arcarius, Wetst., who quotes from inscrip- 
tions, NelA@ oikovdum >Agias,—Secundus, 
arkarius Reip. Armerinorum), can hardly 
have been the same who was with the 


Apostle in Ephesus, Acts xix. 22. It is 
more probable that the Erastus of 2 Tim. 


iv. 20 is identical with this than with that 
other. 6 adeAdds, the brother,—the 
generic singular; one among of adeAdol, 
‘the brethren” The rest have been spe- 
cified by their services or offices. 

[24.] The benediction repeated ; see above 
on ver. 20. The omission (see var. read.) 
has perhaps been by the caprice of the 
copyists. ] 25—27.] CONCLUDING 
poxoLtoGy. The genuineness of this dox- 
ology, and its position in the Epistle have 
been much questioned. The external evi- 
dence will be found in the var. readings ; 
—from which it is plain, that i#s genuine- 
mess as a part of the Epistle is placed 
beyond all reasonable doubt. Nor does 
the variety of position militate here, as in 
some cases, against this conclusion. For 
the transference of it to the end of ch. xiv. 
may be explained, partly from the supposed 
reference of arnpléa to the question treated 
in ch. xiv. (so Chrys., méAw yap éxelvev 
éxeTat Tay ac0evay, K. mpos ad’Tovs Tpéme 
Tov Adyor), partly from the supposed in- 
appropriateness of it here after the bene- 
diction of ver. 24, in consequence of 
which that verse is omitted by Mss. which 
have the doxology here,—partly from 
the unusual character of the position and 


diction of the doxology itself. This 
latter has been used as an internal argu- 
ment against the genuineness of the por- 
tion. Paul never elsewhere ends with 
such a doxology. His doxologies, when he 
does use such, are simple, and perspicuous 
in construction, whereas this is involved, 
and rhetorical. This objection however is 
completely answered by the supposition 
(Fritz.) that the doxology was the effusion 
of the fervent mind of the Apostle on 
taking a general survey of the Epistle. 
We find in its diction striking similarities 
to that of the pastoral Epistles :—a phe- 
nomenon occurring in several places where 
Paul writes in a fervid and impassioned 
manner,—also where he writes with his 
own hand ;—the inferences from which I 
have treated in the Prolegg. to those 
Epistles (vol. iii. Prolegg. ch. vii. § i. 
30—33). That the doxology is made up 
of unusual expressions taken from Paul’s 
other writings, that it is difficult and in- 
volved, are facts, which if rightly argued 
from, would substs untiate, not its interpola- 
tion, but its genuineness: seeing that an 
interpolator would have taken care to con- 
form it to the character of the Epistle in 
which it stands, and to have left in it no 
irregularity which would bring it into 
question. The construction is exceed- 
ingly difficult. Viewed superficially, it 
presents only another instance added to 
many in which the Apostle begins a 
sentence with one construction, pro- 
ceeds onward through various dependent 
clauses till he loses “sight of the original 
form, and ends with a construction pre- 
supposing another kind of beginning. 
And such no doubt it is: but it is not easy 
to say what he had in his mind when com- 
mencing the sentence. Certainly, 6 7 ddta 
eis T. aiavas forbids us from supposing 
that 5é& was intended to follow the da- 
tives,—for thus this latter clause would be 
merely a repetition. We might imagine 
that he had ended the sentence as if it had 


24—27, IITPOy POMAIOTS. 471 


= ‘ \ y , ? a A Z \ za 2 fi =) Matt. xii. 
pov Kat TO YKynpvyna ‘Inood ypictod * Kata ™ aToKa UH eeaaeieseee 


' , ? , i, 21. ii. 4. 
AvYw » wvotnpiov © ypovots © alwviows 4 ceauynuévov 8° ha- y-11)3 tim. 
, x I Z is iv. 17. Tit. 
vepwOévtos dé viv dia Te fypadhay & mrpodynticoy Kat’ ™ érri-_ i-donly. 
\ ; 5) t > p Wl rn 2 (2 Chron, 
js adhoc : 2 Chi 
Taynv Tod 'aiwviov 'Geod ‘eis *imaxony * wiotews els Po; 
7} G ‘4 1X. 3.) 
, \ yy ] / 9 m / m an m n 2 AD, le Ae 
mavta Ta €Ovn !ywwpicbévtos, 27 ™ povw ™ cope ™ Oca, Ephy tt 3 


b ch. xi. 25. 


e2Tim.i.9. Tit. i. 2 only. see Gen. ix. 12. dat. of duration, 
d = here only (Acts xii. 17 reff.). i 


L.P. Ps. xxxi. 3. e ch. i. 19 reff. 


ach, viii. 19 reff. 
Luke viii. 29. ch. viii. 11. 


f Acts xvii. 2. ch. i. 2 reff. g 2 Pet. i. 19 only +. 1 Cor. vii. 6, 25. 2 Cor. viii. 8. 1 Tim. 
il. Tit. i. 3, ii. 15 only +. P. Wisd. xiv. 16. ihere only. Gen. xxi. 33. k ch. i. 5 (reff.). 
11 Cor. xii. 3 reff. m here only. (1 Tim.i.17. Jude 25.) 


Syr copt 2th Ambrst Ruf Pel Bede they stand here and here only : (II) they stand 
aft ch xiv 23 in L rel and about 192 others syr goth(appy) arm-zoh Chr Thdrt Damacs 
Th] Gc Theodul (Tert ?): (IIL) they are omd altogether in (D3 ?) F(a space is left aft 
xvi. 24) G(a space is left aft xiv. 23) Mcion (penitus abstulit accg to Ruf [and Orig ? 
see Orig in Rom. lib. x. 43, vol. iv. p. 687] as also chaps xv. xvi.) some mss in Jer(appy) 
Tert-mss ? : (FV) they occurs in both places in AP 5.17.109-lat arm-zoh. (Sz reckons 
246 mss of St. Paul. Here 16 are defective [see Sz, addg 126], 21 are unexamined 
[see Sz, addg 216. 239 to 246], 7 are not distinct mss [ viz. 8. 10. 56. 60-1-6. 117], and 


5 are included under “ rel.’’) 


25. for To knpuyua, Kupiov X1(txt N-corr?). 
26. om te D vulg syrr arm Chr Orig-int Hil. 


xpiorov bef inoov B. 
aft mpopnr. add kor THs emipaveras 


(adventum) Tov kuptov nuwy ino. xpiorov Orig, mss-in-Jer. 


27. dew bef copw D. 


begun 6 5 duvduevos, x.7.A. and expressed 
a wish that He who was able to confirm 
them, might confirm them: but this is 
prevented by its being evident, from the 
ove cope eg, that the datives are still 
inhis mind. This latter fact will guide us 
to the solution. The dative form is still in 
his mind, but not the reference in which 
he had used it. Hence, when the sentence 
would naturally have concluded (as it ac- 
tually does in B: see digest) udym cope 
Oe, bia “Inood xpiorod,  Séka eis Tr. 
ai@vas,—a break is made, as if the sense 
were complete at xp:aTod, and the relative 
@ refers back to the subject of the sen- 
tence preceding, thus imagined complete, — 
viz. to 6 Suvduevos—pdvos copds eds. 
The analogy of the similar passage Acts 
xx. 32 would.tempt us to supply with the 
datives maparibewa: suas, or the like,-as 
suggested by Olsh.;—but as De W. re- 
marks, the form of a doxology is too evi- 
dent to allow of this. After all, perhaps, 
the datives may be understood as convey- 
ing a general ascription of praise for the 
mercies of Redemption detailed in the 
Epistle, and then @ 7 5. as superadded, 
q. d., To Him who is able &..... be all 
the praise: to whom be glory for ever. 

25.| xara, in reference to, i. e. ‘in 
subordination to,’ and according to the 
requirements of. Kypuypa Incod xp. 
can hardly mean, as De W. and Meyer, 
‘the preaching which Jesus Christ hath 
accomplished by me’ (ch. xv. 18),—nor 
again as Chrys., 0 avrds exnpuvéev,—but 
the preaching of Christ, i. e. making 
known of Christ, as the verb is used 1 Cor. 


i. 23; xv. 12 al. fr. So Calv., and most 
Commentators. kata aGrox.| This 
second katrd is best taken, not as co- 
ordinate to the former one, and following 
ornpléat, nor as belonging to duvaueve, 
which would be an unusual limitation of the 
divine Power,—but as subordinate to «74- 
puyjuwa,—the preaching of Jesus Christ ac- 
cording to, &c. The omission of 7é before 
kata@ arok. is no objection to this. 
puot.| The mystery (see ch. xi. 25, note) 
of the gospel is often said to have been thus 
hidden from eternity in the counsels of 
God—see Eph. iii. 9; Col. i. 26; 2 Tim. 
i.9; Tit.i. 2; 1 Pet. i. 20; Rev. xiii. 8. 
26.] See ch. i. 2. The prophetic 
writings were the storehouse out of which 
the preachers of the gospel took their 
demonstrations that Jesus was the Christ : 
see Acts xviii. 28;—more especially, it is 
true, to the Jews, who however are here 
included among mdvta Ta eOyn. 
Kat émutay. may refer either to the pro- 
phetic writings bemg drawn up by the 
command of God,—or to the manifestation 
of the mystery by the preachers of the 
gospel thus taking place. The latter seems 
best to suit the sense. atwviov refers back 
to xp. aiwvtois. The first eis indicates 
the aim—in order to their becoming obe- 
dient to the faith :—the second, the local 
extent of the manifestation. 27.) Sia 
"Ino. xp. must by the requirements of the 
construction be applied to pdve cope 0, 
and not (as Aug.) to dé, from which it is 
separated by the relative ¢. The quantity 
of intervening matter, especially the datives 
udvm cop@ Oe4, prevent it from being re- 


472 TIPO POMAIOTS. AVi-ea 


nsec ch.iit6. Goa "Inood ypictod, © 7 ° Sofa ? els Tovs aidvas. 


o ch. xi. 36 reff. 
p ch. i. 25 reff. anv. 


TPO> POMAIOTS. 


xpiot. bef ino. B. om @ B Syr Orig-int. aft awvas add tay aiwywy ADP 
vulg Syr copt eth arm Damasc Ruf (but not AP arm xiv. 23) om apny 49. 63 am. 


SUBSCRIPTION: rec mp. p. eypapn amo, KopwGov, with B? D-corr P(prefixing mavAou 
emioToAn) rel syrr copt goth (ec, adding bia gpoiBns THs Siakovov THs ev KEeyxXpEats 
exkAnotas, with rel copt Gc (but ak pref7; abd e f k m n47 om 77s ev keyxp. 
exXKA.; 1 OM 7p. pw.): Tov ay. K. Taveupynuov amogToAov mavAou emo. TP. p. EYPAPn 
amo Kkopiv0ov dia porns ths Siaxovov LL: om F e g117: eypapn aro kopwiov0: eyp. 
dia po.Bns amo kop. hh: txt AB'CD! G(adding ereAeoOn) &. 


ferred (as (ic., Theophyl.) to ornpliu. It cannot without great harshness be re- 

It must then be rendered to the only ferred to Christ, seeing that the words 

wise God through Jesus Christ, i.e. Him pdyw cog Oe resume thé chief subject 

who is revealed to us by Christ as such. of the sentence, and to them the relative 
On the construction of ¢ see above. must apply. 


ABCD 
FL at 
cdef; 
hkim 


CDF 
tab 


* Ambrst Aug Bede. 


IPOS KOPINOIOYS A. 


I. 1 [labros [* xAnTos] arootodos ypiotod “Incod ” dia**® 
OeAnpwatos Oeod, Kai Ywobevns 6 abedpos, 2 TH éexkAnoia |v. 


Tov °Oeov, “Hytacpévors 4 


16,22. xv.9. 2Cor.i.l. Gal.i.13. 1 Thess. ii.14. 2Thess.i.4. 1 Tim. iii.5,15, Neh. xiii. 1. 


xv. 16 reff. 


a Rom. i. 1,6, 
Jude 1 al. 
2 Kings xy. 


b Rom. xy. 32 


’ A I nr an vy 5) reff. 
eV XPLOT@ GOV, T1) OUON EV © Kets xx. 28. 


ch. x. 32. xi. 
d Rom. 


TITLE. Steph  wpos Tovs Kopwéovs emiatoAn mpwTn: elz mavAov Tov aroarToAov 


mpos KopwOous em. mp., with rel: mp. kop. apxeta a F(but G om @): Tov ayiov kau 
Tavevpniov amwooToAov TMavAou emtaoTOAN Tp. Kop. TpwTH Li: mpos Ko. a ex. hn: TP. KO. 
ex. mp. k: mav. em. mp. kop. a P: mp. kop. m: om D: txt A(appy: the title is nearly 
gone) BCX 10 17. 47. 


Cap. I. 1. om kAntos AD Cyr, (perhaps because it does not occur elsw in the open- 
ings of epp exc Romi.1: but it may have been insd from there, so I have left it 
doubtful): ins BCFLPN rel vss Chr Cyr! Thdrty expr Thlexpr (ECexpr Orig-int 
rec ino. bef xp., with ALPN rel vss Thdrt Thl He Orig-int 


Aug: txt BDF am(with demid fuld tol) Chr Hil.—av corrd to w N}. [C is 


defective in this and follg ver. ] 


2. rec Ty oven ev Kop. bef nyiacu. ev x. t., with AD?2LPR rel vss: txt BD!3F. 


Cuap. I. 1—3.] ADDRESS AND GREET- 
ING. 1.] It is doubtful whether 
kAnTOs is not spurious : see var. readd. 

The words 81a Qed. Beod point probably to 
the depreciation of Paul’s apostolic au- 
thority at Corinth. In Gal. i. 1 we have 
this much more strongly asserted. But 
they have a reference to Paul himself also: 
“ratio auctoritatis ad ecclesias: humilis 
et prompti animi, penes ipsum Paulum.” 
Bengel. Chrys.,referring itto «Anrds, says, 
ered) avT@ edokev, exKANOnmEV, ovK eed} 
akon juev. Hom. i. p. 4, Loabévyns 
can hardly be assumed to be identical with 
the ruler of the synagogue in Acts xviii. 
17: see note there. He must have been 
some Christian well known to the church 
at Corinth. Thus Paul associates with 
himself Silvanus and Timotheus in the 
Epistles to the Thessalonians ; and Timo- 
theus in 2 Cor. Chrysostom attributes it 
to modesty: metpiacer, cuvtatTwy éavT@ 
Tov €AdtTova ToAAG. Some have sup- 
posed Sosthenes to be the writer of the 
Epistle, see Rom. xvi. 22. Possibly he 


may have been one t@yv XAémys (ver. 11) 
by whom the intelligence had been re- 
ceived, and the Apostle may have associated 
him with himself as approving the appeal 
to apostolic authority. Perhaps some slight 
may have been put upon him by the par- 
ties at Corinth, and for that reason Paul 
puts him forward. 6 adeAdds, as 2 Cor. 
i. 1, of Timothy, the brother,—one of of 
adeApot. 2.] The remarks of Calvin 
on TH ékkA. 7. Oeov, «.7.A. are admirable: 
“* Mirum forsan videri queat, cur eam ho- 
minum multitudinem vocet Eeclesiam Dei, 
in qua tot morbi invaluerant, ut Satan illic 
potius regnum occuparet quam Deus. Cer- 
tum est autem, eum noluisse blandiri Co- 
rinthiis: loquitur enim ex Dei Spiritu, qui 
adulari non solet. Atqui inter tot inquina- 
menta qualis amplius eminet Ecclesiz fa- 
cies ? Respondeo, . . . uteunque multa vitia 
obrepsissent, et varie corruptelz tam doc- 
trinz quam morum, extitisse tamen adhuc 
quedam verze Ecclesiz signa. Locus dili- 
genter observandus, ne requiramus in hoc 
mundo Ecclesiam omni ruga et macula ca- 


474: 


e Acts ix, 13 
reff. 

f Acts xxiii. 15. 
2 Cor. i. 1. 
Phil. i. 1. 

g Acts ii. 21 
reff. 

h see Rom. xvi. 
13 and ch. 


ToT@ » 


xvi. 18. 
i Rom. i. 7. 
k Rom. i. 8 


(reff). 1 = Phil. i. 3 al. 


om Ist nuwy A 77. 109 fuld Orig Tert Ambrst Pel. 


(A! ?)BDIFR! 17: ins CD?LPR3 rel. 


IIPOS KOPIN@IOTS A. 


E 


KopivO, * KAnrtols ° dyiou, ! ody Taow Tots ® ériKadoupE~ 
vols TO dvoua TOU Kuplou Huav “Incod yploTod ev TavTt 
avtav [te] Kai » 
aT Ocod Tratpos Huav Kal Kuplov ‘Incod xpiorod. 

4k Rdyapicta TO * Ged * wou wadvtote Trept buav ert TH 


nov. ®iyvapis buty Kat‘ eipjvy 


om xpiorou A. om Te 


4. om pov BX! eth: ins ACDFLPS-corr! rel vss. 


reutem: aut protinus abdicemus hoe titulo 
quemvis coetum in quo non omnia votis 
nostris respondeant. Est enim hec pericu- 
losa tentatio, nullam Ecclesiam putare ubi 
non appareat perfecta puritas. Nam qui- 
cunque hae occupatus fuerit, necesse tan- 
dem erit, ut discessione ab omnibus aliis 
facta, solus sibi sanctus videatur in mundo, 
aut peculiarem sectam cum paucis hypo- 
critis instituat. Quid ergo cause habuit 
Paulus, cur Ecclesiam Corinthi agnosceret ? 
nempe quia Evangelii doctrinam, Baptis- 
mum, Cenam Domini, quibus symbolis 
censeri debet Ecclesia, apud eos cernebat.” 
On rod O00, Chrys. remarks, ob rovde kad 
Tovde, GAAG TOD Ocov,— and similarly Theo- 
phyl., taking the expression as addressed 
to the Corinthians to remind them of their 
position as a congregation belonging to 
Gop, and not to any head of a party. 
Perhaps this is too refined, the words 7 
éxkA. T. Geod being so usual with St. 
Paul,—see reff. The harshness of the 
position of jyiacuévois ev xp. “Ino. is in 
favour of its being the original one :— 
hallowed (i.e. dedicated) to God in (in 
union with and by means of) Jesus Christ. 
Tq ovo_q—‘ which exists,’ ‘is found, 
at Corinth’ So éy ’Ayvtix. kata Thy 
otoay exxAnatay, Acts xiii. 1. Khy- 
tots aylous | See Rom. i. 7, note. 
ovv maow «.7.A.] These words do not 
belong to the designations just preceding, 
= ‘as are all,’ &c., but form part of the 
address of the Epistle, so that these rdvres 
of émiad. are partakers with the Corin- 
thians in it. They form a weighty and 
precious addition,—made here doubtless to 
shew the Corinthians, that membership of 
God’s Holy Catholic Church consisted not 
in being planted, or presided over by Paul, 
Apollos, or Cephas (or their successors), 
but in calling on the name of our Lord 
Jesus Christ. The Church of England has 
adopted from this verse her solemn ex- 
planation of the term, in the ‘prayer for 
all sorts and conditions of men:’ “ More 
especially, we pray for the good estate of 
the Catholic Church. that it may be so 
guided and governed by thy good Spirit, 
that all who profess and call themselves 


Christians may be led into the way of 
truth, and hold the faith in unity of spirit, 
in the bond of peace, and in righteousness 
of life.”’ émukad. | not ‘calling them- 
selves by’ (though in sense equivalent to 
‘this, for they who call upon Christ, call 
themselves by His Name): the phrase 
émikadcioOat To dvoya Tod Kuptov was 
one adopted from the LXX, as in reff.; 
the adjunct jay ’Incod xp. defines that 
Lord (Jehovah) on whom the Christians 
called, to be Jesus Christ,—and is a direct 
testimony to the divine worship of Jesus 
Christ, as universal in the church. The 
tvoua emixdnbey ep’ buds (James ii. 7) is 
not to the point, the construction being 
different. év Twavtl Tém. avr. [TE] K. 
yp. | In every place, whether theirs (in 
their country, wherever that may be) or 
ours. ‘This connexion is far better than 
to join adr. [re] x- ju. with upto, thereby 
making the first 7ju@v superfluous. 
avtayv refers to the mavres of émxad., 
jpoev to Paul, and Sosthenes, and those 
whom he is addressing. Eichhorn fancied 
témos to mean ‘a place of assembly ? 
Hug, ‘a party’ or ‘division: Beza, al., 
would limit the persons spoken of to 
Achaia: others, to Corinth and Ephesus:— 
but the simple meaning and universal re- 
JSerence are far more agreeable to the spirit 
of the passage. I may as well once for all 
premise, that many of the German expo- 
sitors have been constantly misled in their 
interpretations by what I believe to be a 
mistaken view of ver. 12, and the supposed 
Corinthian parties. See note there. 
3.] See introductory note to the Epistle 
to the Romans. Olsh. remarks, that eipqyn 
has peculiar weight here on account of 
the dissensions in the Corinthian Church. 
4—9.] THANKSGIVING, AND EXPRES- 
SION OF HOPE, ON ACCOUNT OF THE 
SPIRITUAL STATE OF THE CORINTHIAN 
cuurcH. There was much in the Co- 
rinthian believers for which to be thank- 
ful, and on account of which to hope. 
These things he puts in the foreground, 
not only to encourage them, but (as 
Olsh.) to appeal to their better selves, 
and to bring out the following contrast 


ABCD 
LPRa 
cedef 
hklr 
nol7 
47 


3—9, 


IIPO> KOPINOIOTS A. 


475 


mm vapit. TOD Oeod TH ™Sobcion viv ev ypioT@ “Inaod m= iets 


xi. 23 reff. 


4 \ an ae 
5 Ore ev TravTi ° ém@NouTicOnTE ev aVTO, ev P TaVTL AOYO Kab ™ Rom. ui 3, 


, \ / rn r 
Pardon Iyvoce, © Kabas TO * wapTipioy Tod xXpLoTOD 


6. xv. 15. 
ch. iii. 10. 
2 Cor, viii. 1. 
Gal. ii. 9, 


SéBeBawOn ev vbpiv, Teste twas pn * botepetcOar ev PPh ii,2,s. 


iv. 7. 2 Tim. 


\ t i9. Je 
pnoevt “yaplopati, Y amexdeyouévovs THY “aroKdduw iv.6. 


2 Cor, vi. 10. 


a , etta ’ a a ga aay , ret 
Tov Kupiov nuav ‘Inood yptotov: 8 os Kat * BeBar@cer ix. only. 


¢ na x @ x Le y ? / ? Ao 7 Va fal / al 
upas * €ws * TEeMOUS ¥ aveyKANTOUS EV TH ” NMEPA TOV KUPtLOU » 


nav “Inood ypiotod. 


r=ch,ii. J. 2 Thess. i..10. 


1 Tim. ii. 6. 2 Tim. i.8. 


Gen. xiv. 23 


= Acts xx. 
19 reff. 


id X 
98qiatos Oo Beds » de’ OD eKA- 2 = Rom. xy. 


14 al. fr. 


s Rom. xv. 8 reff. t Luke xy.14. Rom. 
ili. 23. Phil. iv. 12. Heb. xi. 37 al. Ps. xxii. 1. u = Rom. xi. 29. xii. 6 (ch. xii. 4) al. vy Rom. 
viii. 19, 23, 25. Gal. v.5. Phil. iii. 20. Heb. ix. 28. 1 Pet. iii. 20 only +. w = Rom, viii. 19 
reff. x 2Cor.i.13 only, mexypt T., Heb. iii. 14. aype T., Rev. ii. 26. y Col. 
i, 22. 1 Tim. iii.10. Tit. i.6,7 only+. 3 Mace. v. 31. ellips., Matt. xii. 13. z = Acts ii. 20 (from 
Joel ii. 31). ch. iii. 13. iv. 3. v.5. 2 Cor. i. 14. Eph. iv. 30. Phil. i. 6, 10. ii. 16. a=ch. 
x. 13. 2Cor.i.18. 1 Thess. vy. 24. 2% Thess. iii. 3, 2 Tim. ii. 13 al. b= Rom.i.5. 2 Cor, i. 11. 


om Tov Oeou A! 39. 87 Cyr,. 


5. ev (Ist) is written twice but corrd by N!. 
6. for xpiorov, Gcov B'(but corrd, Tischdf) F n 46-7. 72. 109-20 lectt 8. 12 arm. 


8. the ver is written twice by &}(corrd by N-corr’). 


for ews, axpt DF. 


for nuepa (in diem fri), rapovora DE Ambrst Cassiod; die adventus vulg Pel Bede. 


om xpiorou B. 
9. om 6 Cl. for 81, up DIF. 


more plainly. 4. 7. 8ed pov] so in 
retf. Rom. Phil. mwavrote | expanded 
in Phil. i. 4 into mavrote ev mdon dehoe 
pov. The » xdpis 7 S00ctca = Ta xa- 
plowata Tux S00evTa (see below on ver. 7) 
—a metonymy which has passed so com- 
pletely into our common parlance, as to be 
almost lost sight ofas such. ‘ Grace’ is pro- 
perly 7x God: the gifts of grace in us, given 
by that grace. év | not, as Chrys., Theo- 
phyl., Gcum., for dd, but as usually in 
this connexion, in Christ,—i.e. to you as 
members of Christ. So also below. 5. 
év wavti|] general: particularized by év 
mavTl Adyw K. mdon yvéoet, in all doc- 
trine and all knowledge. Adyos (obj.), 
the truth preached. yvaors (subj.), the 
truth apprehended. They were rich in the 
preaching of the word, had among them 
able preachers, and rich in the apprehen- 
sion of the word, were themselves intelli- 
gent hearers. See 2 Cor. viii. 7, where to 
these are added rloris, crovdh, and yarn. 
6. TO apt. T. xptoTov] the wit- 

ness concerning Christ delivered by me. 
KaQds, as indeed, ‘siquidem.’ 

éBeB., was confirmed,—took deep 

root, among you; i.e. ‘as was to have been 
expected, from the impression made among 
you by my preaching of Christ.’ This con- 
firmation was internal, by faith and perma- 
nence in the truth, not external, by miracles. 
7.] So that ye are behind (others) 

in no gift of grace ;—not, lack no gift of 
grace, which would be genitive. yépiopa 
here has its widest sense, of that which is 
the effect of xapis,—not meaning ‘spiritual 
gifts’ in the narrower sense, as in ch. xii. 4. 


This is plain from the whole strain of the 
passage, which dwells not on outward gifts, 
but on the inward graces of the Christian 
life. amekSex. | which is the greatest 
proof of maturity and richness of the 
spiritual life; implying the coexistence 
and co-operation of faith, whereby they 
believed the promise of Christ,—hope, 
whereby they looked on to its fulfilment, 
—and Jove, whereby that anticipation was 
lit up with earnest desire ;—compare 7a- 
ow Tots HyaTHKOGLW Thy emipaveray avTOod, 
2 Tim. iv. 8. amekd. K.T.A. is taken by 
Chrys..—who understands xapiouata of 
miraculous powers,—as implying that be- 
sides them they needed patience to wait 
till the coming of Christ ; and by Calv.,— 
“ideo addit expectantes revelationem, quo 
significat, non talem se affluentiam illis 
affingere in qua nihil desideretur; sed 
tantum que sufficiet usquedum ad perfec- 
tionem perventum fuerit.” But I much 
prefer taking dmexdexouevous as parallel 
with and giving the result of uy bo7. k.7.A. 
8. 6s | viz. Oeds, ver. 4, not *Incovs 
xptordés, in which case we should have év 
™ nNuépe avtov. The rai besides shews 
this. €ws TEX. Gveyn.] i.e. cis 7d 
civat twas aveyk.; — sO amexatecTabn 
byihs, Matt. xii. 13. To the end, see 
reff.—i.e. to the suvréAcia T. ai@vos,— 
not merely ‘to the end of your lives.’ 
9.] See ref. 1 Thess.; also Phil. i. 6. The 
KOLV. TOU ut. avT., as Meyer well remarks, 
is the déta Tay Téxvwy Tov Ocod, Rom. viii. 
21: for they will be cvyxAnpovduor tod 
Xpiorod, and cuvdotacbeyvtes with Him,— 
see Rom. viii. 17, 23 ; 2 Thess. ii, 14. The 


476 TIIPO> KOPINOIOTS A. 23 


c2Corvilt Onre els © KoWwviav Tod viod avTod “Incod xpioTOd Tov ABCD 
d Rom. xii. 1 : fe 
reff. hk 


e constr., Matt. 


Kuplou 7L@v. 


meer 10 de TTapaxcare 5é buds, aderdoi, ' bua Tod * dvdopatos now 
eae vii, 6, TOD Kuplov nuav “Incod yxpiotov, wa To avdTo AéyyTE 
Gok Bal mavres Kal py 7 ev bpiv £ oxlcpara, Ate 6€ » KaTnp- 

? A m i a an > an ‘ 
g = ohn i Tigpevon ev TO avT@ ‘vol Kai ev TH avTH * youn. 
Sis cnx LL1E8yAGON yap pou Tepl buoy, adeApol pov, TO ™ TOV 


8. xii. 25 


a 1.21) i a g lal 
Gia) XAOns, OTe Epudes ey vyiv claw. 2 °déyo 5€é TOTO, 
, 


only t. 
Isa. 11. 21.) 
h = Luke vi. 
40. 2 Cor. 
xiii. 11. Gal. vi. 1. Heb. xiii. 21. 
Luke xxiv. 45. Rev. xiii. 18. xvii. 9. 
exc. Rey. xvii. 13,17 [bis]. 2 Macc. xiv. 20. 
i. l4only. Exod. vi. 3. 
only. o = ch. x. 29. 
iii. 23 al. 


1 Pet. v.10. Ezra iv. 13. 

k = ch. vii. 25,40. 2 Cor. viii. 10. 
1 ch. iii. 13, i 

m see Rom. xvi. 10, 11. 

iii. 9. -tdes, here only. sing., Rom. i. 29. xiii. 13. ch. iii. 3. Gal. y. 20. 

Gal. iii, 17. see ch. vii. 29. xv. 50. 


dre Exactos tuav reyes “Ey pév eis PTlavrov, eyo Se 


i = Rom. i. 28. Eph. iv. 17. P. only, exc. 

P. or of P. (Acts xx. 3) only, 

Col. i. 8. Heb. ix.8. xii. 27. 1Pet.i. 11. 2 Pet. 
n plur., 2 Cor. xii. 20, 1 Tim. vi.4. Tit. 
Phil. i. 15 only+. Sir. xxviii. 11. xl. 5,9 
p gen., Acts ix. 2. Rom, xiv. 8. ch. 


10. inc. xp. bef tov kup. nu. DF.—xp. bef mo. D.—om tov F(not G). 
11. for pov, wor B'(sic): om Cl(appy) D-lat Ambrst. 


mention of koivwvla may perhaps have been 
intended to prepare the way, as was before 
done in ver. 2, for the reproof which is 
coming. Chrys. remarks respecting vv. 
1—9, ob 5& oKdre: THs adTo’s TE Ovd- 
pari del TOD XpioTod mposnAot. Kal avOpa- 
mov mev ovdevds, ovTe awooTdAov ovTE b- 
dacKkdAov, TvVEXGS DE aVTOU TOV TOPoUVMEVOU 
péuyntot, Kabdrep ard peOns Twos Tovs 
KapnBapoivTas ameveykely mapackevd wr. 
ovdauov yap ev Erépa emoToAy otw ouv- 
€x@s Keira Td bvoua TOD XpioTOU" evTavba 
pevrat ev dAlyos ortxots ToAAGKLS, Kal da 
TovTov axed To Tay bpatver mpooluor. 
Hom. ii. p. 10. 

10—IV. 21.] REPRooF OF THE PARTY- 
DIVISIONS AMONG THEM: BY OCCASION 
OF WHICH, THE APOSTLE EXPLAINS AND 
DEFENDS HIS OWN METHOD OF PREACH- 
ING ONLY CHRIST TO THEM. 10.] 
Sé introduces the contrast to the thankful 
assurance just expressed. Sia rT. ov., 
as 01a TGV oixTipua@y Tod Ocov, Rom. xii. 1: 
“as the bond of union, and as the most 
holy name by which they could be adjured.” 
Stanley. iva (reff.) not only introduces 
the result of the fulfilment of the exhorta- 
tion, but includes its import. TO avTo 
héynte—contrast to Aéyer eyo mev .. . ey 
bi... Cyd BE... . eyw 5€ of ver. 12,—but 
further implying the Laving the same sen- 
timents onthe subjects which divided them : 
see Phil. ii. 2. qre S€| 5é here im- 
plies but rather, as in Thuc. ii. 98, areyly- 
VETO pey AUT ovdev TOV OTpaTOD, . . . Tpos- 
eylyvero 5é. Hartung, Partikellehre, i. 
171, gives many other examples. —_katap- 
zw is the exact word for the healing or 
repairing of the breaches made by the 
oxtouara,—perfectly united. So Herod. 
vy. 28, 7 Mlantos.... ml 500 yeveds ay- 


Spay voohoaca és TA UGALOTA OTAGEL, EXPL 
ov uv Tidpioc KaTypticay. vo 
(reff.), disposition,—yvepy (do.), opinion. 
11.] We cannot fill up trav XAdqs, 
not knowing whether they were sozs, or 
servants, or other members of her family. 
Nor can we say whether Chloe was (Theo- 
phyl., al.) an inhabitant of Corinth, or 
some Christian woman (Estius) known to 
the Corinthians elsewhere, or (Michaelis, 
Meyer) an Ephesian, having friends who 
had been in Corinth. 12.] A€yw Se 
tovto ot1,—not, ‘I say this because, — 
but (see reff.) I mean this, that.... 
éxaor. tp. Aéy. | The meaning is 
clear, but the form of expression not strictly 
accurate, the €xaoros being a different per- 
son.in each case. Accurately expressed it 
would run thus, 671 wavres rowvTd Tt 
Aéyere, eye eit I1., ym "Amrod., eyo Kno., 
éyw xpiorov,—or as De W., drt waves X., 
5 pév, eyd ciut . . . . 6 06, Cy K.T.A.— 
Respecting the matter of fact to which the 
verse alludes, I have given references in the 
Prolegg. § ii. 10, to the principal theories 
of the German critics, and will only here 
restate the conclusions which I have there 
(ib. parr. 5—9) endeavoured to substan- 
tiate: (1) that these designations are not 
used as pointing to actual parties formed 
and subsisting among them, but (2) as 
representing the SPIRIT WITH WHICH 
THEY CONTENDED against one another, 
being the sayings of individuals, and not of 
parties (€xartos buoy A€ye): q.d. ‘You 
are all in the habit of alleging against one 
another, some your special attachment to 
Paul, some to Apollos, some to Cephas, 
others to no mere human teacher, but 
barely to Christ, to the exclusion of 
us his Apostles.’ (3) That these say- 


10—158. 


"ATOANM, ey@ SE Kydd, eyo Sé ypiorod. 
6 ypiotos ; px Iladdos eotavpHOn irép Kudv, 7) ‘els TO 


IIPO> KOPINOIOTS, A. 


477 


13 q — Matt. xii. 
HEMEPLO TAL 9 95, '96). 

(ch. vii. 34. 

Rom, xii. 3 

reff.) 3 Kings 


xvi. 21. r = Acts viii. 16 reff. 


13. for uep, epi BD!: txt ACD3F LN rel. 


ings, while they are not to be made the 
basis of any hypothesis respecting defi- 
nite parties at Corinth, do neverthe- 
less hint at matters of fact, and are not 
merely ‘exempli gratia :’ and (4) that this 
view of the verse, which was taken by 
Chrys., Theodoret, Theophylact, Caly., is 
borne out, and indeed necessitated, by ch. 
iv. 6 (see there). éy® .. . Ilavdov | 
This profession, of being guided especially 
by the words and acts of Paul, would pro- 
bably belong to those who were the first 
fruits of, or directly converted under, his 
ministry. Such persons would contend for 
his apostolic authority, and maintain doc- 
trinally his teaching, so far being right ; 
but, as usual with partisans, would magnify 
into importance practices and sayings of 
his which were in themselves indifferent, 
and forget that theirs was a service of per- 
fect freedom under one Master, even Christ. 
With these he does not deal doctrinally in 
the Epistle, as there was no need for it: 
but involves them in the same censure as 
the rest, and shews them in ch. ii., ili., iv. 
that he had no such purpose of gaining per- 
sonal honour among them, but only of build- 
ing them up in Christ. éy@ “ATroAXG | 
Apollos (Acts xviii. 24 ff.) had come to 
Corinth after the departure of Paul, and 
being eloquent, might attract some, to 
ewhom the bodily presence of Paul seemed 
weak and his speech contemptible. It 
would certainly appear that some occasion 
had been taken by this difference, to set 
too high a value on external and rhetorical 
form of putting forth the gospel of Christ. 
This the Apostle seems to be blaming (in 
part) in the conclusion of this, and the next 
chapter. And from ch. xvi. 12, it would 
seem likely that Apollos himself had been 
aware of the abuse of his manner of teach- 
ing which had taken place, and was un- 
willing, by repeating his visit just then, to 
sanction or increase it. éy® Knoa. | 
All we can say in possible explanation of 
this, is, that as Peter was the Apostle of the 
circumcision,—as we know from Gal. ii. 
11 ff. that his course of action on one occa- 
sion was reprehended by Paul, and as that 
course of action no doubt had influence and 
found followers, it is very conceivable that 
some of those who in Corinth lightly es- 
teemed Paul, might take advantage of this 
honoured name, and cite against the Chris- 
tian liberty taught by their own spiritual 
founder, the stricter practice of Peter. If 


so, these persons would be mainly found 
among the Jewish converts or Judaizers ; 
and the matters treated in ch. vii.—xi. 1, 
may have been subjects of doubt mainly 
with these persons. éy® Sé xpiorod | 
A rendering has been proposed (Estius, al.) 
which need only be mentioned to be re- 
jected: viz. that Paul having mentioned 
the three parties, then breaks off, and adds, 
of his own, eye 5& (Madaos), xpiorod 
(eiur). Beza represents this as Chrysos- 
tom’s view, but it is not: ov todro évexd- 
Aet, Ott THY xXpioTby EavTOis erEpHutCoy, 
GAN OTL wy mavTes pdvoy. oiua SE avTdy 
Kal olkobev avTd mpostederkevar BovAdmevov 
Bapitepoy Td eykAnua Trojou, Kal detta 
oUTw Kal Toy xpioToy els mépos S00evTa 
ev, et Kal wy OUTwWS erolouy TOUTO ekEiVvOL :— 
(Hom. iii. p. 16 f.):—meaning by ozobev, 
not, as his own sentiment, but of his 
own invention, to shew them the incon- 
sistency of their conduct. The words 
seem to apply to those who make a 
merit of not being attached to any 
human teacher,—who therefore slighted 
the apostleship of Paul. To them frequent 
allusion seems to be made in this and in 
the second Epistle, and more especially in 
2Cor.x.7—11. —_ Fora more detailed dis- 
cussion of the whole subject, see Prolege. 
as above, and Dr. Davidson’s Introd. to 
the N. T. ii. 222 ff. 13.] Some 
(Lachmann has so printed it) take neyeé- 
prorat 6 xp. as an assertion,—‘ Christ has 
been divided (by you),’—or, as Chrys. 
mentions, Sievetuato mpos avOpémovs k. 
eueploato Thy exkAnolay. But it is far 
better to take it, as commonly, interroga- 
tively: Is Christ (the Person of Christ, 
as the centre and bond of Christian unity 
—not, the Gospel of Christ (Grot., al.),— 
nor the Church of Christ (Kstius, Olsh.) : 
nor the power of Christ (Theodoret), i. e. 
his right over all) divided (not in the 
primary sense [{Meyer, ed. 1], against 
Himself, as Mark iii. 24, 25, where we 
have é¢” éauthy, but ‘into various parts,’ 
one under one leader, another under an- 
other,—which in fact would amount, after 
all, to a division against himself)? The 
question applies to all addressed, not to 
the éy® xpicrod only, as Meyer, ed. 1. 
In that case wewepiora 6 xp. would mean 
‘Has Christ become the property of one 
part only ?’ as indeed Dr. Burton renders 
it. Meyer urges against the interroga- 
tive rendering, that the questions begin 


478 TPOS KOPIN@IOTS A. ji 
s ver. 4. évoua Ilavnrov * éBarrticOnte ; 148 ebyapict® TH * Oe@ OTL ABCD 
15é Caen D7 > \ / \ oe 15 % LPRa 
ovdeva vuav éBartica, et wy) Kpiorov kai Vaiov, wa cdef 
, ed \ > TI 
tchiv.2. pa) Tus ely OTL Els TO E“ov Ovowa™ éBaTTicOnte. 15 EBa- nol 


1 Thess. iv. 1. 


rn 5 \ >, 
ites ib atioa 6&€ kal tov Stepava oixovr *rourov ovK oda “él 


reff. ” > , 

veonstr., Acts TEVA ANAOV EBaTrTica. 
xxvi. 17 reff. 

w absol., Rom. 
xv. 20 reff. 


14. om Tw dew BN! 672. 


17 > \ v2 / / \ 
ov yap ‘ atréaTetNev me KPLOTOS 
Banrifew, adra “ evayyeriGecOav ox ev copia doyou, 


add pov Ad g 17 vulg-sixt(with demid fuld harl?) Syr 
syr-w-ob copt arm Thdrt, Orig-int Pel Sedul Bede. 


arpickoy NX}. 


15. rec (for «BamticOnTe) eBartica, with C23DFLP rel fri Syr goth Thdrt Tert: txt 
ABC!8 am 17 vulg syr-mg coptt arm Chr Damase Ambr-mss Pel Primas Bede. 


16. for lst eBamrica, BeBartixa D'F. 
fuld. 

17. for aweoreivev, ameotal .. 
Thdrt: om ACDLPX rel Chr Thl He. 
gacba B: txt ADFLPR rel. (C uncert.) 


immediately after, with uj. But we may 
fairly set against this argument, that the 
uh introduces a new form of interrogation 
respecting a new individual, viz. Paul: and 
that it was natural, for solemnity’s sake, 
to express the other question differently. 
In peuepiorar 6 xptords, the Majesty of 
Christ’s Person is set against the unworthy 
insinuation conveyed by peuépiorat,—in 
wh TlatAos éotavpé6n trép du.,—the 
meanness of the individual, Paul, is set 
against the triumph of divine Love implied 
in éor. in. tuadv. Two such contrasts 
could hardly but be differently expressed. 
py I. éor. «.7.A.] Surely Paul 
was not crucified for you? By repudi- 
ating all possibility of himself being the 
Head and émdéyupos of their church, he 
does so @ fortiori for Cephas and Apollos: 
for he founded the Church at Corinth. On 
eis TO bv. €Barr. see Matt. xxviii. 19. 
14.] Olsh. characterizes it as surprising 
that Paul should not have referred to the 
import of baptism itself as a reason to 
substantiate his argument. He does not 
this, but tacitly assumes, between ver. 13 
and 14, the probability that his having bap- 
tized any considerable number among the 
Corinthians would naturally have led to the 
abuse against which he is arguing. 
evx. T. 6.) ‘I am (now) thankful to God, 
who so ordered it that I did not, &e. 
Crispus, the former ruler of the synagogue, 
Acts xviii. 8. Gaius, afterwards the host of 
the Apostle, and of the church, Rom. xvi. 
23. 15.| tva represents the purpose, 
not of the Apostle’s conduct at the time, 
but of the divine ordering of things : ‘God 
so arranged it, that none might say,’ &e. 
16.} He subsequently recollects 
having baptized Stephanas and his family 
(see ch. xvi. 15, 17),—perhaps from infor- 


. | A: amweocradke c. 


ins To bef Aouroyv F. om adAov F 
ins o bef xpiotos BE 
[aAAa, so A(appy) BDN. | evaryyeAt- 


mation derived from Stephanas himself, 
who was with him:—and he leaves an 
opening for any others whom he may pos- 
sibly have baptized and have forgotten it. 
The last clause is important as against 
those who maintain the absolute omni- 
science of the inspired writers on every 
topic which they handle. 17.] This 
verse forms the transition to the descrip- 
tion of his preaching among them. His 
mission was not to baptize:—a trace al- 
ready, of the separation of the offices of 
baptizing and preaching. &yv@pwrov pe 
yap KaTnxXovmevoy AaBdyTas Kal memeo- 
pévoy Bartica, mavTds ovTwosody éoTiW* 
n yap mpoalpeais Tod mposidvtos Aowrdy 
epyatera: Td Trav, kal 7 Tod Beod xXapIsS*« 
bray be amlatous 5éy KaTnXHoat, ToAAOD 
det mévov, ToAAHS THS coplass TéTE dE 
kal rd Kwdvvevew mposjv. Chrys. Hom. 
iii. p. 18. It is evident that this is said 
in no derogation of Baptism, for he did 
on occasion baptize,—and it would be im- 
possible that he should speak lightly of 
the ordinance to which he appeals (Rom. 
vi. 3) as the seal of our union with Christ. 
ov« év godia Adyov] It seems 
evident from this apology, and other hints 
in the two Epistles, e.g.2 Cor. x.10, thatthe 
plainness and simplicity of Paul's speech 
had been one cause among the Corinthians 
of alienation from him. Perhaps, as hinted 
above, the eloquence of Apollos was ex- 
tolled to Paul’s disadvantage. év 
god. | in (as the element in which: better 
than ‘ with’) wisdom of speech (i. e. the 
speculations of philosophy : that these are 
meant, and not mere eloquence or rhetorical 
form, appears by what follows, which treats 
of the subject, and not merely of the manner 
of the preaching) in order that the Cross 
of Christ (the great central point of his 


47 


14—21. 


iva pn * KevwO 6 Yotaupds ToD ypioTod. 


\ ec a a a 
yap 0 Tov YaTtavpod Tots Ev 


aX g 4 a h 
THY & ouvEeTLV THY 


k k 


Tov | ypauparevs ; 


only+. Sir. xx. 31. xli.15 only. (-p0s, ver. 25.) 
i. 16. ver. 24. 

i. 9. ii. 2. 2 Tim. ii. 7 only. 
xvi. 21. i= Mark yii. 9. 
iii. 27. Isa. xxxiii. 18. 

only+. (-Tetv, Acts vi. 9. ix. 29. 
i, 22 (reff.) only. Isa. xix, 11. 


r Rom. i. 21. Gal: iv. 9. 


IIPO> KOPINOIOTS A. 479 
18 6 Z oyos x = Rom. iv. 
ab 2 f c ae pete ll 
aTrohAvupevols © wwopla * \ii2 10 
5] / a S \ bd , (aes e , aA > Phil. iii. 18. 
éotiv, Tots 5é€ 4 cwfomévois nutv ° dvvapis Oeod éotw. « = Acts xiii 
26 reff. 
/ \ nay cal \ , lal lal Vo = 47.49 
19 yéypartat yap !’AmoA@ THY codiavy TaV copay, Kat *; fom 4) 
a SD / cr a t iy. 3. 2 Thess. 
cuvetav iabetncw. 9 * god aodos; ii 10. 0 Pet. 
nr \ fal an 4 is ed ev. 
Tov ™ cuvntnTNs TOV ™ al@vos ™ TOV= , xX. 30. 
PNT (gy dia c x \ / a I 14. viii. 6. 
TOV; OUYb EMM@PAVEV O Beds THV copiav TOV KOOLOU ;  ix.2. 
5] \ \ ) , a a Y c vv. 21, 23. 
21 P ézredn yap év TH Icohia Tov Geo ovK *éyrw 6 sh ith 
d pres., ch. xv. 2 reff. e Acts vili. 10. Rom. 
f Isa, xxix. 14. g Mark xii. 23. Luke ii. 47. Eph. iii. 4. Col. 
Prov. ii. 2. h Matt. xi. 25. Luke x. 21. Acts xiii. 7 only. Prov. 
Luke x.16. John xii. 48. Gal. ii. 21 al. Isa. xlviii. 8. k = Rom. 
1 = Matt. xiii. 52. Epp., here only. Ezra vii. 6. m here 
-TH OLS, Acts xv. 7.) n Rom. xii. 2 reff. o = Rom. 
p Acts xv. 24 reff. q ver. 24, Rom, xi. 33. Eph. iii. 10. 
1 John iy. 6,7,8. (Jer. xxxviii. (xxxi.] 34.) 
om 2nd 6 B a! Cyr-jer. owuevors(sic) &. om 


18. om yap P bl. 


new F am? fuld! fri D-lat G-lat Thdrt, Iren-int Tert Cypr Hil Ambrst Cassiod : zd 


est nobis vulg Pel Sedul Bede. 
19. om yap D! k. 


20. rec aft T. Koop. ins Tovrov (to correspond with tov am. tovtov above), with 
C3D3F LN? rel vss Clem, Orig Chr Thdrt (ic Tert,: om ABC!1D! PN?! a 17 Clem, Cyr 


Did Damase Thl Orig-int Tert,. 


21. om yap F 3. 108-77 arm Clem Tert Hil. 


preaching; exhibiting man’s guilt and 
God’s love in their highest degrees and 
closest connexion) might not be deprived 
of its effect. This would come to pass 
rather by philosophical speculations than 
by eloquence. 18.] For (explanation of 
the foregoing clause,—and that, assuming 
the mutual exclusiveness of the preaching 
of the Cross and wisdom of speech, and the 
identity of of dmoAAvuevor with the lovers 
of copia Adyou: q. d. ‘wisdom of speech 
would nullify the Cross of Christ : for the 
doctrine of the Cross is to the lovers of that 
wisdom, folly.” The reasoning is elliptical 
and involved, and is further complicated 
by the emphatic position of tots aoa. 
and tots ow(.) the doctrine (preaching: 
“there is a word, an eloquence, which is 
most powerful, the eloquence of the Cross : 
referring to copia Adyov.” Stanley) of the 
Cross is to the perishing (those who are 
through unbelief on the way to everlasting 
perdition) folly: but to us who are being 
saved (Billroth [in Olsh.] remarks that r. 
ow(. ju.is a gentler expression than 7uiv 
7. ow(. would be: the latter would put the 
ju. into strong emphasis, and exclude the 
opponents in a more marked manner. 

of cwldpevor are those in the way of sal- 
vation :—who by faith have laid hold on 
Christ and are by Him being saved, see reff.) 
it is the power (see ref. Rom. and note. 
Hardly, as Meyer,—a medium of divine 
Power,— etwas, wodurd) Gott Eraftig wit: 
rather, the perfection of God’s Power— 


the Power itself, in its noblest manifesta- 
tion) of God. 19.] For (continuation 
of reason for ov év copia Adyou: because 
it was prophesied that such wisdom should 
be brought to nought by God) it is written, 
&c. The citation is after the LXX, with 
the exception of a@etHow for kptyw. The 
Heb. is ‘the wisdom of the wise shall 
perish, and the prudence of the prudent 
shall disappear.’ (Lowth.) But Calv. says 
most truly, ‘Perit sapientia, sed Domino 
destruente: sapientia evanescit, sed inducta 
a Domino et deleta.’ 20.] See ref. 
The question implies disappearance and 
exclusion. aodds, the wise, gene- 
rally: ypapp., the Jewish scribe,—ovv- 
{nr., the Greek disputer (reff). Tod 
aidy. T. is best taken with the whole three, 
—of this present (ungodly) world. 

épdpavev] umwpay edeitey ovcay mpds THv 
THS TloTews KaTaAnWw, Chrys. 21.] 
For (explanation of ¢udpavev) when (not 
temporal, but illative = ‘since,’ ‘ seeing 
that,’—so Plato, Gorg. p. 454, émeid7) Tol- 
vuy ov pdvn amepyaceTat TovTO TY epyor, 
GAAG kal Aa ...; see Hartung, Parti- 
kellehre, i. 259) in the wisdom of God 
(as part of the wise arrangement of God. 
De W., Meyer, al., render it ‘ by the reve- 
lation of the wisdom of God,’ which was 
made to the Gentiles, as Rom. i., by crea- 
tion, and to the Jews by the law,—thus 
connecting évy with @yvw, and making 77 
cop. t. 8. the medium of knowledge :— 
Chrys. takes it for the wisdom manifest in 


IIPO> KOPINOIOT= A. Tf 


/ \ a / x. ’ 
Koopos Sia THY copias Tov * Oeov, Sevdoxnoev 6 Oeds Sia aBcnK 
iol if la) / lal LPR 1 
tis ‘pwopids Tod “Knpbypatos chou Tovs TicTevoVTAS' cadet, 


929 5) \ A 2 aA A A hkl 
22 P érevdiy Kal "lovdaior Yonweta “ aitobow Kat “EXdqves 1017. 
47 


t ver. 18. 

u Rom. xvi. 25 
reff. 

vy = Matt. xvi. 
1. Isa. vii. 


ail / x nr 9 € lal \ / \ 

Lak so copiay * Entodaw, * npeis O€ ¥ knpvacomev ypLoTOV eoTav- 
reff. Lam. , ot 8 / \ Z , 5 ” we , 
nd, popevov, ‘lovdatows pev * oKav anrov, €Overw dé * wwpiar, 

roy. 9 > las \ lal a ’ / 
4 iL. Prov. 24 aqdrofs 6& toils »KANTOIs, “lovdaious Te Kat “EdAAnow, 


y Acts vill. 5 \ a / =~ a 
A? ypurrov Oeod ° Sivamw Kai Oeod * copiav: *° dre ° To ‘ mewpov 
E b ver. 1 al. c ver. 18. d ver. 21. eneut., 


a see ch. vy. 13. 
f Matt. vii. 26. ch. iii. 18. iv. 10 al. Deut. xxxii.6. (-pta, ver. 18.) 


Rom. viii. 3. 2 Cor. iv. 17. viii. 8. 


qvdox. C m Chr, Damasc. for o Oeos, Tw Oew F. motevoavtas L. 

22. for ereidy kat, emer F: om cau fuld Syr eth. rec onuerov (Meyer and De 
W think onuera a corrn, because only the sing could present any difficulty: but Tischdf 
[Ed. 7] refers to such passages as Matt xii. 39, xvi. 4 al as having suggested the sing, 
which considg the immense weight of manuscript authority, seems, I own, more likely), 
with L rel arm Thl-txt (c-txt: txt ABCDFPR 17 latt syrr copt goth Clem, Mcion-t 
Cypr Hil. emu(ntovot A. 

23. rec (for evecwv) cAAnow (to suit precedg and follg), with C3D5 rel goth Clem, 
Orig-ms Eus: txt ABC!D'FLPX m 17 latt syrr copt goth eth arm Orig, Eus Ath 


Cypr Hil. 

24. om ros F. om te DF k. 
His works only: rh eat, ev T. gop. 7. 8.; 
TH 5a TGV Epywy pawvouery, BC ay nOAnGe 
yvopibjva. But I very much doubt the 
legitimacy of this absolute objective use 
of cota, as = those things by which the 
copia is manifested. I cannot see with 
Olsh. why the interpretation given above is 
«ganz unpaulinifd:’ it is merely an expan- 
sion of éuépavey,—and agrees much better 
with Paul’s use of the words 4 cola r. 
@cod in reff. and in ch. ii. 7) the world 
(Jew and Gentile, see next verse) by its 
wisdom (as a means of attaining know- 
ledge : or, but I prefer the other, “through 
the wisdom [of God] which I have just 
mentioned :” so Stanley) knew not (could 
not find out) God, God saw fit by the 
foolishness of preaching (lit., ‘of the 
proclamation :’ gen. of apposition, —by 
that preaching which is reputed folly by 
the world) to save believers. Rom. i. 16 
throws light on this last expression as con- 
nected with dvvauis Geod in our ver. 18, 
and with what follows here. There the 
two are joined: dbvauis yap Oeod éorw (7d 
evay. T. xp.) is twrnplay nayTl TE mo- 
revovTt, lovdalw Te mp@Tov kK. EAAHUML. 

22.) éwerdy, not as in ver. 21, but = ‘si- 
quidem,’ and explains T. bwplas T. Knp- 

Kai—kai | see Mark ix. 13, unite (De W.) 
things resembling each other in this par- 
ticular, but else unlike. Jews and Gentiles 
both made false requirements, but of dif- 
ferent kinds. onpeta air. | see Matt. 
xii. 38, xvi. 1; Luke xi. 16; John ii. 18, 
vi. 30. The correction onuetoy has pro- 
bably been made from remembering the 
onueiov of these passages. The sign re- 


quired was not, as I have observed on 
Matt. xii. 38, a mere miracle, but some 
token from Heaven, substantiating the 
word preached. 23.| Still the ex- 
pansion of 7 pwp. 7. knpiy. Now, on«avd. 
as regards the Jews, and uwpla as regards 
the Gentiles, correspond to the general 
term uwpla before. The d€ after jue?s is 
that so often found in clauses following the 
temporal conjunctions ézel, €ws, dppa, &e., 
in Homer, and és, as, dszep, ei, &e., in 
Attic writers: e. g. Od. & 178, roy éarel 
Opévav Oeol, epvei toov ..., Tod S€ Tis 
abavdtwy Brave ppévas evdov éeicas,— 
and Xen. Cyr. viii. 5. 12, Ssmep of drA7- 
Tat, o§Tw Se Kal of TeATACTAl K. of TokoTal. 
See many other examples in Hartung, 
Partikellehre, i. 184 f. It serves to give 
a slight prominence to the consequent 
clause, as compared with the antecedent 
one. 24.| This verse plainly is a con- 
tinuation of the opposition to ver. 22 be- 
fore begun, but itself springs by way of 
opposition out of "lovd. wey oxdvd., Ov. dé 
pwplav,—and carries the thought back to 
vv. 18 and 21. avtois Sé T. KAnToIs | 
Not, ‘but to the elect themselves, which 
would be either adrots 5€ «Anrots, or Tots 
de KAnTots avtots ;—but to these, viz. the 
elect,—the advots serving to identify them 
with the cw(duevor of ver. 18. There it 
was fptv,—here avrozs, because by the 
mention of preaching joined with 7pets, 
he has now separated off the hearers. 

Sivapuy, as fulfilling the requirement of 
the seekers after a sign :—aodptav,—of 
those who sought wisdom. The repeti- 
tion of xpiordv gives solemnity, at the same 


22—28. 


IIPO>) KOPINOIOTS A. 


481 


lol lal / lal bd / 
ToD Qeod coporepoy Tav FavOpeTwv éativ, Kal & TO Esonstr. 


h > 0 \ lal @ fal i > LA n > 6 if > / 
aoOeves Tov Oeod ‘icyupotepov Tov avOpeTav éoTiv. 
, x \ fol lal Tie 
26 BNerrete yap THv 1KAHow budv, adedpol, dtr ov TOr- 


John v. 36. 


iv. 9. Heb. i 


\ \ \ / \ ii. 18. 
dot cohol ™ Kata ™aapKa, ov Toddol " Suvatoi, ov TOA-_ Wisi. ii.u. 

DS Own. a Q7 2 \ Not \ a ’ ; , i compar., 
ot °evryevets, adda Ta wpa TOV Kocpov ? é&er€EaTO Luke iil. 16 i. 


¢ fal \ ivf q , \ s \ Sa ee n a 
0 Geos wa IKaTalcyuvyn Tovs codous, Kai TA“ acBevh Tod 
, p = / € fa} \ vA q , \ r > £ 
Koopou PeEeréEato 0 Oeos iva IKatTacyvvn Ta LoxUpa, 
98 \ \ s 2? a a , \ a ee fa} / > 
Kat Ta *ayevy) TOV KOopou Kat Ta ‘ eEovIevnpéeva ? é€- 


n Acts xxv. 5. 
1.2,24 al. Deut. iv. 37. 
xii. 29 bis ||. ch. iv. 10 al. 


25. eotw bef rwy avép. (both times) DF latt arm Hil. 


672 Orig Eus Tert,. 
26. for yap, ovy DF xth Pamph. 


o = Luke xix. 12 cis xvii. 11) only. Jobi.3. 2 Macc. x, 13 only. 
= ch. Xl. 
s here only t. 


22. Judg. 
xiy, 18. 
k ch. x. 18 
Phil. iii. 2. 
1 Rom. xi. 29 
reff. Eph. 
iv. 1,4 al. 
m Rom. i.3 reff. 
i ae ‘ p Acts 
, 5,22. 2 Kings xix. 5. r see above (i). Matt. 


t = Rom. xiv. 3 reff, 


om 2nd ectw BN! 0 17. 


om ov ToAA. Suv. F copt. — ovde D!. 
27. om from iva to wa (in next ver) AF m Orig. 


rec Tous codous bef kataic- 


xvvn, with rel: txt BCDLPN k 17. 47 latt syrr copt eth arm Orig, Eus Tert. 
28. for ayevn, acdevn X'(txt N-corr!) Orig. 


time that it concentrates the ddvauis and 
copia in the Person of Christ; q. d. 
© Christ even in His humiliation unto 
death, the power of God and wisdom of 
God, The use of dvvauis and codia 
here as applied to Him who was the great- 
est example of both, would not justify the 
absolute use of coda in this sense in 
ver. 21. 25.| Because (reason why 
Christ [crucified] is the power and wisdom 
of God) the foolishness of God (that act 
of God which men think foolish) is wiser 
than men (surpasses in wisdom, not only 
all which they call by that name, but 
men, all possible wisdom of mankind); 
and the weakness of God (that act of 
God which men think weak) is stronger 
than men (not only surpasses in might 
all which they think powerful, but men 
themselves,—all human might whatsoever. 
For the construction of the genitives, 
see reff.). The latter clause introduces a 
fresh thought, the way for which however 
has been prepared by ddvapuus, vv. 18, 24. 
The Jews required a proof of divine Wight : 
we give them Christ crucified, which is to 
them a thing ao@evés: but this aoOeves 
Tov Geou is stronger than men. 26. | 
BAérere, imperative, as in reff. If taken 
indicatively, it loses the emphasis which 
its place in the sentence requires. It 
would thus be thy yap KAjow tyay 
BAérete. Seea similar reminder on the 
part of the Apostle, 1 Thess. i. 4. 

yap seems best to apply to what has im- 
mediately gone before. As a proof that 
the foolishness of God is wiser than men 
and the weakness of God stronger than 
men, he calls attention to the fact that 
the Christian church, so full of divine 
wisdom and strength by the indwelling 

Vor: fF: 


Spirit of God, consisted for the most part, 
not of the wise or mighty among men, 
but of those whom the world despised. 
kAjjovy, as in reff. the calling év 5 
éxA}Onucv—the vocation and standing of 
Christian men. ott ov ToANol.. .] 
that not many of you are wise according 
to the flesh (‘significari vult sapientiam, 
qu studio humano absque doctrina Spiri- 
tus Sancti potest acquiri,’ Estius), not 
many mighty (no need to supply kara 
odpxa, which is understood as a matter of 
course), not many noble. This is far 
better than to supply (as E. V., and most 
Commentators) €«An@noay after eiryeveis; 
and thus Vulg., Chrys., Beza, Meyer, De 
Wette, al. Olsh. observes: “The ancient 
Christians were for the most part slaves 
and men of low station ; the whole history 
of the expansion of the church is in reality 
a progressive victory of the ignorant over 
the learned, the lowly over the lofty, until 
the emperor himself laid down his crown 
before the cross of Christ.’ 27, 28.] 
7&4 pwpd, neut. for more generalization, 
but = tobs pwpods. This is shewn by 
tovs cogovs following, in that case it being: 
necessary to use the masculine. TOU 
xéop.., Of (belonging to) the world: not 
in the eyes of the world, as Theodoret, 
Luth., Grot., Est., al..—which would not 
fit Ta ayevA T. néop., nor the sense: for 
they were not only seemingly but really 
foolish, when God chose them. KaT- 
atoxvvy, by shewing to the wise and the 
strong, the foolish and the weak entering 
the kingdom of heaven before them. 
7a Gyevy, matter of fact—the low-born: 
7a éEovSevnpéva, matter of estimation, the 
despised. Without the rai, which is 
certainly the true reading, a Bh ovTa. 
I 


482 IIPOS KOPINOIOTS A. I. 29—31. 
uso Eur Troad. €LEEATO 0 Oeos, Ta “pn OvTa, va Ta dvTa * KaTapynon, 
ra7ov 29 Srws py “ Kavynontas *waca cap ¥ ev@Ttov Tov Oeod 
Gear, ws 70. 30 22 A ie AOS eae a> a) done / 

cds €£ avtod 5é byeis été *év ypicT@ ‘Inaod, ds ” éyevnOn 
Ta pdev f Sieh CASS ~ d / Nee \ \ 
Taundiy copia nuiv © ao Geod “duxavocvvn TE Kal ° aylacmos Kal 


Soxovvr amwAccar. 
ii. 14. Ezra iv. 21. 
y = Acts xix. 9. 
11. 2 Cor. v. 17. 
iv. 5. vi. 19 al. 


v Paul (Rom. iii. 3, 31. ch. ii. 6. xiii. 8 al.) only, exc. Luke xiii. 7. Heb. 

w absol., ch. iv. 7. 2 Cor. xi. 16 al. 1 Kings ii. 3. x Acts ii. 17 reff. 

z = John vii. 22. Rom. xi. 36. a == Rom. viii. 1. xvi. 7, 

= 2Cor. vii. 14. 1 Thess. i. 5 al. c = Rom. xiii. 1. ch. 
e Rom. vi. 19 reff. 


3 John 6. 
Gal. i. 22. 
d Rom. iii. 21, 25. 
rec ins kat bef ta pn ovta (a mistaken supplement of the sense: see note), with 
BC3D3LPR3 rel vulg fri syrr copt Origaiiq Eus Chr Thdrt: om AC!D!FX! 17 2xth-rom 
Orig, Iren- int Tert Ambrst Ruf Tich. 
29. Elz cavxnoeta, with FP: txt ABCDLP® rel Orig Eus. rec for Tou cou, 
avtovu (corrn, to avoid repetition, not observing the emphasis), with C! vulg syrr arm-use 
Orig, Dial Thdrt (Xe Ambrst: txt ABC3DFLPN! rel fri spec copt arm-zoh wth Orig, 


Eus Eph, Bas Chr Damase Thl Aug Tich,.—? began to write avrov, but erased it. 
80. rec nu bef copia, with L rel vulg-ed(with some mss: also fri) syrr copt arm 
Orig, Eus, Mac, Chr Thdrt Ambr, Aug: txt ABCDF PR m 17 am(with demid harl*) 


Origsepe Eus, Did Cyr Jer, Ambrst Ambry. 


D?F Orig, Chr. 


may belong to all four, the uwpd, acberi, 
ayev7, and egovdev..—but more probably it 
has reference only to the last two. Nothing 
(as e. g. wéya 71) must be supplied after 
wi) dvTa: it means as good as having no 
existence: uf being subjective, and imply- 
ing that the non-existence is not absolute 
but estimative. Were it absolute matter 
of fact, it would be expressed by 7a ovK 
tvta, as in 1 Pet. ii. 10, of ok AAENuEvoL, 
viv de eAenbévres. See Hartung, Par- 
tikellehre, ii. p. 131; Wimer, edn. 6, § 55. 
5; and Phil. iii. 3; Eph. v. 4. Olshausen 
refines on the expression too much, when 
he explains it of those who have lost their 
old carnal life and have not yet acquired 
their new spiritual one: it more probably 
means, things (persons) of absolutely no 
account in the world, unassignable among 
men, which the ayev7 and egovdernueva 
are. Meyer remarks that the threefold 
repetition of efeA. 6 Oeds, with the three 
contrasts to cool, duvarot, and evyevets, 
announces the fact with a triumphant 
emphasis. katapy.] ‘reduce to the 
state of ov« dvra. All the dvta, the 
realities, of the world, are of absolutely 
no account, unassignable, in God’s spiritual 
kingdom. 29.) That all flesh may 
have no ground of boasting before God. 
The negative in these clauses goes with the 
verb, not with the adjective; so that each 
word retains its proper meaning. 

80.] But (contrast to the boasting just 
spoken of) of Him are ye (from Him 
ye, who once were as ovK« bvta,—éoré.— 
He is the Author of your spiritual life) in 
(in union with) Christ Jesus, Who was 
made (not ‘is made:’ see reff. On 
éyevyOn see 1 Thess. i. 5 note) to us from 
God wisdom (standing us in stead of all 


neey B. for dik. Te, kau Sik. 


earthly wisdom and raising us above it 
by being @rd @cod ;—Wisdom—in His 
incarnation, in His life of obedience, in 
His teaching, in His death of atonement, in 
His glorification and sending of the Spirit : 
and not only Wisdom, but all that we can 
want to purify us from guilt, to give us 
righteousness before God, to sanctify us 
after His likeness), (and) both righteous- 
ness (the source of our justification before 
God), and sanctification (by His Spirit ; 
observe the te xat, implying that in these 
two, dicaioo. and ayacu., the Christian 
life is complete—that they are so joined as 
to form one whole—our righteousness as 
well as our sanctification. As Bisping 
well remarks, “dic. and ay. are closely 
joined by the re [«af] and form but one 
idea, that of Christian justification: 6:- 
kaoctvn the negative side, in Christ’s 
justifying work—ay.acuds the positive, 
sanctification, the imparting to us of sanc- 
tifying grace”’), and redemption (by satis- 
faction made for our sin, reff.:—or perhaps 
deliverance, from all evil, and especially 
from eternal death, as Rom. viii. 23: but I 
prefer the other). The foregoing construc- 
tion of the sentence is justified, (1) as 
regards am) @eod belonging to éyevn@n, 
and not to copia, by the position of juiv, 
which has been altered in rec. to connect 
copla with ad @., (2) as regards the whole 
four substantives being co-ordinate, and not 
the last three merely explicative of codia, 
by the usage of re xai—xat, e. g. Herod. i. 
23, d:0tpauBov mp@rov avipdrwyv Tay juets 
tOuevy mowjoavTd te kal dvoudoayTa Kal 
d:datavra,—and Hom. Od. o. 78, aupdte- 
pov, Kvdds te kal ayAaln kal dvecap,—so 
that (see Hartung, Partikellehre, i. 103; 
Donaldson, Gr. Gram. 551) the words 


ABCDI 

LPNa! 

cdefy 

hklin 

nol7 
47 


II. 1—3. 
f 


> ! h , 
ev Kupio » Kavya bw. 


IPOS KOPIN@IOTS A. 


485 


’ , o \ eealegs 
aTohutpwats, *! iva & Kalas yéypatrrar ‘O * cavydpevos ‘Rom: ili 24 


ch. ii. 9 reff. 
Rom. ii. 17 
reff. 1 Kincs 


Il. | Kayo ev pos buds, adedol, iOov ob i kal ii-10, Jen. 


XUmepoynv Noyou 1) codias !xatayyé&\Xwv buiv TO ™ wap- 


i = Phil. ii, 3. 
iii 6. 
Tim. ii. 2 


s a fA) a 9 > \ n2 / dé > ¢ 14 7 ki diver 
Tuploy TOU UVEOU. ov yap EXPLA TL ELOEVAL EV UULLV, Eb ae ings 


Nie 2 Lal , a 
un Inoodv yptotov, ° Kat TovTOY EcTaupwpévor. 


3A. 
2 Mace. xiii. 
6 only. 
(-€xeuv, 


3 Kayo 


’ > / \ 5] / \ , / n 
Péev Iaobeveia cat Pév *ho8@ Kal Pév ™Tpdpw TONAD | Rom. xiii. 1.) 


reff. part. pres., Acts xv. 27. 
xiii. 11. ch. vi. 6, 8 al. 
&c. Heb. v. 2. vii. 28. 
liy. 5. 


Job xxxvii. 7. 
s as above (r). 


m = ch. i. 6 reff. 
p = Rom. xv. 32 al. 


= Acts xiii. 5 

n = Acts xv. 19 reff. o Rom. 

q = Rom. vi. 19. 2 Cor. xi. 30. xii. 5, 

r2Cor. vii. 15. Eph. vi. 5. Phil. ii. 12 only. Ps. 


Mark xvi. 8 only. 


Cuap. II. 1. for waptupiov, uvornpior (appy a gloss from ver 7) ACN! n fri Syr copt 
Ambrst Ambr Aug: txt BDFLPN® rel vulg syr sah eth arm Orig Chr Cyr Thl Ge 


Jer Bede. 


2. rec aft expiva ins Tov, with D?2L rel Chr Thdrt Thl Gc: om ABCD!3FPN am 


17 (Orig) Ath Chr, Cyr Antch Damasce. 


ree edevar bef tt, with AD?2F LN 47 latt 


Orig-c Did Cyr Tert: txt BC(D1-3)P a m 17 Cyr Bas Isid Chr, Orig-int Tert Hil 


Victorin Aug,.—t: ev vu «5. Dl3: tov ev uuw ed. Tr D2. 


(The posn of 7, and 


harshness of tt edevat, seem to have occasioned the transposns, and tov would be 


supplied from elsw, see Acts xxvii. 1, 1 Cor vii. 37.) 


harl tol) Orig-int, Hil, Aug,. 


xp- bef ino. F 109 am(with 


8. rec kat eyw, with DFL rel Chr Thdrt Thl (c: txt ABCPN ak m 17 Orig Bas 


Antch Damase. 
latt. 


coupled by te kat (compare the exegesis 
above) rank as but one with regard to 
those coupled to them by kat, compare 
Guddstepov above. Hence these three 
cannot be under one category, as explica- 
tive of copiu, but must be thus ranged : 
copia dixaoctvn Te Kal ayiaouds, Kal 
amroAUT pwats. 31.] The construction 
is an anacoluthon, the citation being re- 
tained in the original imperative, though 
the ta required a subjunctive. It is 
freely made from the LXX. ‘This verse 
declaring, in opposition to ver. 29, the 
only true ground of boasting, viz. in God 
and His mercies to us in Christ, closes the 
description of God’s dealing in this matter. 
He now reverts to the subject of his own 
preaching. II. 1—d.] Accordingly, 
Paul did not use among them words of 
worldly wisdom, but preached Christ 
crucified only, in the power of the Spirit. 

1.] I also (as one of the jets of 
ch. i. 23, and also with reference to the 
preceding verse, 6 kavx. év Kup. Kavxdabw) 
when I came to you, brethren, came, not 
with excellency of speech or wisdom 
announcing (pres. part., not fut.,—as in 
ref., and in Xen. Hell. ii. 1. 29, és ras 
"AOnvas émAcucev ayyéeAAOvea TH yeyoveTa. 
The time taken in the voyage is over- 
looked, and the announcement regarded as 
beginning when the voyage began) to 
you the testimony of (concerning) God. 

2.| For I did not resolve to know 
any thing (hardly = éxpwa cidévar ovder, 


om 2nd ev F 49 latt(exe D-lat). 


om 3rd ev DF 49. 119 


as E. V., but meaning, “the only thing 
that I made it definitely my business to 
know, was”’) among you, except Jesus 
Christ (His Person) and Him (as) cruci- 
fied (His Office). It would seem that the 
historical facts of redemption, and espe- 
cially the crucifixion of Christ, as a matter 
of offence, had been kept in the back- 
ground by these professors of human 
wisdom. ‘ We must not overlook, that 
Paul does not say ‘to know any thing of 
or concerning Christ,’ but to know Him 
HimMseEtF, to preach Him Himserr. The 
historical Christ is also the living Christ, 
who is with His own till the end of time ; 
He works personally in every believer, 
and forms Himself in each one. There- 
fore it is universally Curist HIMSELF, 
the Crucified and the Risen One, who is 
the subject of preaching, and is also 
Wisdom itself: for His history evermore 
lives and repeats itself in the whole church 
and in every member of it: it never 
waxes old, any more than does God Him- 
self ;—it retains at this day that fulness 
of power, in which it was revealed at the 
first foundation of the church.” Olshausen. 

3.] Kayo, and I, coupled to 7AGov 
in ver. 1, and éyé repeated for emphasis, 
the nature of his own preaching being the 
leading subject-matter here. The weak- 
ness and fear and much trembling must 
not be exclusively understood of his manner 
of speech as contrasted with the rhetorical 
preachers, for 6 Adyos mou K. 7d Khpyyud 


Pw 


1 


484 IIPO> KOPINOIOTS A. 

toonaviw. téyevoumy tapos buds, * Kal 6 Adyos pov Kal TO “ Ki)- 
see Matt. puyjed pou ovx Yév “aebois copias doyors, arn’ ¥ év 
Mark xiv. 49. 


- ‘ 7 e / e Lal 
x GrrobelEeu ¥ TvevpaTos Kat Suvapews, © Wa 1) TLOTLS UMOV 
\ 3 , / > / > , ’ / fal 
p Zz 
pn 9 Pev copia dvOporrov, GX’ Pev Suvaper Oeod. dare 
/ \ a ral 
6 Sodiav S€ Nadodmev ev Tois *TEAEloIs, Topiay SE ov 


John i. 1, 2. 
u Rom. xvi. 25 
reff. 
v Luke iv. 32. 
w here only ft. 
x here only t. 


-KvugOar : 
fed ii. 22,) y = ver. 13. Gal. v. 5, 16. z ch, i, 18 reff. a = ch. xiv. 20. Heb. 
vy. l4al. 1 Chron. xxv. 8. 


4. for meiOors, 7e1801 b} e 0 1. 18!. 48. 72. 106-8-53 D-lat G-lat am(with F-lat) Syr 
sah arm Orig, Eus Ath Ambrst Ambr, Sedul Leo. rec ins avOpwmvns bef codias 
(explanatory gloss), with ACLPN? rel vulg-ed(with demid agst am fuld tol) syr copt 
Orig, Ath Mac Cyr-jer, Thl (Ze Ambrst-comm Sedul Bede: av@pwmwas m 93: om 
BDF®! 17 latt Syr sah wth arm Orig, Nys Cyr-jer, Chr Cyr Epiph Thdrt-ms, Jer. 


Aoywv Syr arm Orig, tay Aoywy Orig,, Aoyou am D-lat sah, Aoyos R': om Fa 


18!. 74 G-lat Orig, Ath Ambrst-comm Sedul. 


amoraduper D183, 
5. om 7 Fem. aaa B. 
pou follow in the next verse,—but partly 
of this, and principally of his external deep 
and humble persuasion of his own weak- 
ness and the mightiness of the work which 
was entrusted to him. So in Phil. ii. 12, 
13, he commands the Philippians, pera 
géBov x. Tpdmov Thy éEavT@y owTnpiav 
Katepydcerde, Oeds yap eotw 6 evepyav 
ev tuiv. The aocbévera may have refer- 
ence to the wapovoia oduatos acbevhs of 
2 Cor. x. 10. Chrys., al., understand it 
of persecutions: but in the places to which 
he refers, it has a far wider meaning,—viz. 
infirmities, including those resulting from 
persecution. 4.) And (not adver- 
sative, as Olsh., but following naturally on 
the weakness, &e., just mentioned—‘as 
corresponding to it’) my discourse and my 
preaching (Adyes of the course of argu- 
ment and inculcation of doctrine, kjpvypa 
of the announcement of facts. This (De 
W.) is better than with Olsh. to under- 
stand A. as his private, x. his public dis- 
course: see Luke iv. 32, and 6 Adyos 7. 
oravpov, ch. i. 18) was not in (did not 
consist of, was not set forth in, see ref.) 
persuasive (7ei0ds = mibavdés, metorhpios, 
mecotixds in Greek. ‘The var. readings 
have been endeavours to avoid the unusual 
word, which however is analogically formed 
from 7ei0é, as peidds from deldoua, as 
Meyer) words of wisdom (a@pwrivns, a 
gloss, but a correct one. ‘ Corinthia verba, 
pro exquisitis et magnopere elaboratis, et 
ad ostentationem nitidis,” Wetst.), but in 
demonstration of the Spirit and of power: 
i.e. either, taking the genitives as ob- 
jective, demonstration having for its object, 
demonstrating, the presence or working of 
the Spirit and Power of God (so Estius, 
Billroth, al., and the gloss GroxaAvWer) :— 
or, taking them subjectively, demonstration 
(of the truth) springing from the Spirit 


adAa B. for amodeker, 


and Power of God (so most Commenta- 
tors). I prefer the latter. It can hardly 
be understood of the miracles done by the 
Spirit through him, which accompanied his 
preaching (Chrys., al., Olsh.), for he is 
here simply speaking of the preaching 
itself. 5.] q €v, may be grounded 
on,—owe its origin and stability to. “The 
Spirit is the original Creator of Faith, 
which cannot be begotten of human 
caprice, though man has the capability of 
hindering its production: and it depends 
for its continuance on the same mighty 
Spirit, who is almost without intermission 
begetting it anew.’ Olshausen. 

6—16.] Yet the Apostles spoke wis- 
dom among the perfect, but of a kind 
higher than the wisdom of this world; 
a wisdom revealed from God by the 
Spirit, only intelligible by the spiritual 
man, and not by the unspiritual (wuxinds). 
The Apostle rejects the imputation, that 
the Gospel and its preaching is énconsistent 
with wisdom, rightly understood: nay, 
shews that the wisdom of the Gospel is of 
a far higher order than that of the wise in 
this world, and far above their comprehen- 
sion. 6.] 8€ contrasts with the fore- 
going. Aad. ] viz. ‘we Apostles :’ not 
‘IT Paul, —though he often uses the plur. 
with this meaning :—for, ch. iii. 1, he re- 
sumes Kayé, adeAgol. év T. Tedelots | 
among the perfect,—when discoursing to 
those who are not babes in Christ, but 
of sufficient maturity to have their senses 
exercised (Heb. v.14) so as to discern good 
andevil. That this is the right interpreta- 
tion the whole following context shews, and 
especially ch. iii. 1, 2, where a difference is 
laid down between the milk administered 
to babes, «nd the strong meat tomen. The 
difference is in the matter of the teaching 
itself; there is a lower, and there is a 


ABCDF 
LPRab 
cdefg 
hkim 
nol, 
47 


4—8. 


IIPO> KOPINOIOTS A. 


485 


fal ’ fe n Aer 
Tov Pai@vos »TovTOU ode TOY “dpyovTwv Tod ™ aidvos b Rom. xii, 2 


b 


7 an 
TovTou ToV © KaTapyounévov, 7 


> \ = Acts xiii. 
ara Rarovpev * Oeod 2 rel ie 
ere bis only. 


/ > : 
‘codiay Sev * wvotnpio thy ‘ aroKexpuppévnv, tv * mpo- °=shi-® 


/ c \ ] 
@picev 6 Beds 


h = Rom. xi. 25. xvi. 25. ch. iv. 1. Col, i. 26 al. Dan. ii. 18. 
i 7 k Acts iv. 28. 
Jude 25. 


i. 26 only. 4 Kings iv. 27. 
only. Ps, liv. 19. see Eph. Col. as above (i). 


6. om Ist tov F!. 


rei. 
f ch. i. 21 reff. 


0 Ov l a Dif. >’ } & e na 8 A 
Tp Ty t@V@V €ELS OcCaV NOV, nV cane 13. ch. 


< i Luke x. 25. Eph. iii. 9. Col. 
Rom. viii. 29, 30, Eph. i. 5, 11 only +. 1 here 


om from aiwy. Tout. to aiwy. rout. F 114 lect-7 sth. 


7. ree copiay bef Ocov (corrn, the emphasis not being noticed), with L rel Thdrt : 
txt ABCDFPN ak m 17 arm Clem, Orig, Eus. 


higher teaching. So Erasm., Estius, Ben- 
gel, Riickert, Meyer, De Wette, al. On 
the other hand, Chrys., Theodoret, Theo- 
phyl., Calv., Grot., Olsh., al., understand 
the difference to be merely in the estimate 
formed of the same teaching according as 
men were spiritual or unspiritual, interpret- 
ing ey r. TeAelots, ‘in the estimation of the 
perfect,’ which is philologically allowable, 
but plainly irreconcileable with the whole 
apologetic course of the chapter, and most 
of all with the ov« 7duvhOny k.7.A. of ch. 
iii. 1, where he asserts that he did not speak 
this wisdom to the Corinthians. Weare 
then brought to the enquiry,—what was 
this copla? ‘Meyer limits it too narrowly 
to consideration of the future kingdom of 
Christ. Riickert adds to this, the higher 
views of the divine ordering of the world 
with respect to the unfolding of God’s 
kingdom,—of the meaning of the prepara- 
tory dispensations before Christ, e. g. the 
law,—of the manner in which the death 
and resurrection of Christ promoted the 
salvation of mankind. According to ver. 
12, the knowledge of the blessings of sal- 
vation, of the glory which accompanies the 
kingdom of God, belongs to this higher 
species of teaching. Examples of it are 
found in the Epistle to the Romans, in the 
setting forth of the doctrine of justifica- 
tion,—of the contrast between Christ and 
Adam,—of predestination (compare puort- 
ptovy, Rom. xi. 25), and in the Epistles to 
the Eph. and Col. (where puvorjp. often 
occurs) in the declarations respecting the 
divine plan of Redemption and the Person 
of Christ: nay, in our Epistle, ch. xv. Of 
the same kind are the considerations 
treated Heb. vii—x.: cf. iv. 11 fi? De 
Wette. But a wisdom not of this 
world,—not, as H. V., ‘not the wisdom of 
this world,” which loses the peculiar force 
of the negative :—so in Rom. iii. 21, 22, we 
have ducaocvvn Ocod mepavepwrar..... 
Sicarocivn 5é Ocod 51d rior. Inood xp. See 
instances of the usage in note there. 

The apxovres are parallel with the cool, 
duvarot, evyevets, of ch. i. 26, and are 


connected with them expressly by the rav 
katapyounévwy, referring to tva Ta bvTa 
katapynon, ch. i. 28. They comprehend 
all in estimation and power, Jewish or 
Gentile. apxovtas 5& aidvos évtadOa ov 
daluovas Tivas A€yel, KaObs TiVes SwoTTEd- 
ovow: GAA Tovs ev Gkibpmaci, Tos ey 
duvocreias, Tovs TL mpayua mepiudynToy 
eivat voulCovras, piroadpous Kk. phropas kK. 
Aoyoypdpous: Kad yap avtol éxpdtouy, kK. 
dnuaywyol modAd«is eylvovto. Chrys. 
Hom. vii. p. 50. TOV KaTapy. | 
who are [being] brought to nought, viz. 
by God making choice of the weak and 
despised, and passing over them, ch. i. 28: 
not said of their transitoriness generally, 
as Chrys., Theophyl., Riickert,—nor of 
their power being annihilated atthe coming 
of Christ (Grot., Meyer, al.),—nor as Olsh., 
of their having indeed crucified Christ, but 
of their being catapyovpmevor by His Resur- 
rection and the increase of His Church. 
7.] But we speak Gop’s wisdom 
(emphasis on @e0v:—the wisdom which 
God possesses and has revealed) in a mys- 
tery (é€v uvot. does not belong to ry 
amorek., as Theodoret and Grot., which 
must be tiy ey vor. d&rox.,—nor to 
copiay, as Beza, Bengel, which though not 
absolutely, yet certainly here, seeing thy 
émoxexp. immediately follows, would re- 
quire the art., tiv éy pvort.,—but to 
Aadrovmev,—‘ we speak God’s wisdom in a 
mystery, i.e. as handling a mystery, deal- 
ing with a mystery. So thy civeoty pov 
évy T@ vot. T. XpioTov, Eph. iii. 4. 
Estius and the Romanists, taking the con- 
nexion rightly, have wrested the meaning 
to support the disciplina areani which they 
imagine to be here hinted at, explaining 
€v wvor., “non propalam et passim apud 
omnes, quia non omnes ea capiunt, sed... 
secreto et apud pauciores, scilicet eos qui 
spirituales et perfecti sunt,” Est.), which 
has been (hitherto) hidden (see Rom. xvi. 
25; ref. Col.) :—which God foreordained 
(nothing need be supplied, as droxaAdr- 
tev, or the like, after mpodpicev) before 
the ages (of time) to (iz order to, the 


486 


m James ii. 1. 
see Acts vii. 
2. Eph. As 
17. Ps. 
XXViii. 3. 

n Rom. xv. 3, 
21. ch. i. 31. 

o Isa. lxiv. 4. 
Ixy. 17. see 
notes, 

p Rom. xi. 8 
reff. 

q Acts vii. 23 
reff. 

r = Matt. xx. 


23. xxv. 34. John xiv. 2, 3. S = Matt.-xine), 


9. om adda A Pel. 


IPO KOPINOIOTS A. 


WS) \ lal d2 / fa 
OVOELS TWY aApXOVT@V TOU 


Rom. i. 17. ch. xiv. 30. 


tev C 80 Clem-rom Smyrn-ep. 


iff 


bd tea! b / yv . ,’ 
QLGVOS ~ TOUTOU EYVMKEV® Eb 


yap éyvwcav, ovK ay Tov ™ Kvptov Ths ™ doEns éotavpw- 
cav' 9 adda “Kabeas yéypartar °“A dbOarpos ovK ecidev 
Kal Povs ovK HKovoev Kai emi SKapdiav avOpw@trov ovK 
4avéBn, boa * HTolmacev 6 Oeds Tois ayaT@oWw avTor, 
10 yuiy dé *amexaduwev 0 Oeds dia TOD TVEevpaTos [avTOU]* 


Prov. xi. 13 al. 


rec (for oa) 4, 


with DFLPX rel Smyrn-ep Orig, Const Eus, Ath, Epiph, Cyr; Chr Thdrt Th] Ge, gue 
latt: txt AB C(appy) Clem-rom Hip Eus Ath, Bas Mac Cyr. 


10. for 8c, yap B m 39. 46. 57. 71-3. 93. 116 coptt Clem. 


rec o Geos bef ameka- 


Aver (appy, as above, corrn from not noticing the emphasis), with Lrel syr sah Orig, 


Chr Thdrt: txt ABCDFPX am 17 latt Syr copt «th arm Clem Orig. 


om auTouv 


(perhaps on acct of to mv. follg) ABCR! 17(appy) copt Clem Bas Cyr: ins DFLPR* 


purpose of this preordination) our glory 
(our participation in the things which He 
has prepared for them that love Him, 
ver. 9: ddéa, as contrasted with the bring- 
ing to nought of the &pxovTes). 
8.| fv is in apposition with the former 
jv, and does not refer to Sdéav, as Tert. 
contra Mare. v. 6, vol. ii. p. 483,—“ sub- 
jicit de gloria nostra, quod eam nemo ex 
principibus hujus evi scierit...,” for 
this would be departing from the whole 
sense of the context, which is, that the 
wisdom of God was hidden from men. 
el yap €yv. «.7.A., is a proof 
from experience, that the rulers of this 
world, of whom the Jewish rulers were a 
representative sample, were ignorant of 
the wisdom of God. Had they known it, 
they would not have put to a disgraceful 
death (6 oravpds adotlas ecivar Soret, 
Chrys.) Him who was the Lord of glory 
(reff.),—i. e. who possesses in his own 
right glory eternal, see John xvii. 5, 24. 
These words are not a parenthesis, but 
continue the sense of the foregoing, com- 
pleting the proof of man’s ignorance of 
God’s wisdom ;—even this world’s rwlers 
know it not, as they have shewn: how 
much less then the rest. 9 f.] But 
(opposition to ver. 8) as it is written, The 
things which eye saw not, and ear heard 
not, and which came not up (reff.) upon 
heart of man, how many things God pre- 
pared for them that love Him, to us God 
revealed through His Spirit. There is no 
anacoluthon (as De W.) nor irregularity of 
construction, as some suppose, supplying 
after GAAd, AaAoduey (Estius, Ke.) or 
yéeyovev (Theophyl., Grot., al.); the dé in 
the consequent clause after és in the ante- 
cedent, which has occasioned these suppo- 
sitions, is by no means unexampled ;—so 
Herod. iii. 37, ds 5€ TovTous uw) braérec, 
ey 5é of onuavéw, —and Soph. Philoct. 86, 


eye pev ods by Tav Adywv GAYG KAvew, 
Aaeptiov mat, Tos 5€ Kal mpdoocew oTVya. 
See Hartung, Partikellehre, i. 184 f. 

Whence is the citation made? Origen 
says, ‘In nullo regulari libro invenitur, nisi 
in secretis Elie prophete,’ a lost apocry- 
phal book :—Chrys., Theophyl., give the 
alternative, either that the words are a 
paraphrase of Isa. lii. 15, ofs otk avny- 
yéan mepl avtod bWovTat, kK. od odk aKN- 
Kkédact ovvhjoovot, or that they were con- 
tained in some lost book, of which Chrys. 
argues that there were very many,—kal 
yap ToAAG SepOdpn BiBAia, wal dAlya bi- 
eg#0n. Jerome, Hp. lvii. [ci. ], ad Pam- 
machium, de optimo genere interpretandi, 
9, vol. i. p. 314, says, “ Solent in hoe loco 
apocryphorum quidam deliramenta sectari, 
et dicere quod de Apocalypsi Heliz testi- 
monium sumptum sit: cum in Esaia juxta 
Hebraicum ita legatur: A seculo non 
audierunt, nee auribus perceperunt, oculus 
non vidit, Deus, absque te, que praparas 
tu expectantibus te. Hoe LXX multo 
aliter transtulerunt: A seculo non audi- 
vimus, neque oculi nostri viderunt Deum 
absque te: et opera tua vera, et facies 
expectantibus te misericordiam. Intelli- 
gimus, unde sumptum sit testimonium : 
et tamen Apostolus non verbum expressit e 
verbo, sed rapappactik@s eundem sensum 
aliis sermonibus indicavit.” I own that 
probability seems to me to incline to Je- 
rome’s view, especially when we remember, 
how freely St. Paul is in the habit of 
citing. The words of Isa. lxiv. 4, are 
quite as near to the general sense of the 
citation as is the case in many other 
instances, and the words én kapdlay obk 
avéBn may well be a reminiscence from 
Isa. Ixv. 17, not far from the other place, 
od ph éenéAOn aitav em tiv Kapdlay. 
Such minglings together of clauses from 
various parts are not unexampled with the 


ABCDF 

LPNab 

edefg 

hkim 

not7. 
47 


I—13. 


IITPO> KOPINOIOTS A. 


487 


\ \ A lal an nr = 
TO yap Tvedpa Tavta ‘épavyd, Kai TA“ BAOn TOD Oeod. t= Fog 


ll / \ id ’ , Vv \ Ww n . / > \ 
Tis yap oldev avOporrav ‘Ta “tod avOpwrrou, ei 1) TO 
nr rn > , an o \ a 
*qvedua “Tov avOpwrov TO év a’T®; oTwS Kal ’ TA TOD 
Geod ovdels eyvaxer, ef ut) TO TED UA TOD Beod. 


\ u(plur., Rey. 
li. 24.) see 
om. xi, 33 
reff. Judith 
viii. 14. 
5 a \ v Matt. xvi. 23. 
12 NMELS OG "Take t:-4a. 


James iy. 14. 


You To ™ mvedpa TOU * KoOcpoU * EAABopeEv, GAARA TO TrHEDjA © gener. art, 


att. xv. 11. 
= Acts xvii. 


At 3 a ra} na ae AG CREE n 6 ~ b L x 
TO EK TOV VEOV, WA Eb @WMLEV TA VTTO TOV UVEOU yaptoBévta 16 reff. 


npiv, 3 & Kal Nadoduwev ovk © év 4 didaxTois * avOpwrivns 1 


a Acts viii. 15 reff. 
c= 'ver. 7. 
XVii. 25 reff. 


d here bis. 


rel vss Did Epiph Mac Chr Thart Th! Gc Orig-int Hil. 
11. om av@pwrwy A 17 Orig, Ath Cyr Tert, Vig. 


arm-mss Orig Hil Ambr, Vig. 


To Tov Qcov D!: ra ev Tw Oew F lat-ff. 


y see Rom. viii. 


z here only. 


b pass., Acts iii. 14, Phil.i. 29. Philem. 22. L.P.+ (2 Mace. iii. 33.) 
John vi. 45 only, from Isa. liv. 13. see 1 Thess. iv. 9. e Acts 


[epavva, so AB'CR.] 
om 2nd tov avOpwrov F 
ree 


(for eyywxer) oder (prob a corrn to corresp with previous clause), with L rel Orig, 
Chr Thdrt: txt ABCDPX a d m 17 Orig, Ath, Cyr-jer, Bas Cyr Antch Damase, eyyw 


F 23 Ath, Cyr-jer, Bas, Epiph,, cognovit latt(but scit fri Aug) Ambr. 


add to ev auvtw P. 


12. aft roouov ins tovrov DEF vss Cyr lat-ff. 


om last tov P. 
13. om & F Eus. 


Apostle, especially when, as here, he is 
not citing as authority, but merely i/lus- 
trating his argument by O. T. expres- 
sions. 10. Td mvetpa]| the Holy 
Spirit of God—but working in us and 
with our Spirits, Rom. viii. 16. “ Suffi- 
ciat nobis Spiritum Dei habere testem : 
nihil enim tam profundum est in Deo quo 
non penetret.” Calvin. épavvg | a 
word of active research, implying accurate 
knowledge: so Chrys., otk ayvotas, GAA’ 
akpiBovs yyéoews evTaida Td epevvay 
evOElKTLKOV. 7a Baby] see reff. 
There is a comparison here between the 
Spirit of God and the spirit of a man, 
which is further carried out in the next 
verse. And thus as the spirit of a man 
knows the Baéos of a man, all that is in 
him, so the Spirit of God searches and 
knows ta Ban, the manifold and infinite 
depths, of God—His Essence, His Attri- 
butes, His Counsels: and being 7d mvedua 
7 ev jiv, besides being 7d mv. Tod Oeov 
(De Wette well observes that the Apostle 
purposely avoids using the expression 7d 
mvevua TO ev GUTS of the Spirit of God, 
keeping the way open for the expression in 
ver. 12, 7d mv. Td €« TOU Oeod), teaches us 
according to our capacity, those depths of 
God. 11.] For who of MEN know- 
eth the things of a MAN (Tov ayépérov, 
generic, see reff. The emphasis is on 
avOpérwy and avOpdérov, as compared 
with @cod) except the spirit of a man 
which is in him? Thus the things of 
God also none knoweth, except the Spirit 
of God. We may remark, (1) that nothing 
need be supplied (as @d6n) after ra in each 
case, see reff. (2) that the comparison 


at end 


tdwuey DEL Orig,(elsw «:8.). 


here must not be urged beyond what is in- 
tended by the Apostle. He is speaking of 
the impossibility of any but the Spirit of 
God conferring a knowledge of the things 
of God. In order to shew this, he com- 
pares human things with divine, appealing 
to the fact that none but the spirit of a 
man knows dis matters. But further than 
this he says nothing of the similarity of 
relation of God and God’s Spirit with 
man and man’s spirit: and to deduce 
more than this, will lead into error on one 
side or the other. In such comparisons as 
these especially, we must bear in mind the 
constant habit of our Apostle, to contem- 
plate the thing adduced, for the time, only 
with regard to that one point for which he 
adduces it, to the disregard of all other 
considerations. 12.] fpets Sé carries 
on the jiv dé of ver. 10. TO TV. T. 
«kdop.] Not merely, the mind and senti- 
ments of unregenérate mankind, ‘sapientia 
mundana et szcularis,’ as Estius, al., but 
the Spirit (personally and objectively 
taken) of the world, = 7d amveiua 7d viv 
evepyouy ev Tots viots THs ameiGelas, Eph. ii. 
2, where it is strictly personal. TO 
mv. To ék T. 8.] Not only, ‘the Spirit of 
God,’ but the Spirit which is rrom God, 
—to shew that we have received it only 
by the will and imparting of Him whose 
Spirit it is. And this expression prepares 
the way for the purpose which God has in 
imparting to us His Spirit, that we may 
know the things freely given to us by 
God, i. e. the treasures of wisdom and of 
felicity which are the free gifts of the 
gospel dispensation, =dca jjtoluacey 6 beds 
Tols ayamG@ow avtov, ver. 9. 13.] kai, 


II. 14—16. 


It inbuyixos 5€ av- 


lal la rn / 
Ta TOD TvEevpaTos TOV Feod: ™ wwpia 


15 6 O& % mvevpatiKos ° avaKpivet 


1 Thess. i. 6. ii. 13. James 


A488 IIPOS KOPINOIOTS A. 
> nr , 
ee an, copias oyous, GAN ° év 4% didaxtois !rvevpatos, ® TvEv- 
wet 8 wareKxots » rvevpatixa ‘ ovyxpivortes. 
h ch. x. 3, 4 > kas l 
_ reff Opwrros ov * déyerau 
i2 Cor. x. 12 A i A : ri a Be 
Ck yap “avT@ é€otw, Kal ov dvvatat yvovat, OTL ™ TvEevpa- 
Num. xy. 34. A 
iahavt TURBOS © avakpiveTat. 
318 , 
James iii, 15." Jude 19 only +. k = Luke viii. 18. Acts viii. 14. xi. 1. xvii. 11. 
i. 21. Prov. iv. 10. 1 ver. 11 reff. m ch, i. 18 (reff.). 


o Acts iy. 9 reff. 


“ Xoyots a rescript &!” Tischdf. 
eth Eus, Chr Thdrt: 
Epiph. 


vovtos P. 


also; Ta xapio0. juiv, we not only know 
by the teaching of the Holy Ghost, but 
also speak them, not in words (arguments, 
rhetorical forms, &c.) taught by human 
wisdom, but in those taught by the 
Spirit. The genitives are governed by 
Sidaxtots in each case: see ref., and cf. 
Pind. Olymp. ix. 153: 7d d€ pug Kpario- 
Tov Gray. moAdol 5€ didaxTais avOpdmay 
Gpetats KAéos &povcay éAéoOa" Hvev FE 
Ocov k.T.A. MVveupL.. . . TV. TVYKP. | 
interpreting spiritual things to the spi- 
ritual. So Theophyl. altern., rvevpaticots 
avOpemos Ta mvevpaTiKa ouyKplyoyTes Kal 
diadvovres* ob Tor yap wdvor BUvayTar Xwpety 
tavta. And very nearly so as regards 
ovykplvovres Chrysostom and Grotius ; 
only they take myevyatixots not masc. but 
neuter, ‘by spiritual things:’ dtay mvevua- 
Toby kal umopov 7, amd TOY TVEULOT LK @Y 
Tas Haptuplas wyouev. olov A€éyw, Ort Gy- 
éorn 6 XpLor ds, drt amd map0evou evyevv7 On. 
mapdryeo faprupias K. TUToUS kK. amodelgets, 
Tov “Iwva, x.T.A. Chrys. Hom. vii. p. 55. 
‘Exponentes ea que Prophete Spiritu 
Dei acti dixere, per ea que Christus suo 
Spiritu nobis aperuit. Grot. Meyer de- 
nies that ovyxpiyw ever means to inter- 
pret: but evidently the LXX do so use 
it in Gen. xl. 8, éevimvioy cldomev, kal 6 
ovyKkpivey ovk €orw aitd. See also ib. vv. 
16, 22, and Dan. vy. 12, Theodotion (where 
the LXX have ovyxpiwara damédeite). 
Erasmus, Beza, Calvin, De Wette, and 
Meyer render it, ‘fitting, or attaching, 
spiritual words to spiritual things” And 
so I gave and defended it in my earlier 
editions. It seems to me now more 
natural to take mvevuaricots as masculine, 
and as leading to the introduction of the 
two men, the Wuxinds, and the mvevua- 
tuds, immediately after. 14.] He 
now prepares the way for shewing them 
that he could not give out the depths of 
this spiritual wisdom and eloquence to 
them, because they were not fitted for it, 
being carnal (ch. iii. 1—4). ux. 
82 av0.] The animal man, as distinguished 


for mvevpatixos, myvevpatikws B 17. 213. 


n Rey. xi. 8 only t. 


ree aft mvevparos ins aytov, with D°LP rel syr 
om ABCD'FR 17 latt Syr copt arm Clem Hip Orig, Eus, 


cuvkpwopev F: cuyrpt- 


from the spiritual man, is he, whose 
governing principle and highest reference 
of all things is the ux, the animal 
soul, airla kwhoews Cwikjs Céwv, Plato, 
Definit. p. 411. In him, the mvetya, or 
spirit, being unvivified and uninformed 
by the Spirit of God, is overborne by the 
animal soul, with its desires and its judg- 
ments,—and is in abeyance, so that he 
may be said to have it not ;—wuxzKol 
mvevua wy €xovres, ref. Jude. The wuxq 
is that side of the human soul, so to 
speak, which is turned towards the flesh, 
the world, the devil: so that the Wuxirds 
is necessarily in a measure capxikds (ch. iii. 
3), also éemlye:os, and Samovmdns, as in 
ref. James. This general interpreta- 
tion of ~uxieés must be adhered to, and 
we must not make it merely intellectual, 
as Theodoret,—é pdvots ToZs oikelors aprov- 
fevos Aoyiopots,—Grot. “qui humane 
tantum rationis luce ducitur :’—Chrys. : 
6 7d may Tots Aoyiopols THs WuxXTs Hidovs, 
kal ph voulCway tywbéy Tivos deicOan 
BonGelas,—nor merely ethical, as Erasm., 
Rosenmiiller (‘qui cupiditatum sub im- 


ABCD! 
LPN a) 
cdef 
hkIn 
nol7 

47 


perio omnem vitam transigunt’), al..—but ° 


embracing both these. ov Séxerat, 
receives not, i.e. rejects, see reff.,—not, 
cannot receive, ‘non capax est, under- 
stands not, which is against the context, 
—for we may well wnderstand that which 
seems folly to us, but we reject it, as 
unworthy of our consideration :—and it 
besides would involve a tautology, this 
point, of inability to comprehend, follow- 
ing by and by:—and he cannot know 
them (7a@ rod mvevuaros, the matter of our 
spiritual teaching, itself furnished by the 
Spirit) because they are spiritually (by 
the mvetua of a man exalted by the Spirit 
of God into its proper paramount office of 
judging and ruling, and inspired and en- 
abled for that office) judged of. 15.] 
But (on the contrary) the spiritual man 
(he, in whom the wvedua rules: and since 
by man’s fall the zvedua is overridden by 
the animal soul, and in abeyance, this 


TEE, i. 


[wév] mavta, avtos Sé bm’ oddevds ° avaxplverat. 
\ x p a , a q 4 pay 4 e a be 
yap éyvw P vody Kupiov, ds TcupPiBaces avTov ; Tuweis Se 


"yoov xpLaTov * Eyouen. 


III. 1 Kayo, adergoi, ote ndvvnOnv RAarjoar stpiv 


15. om ver N'(ins X-corr!) harl!. 


TIPO> KOPINOIOTS A. 


489 


16 P rfg p Rom. xi. 34 
ts from Isa. xl. 
13. (compare 
Wisd., ix. 13.) 

q Acts ix. 22, 

xvi. 10. xix. 


Ket. r Rey. xiii. 18. 


om wey ACD'F latt Syr copt arm Iren 


Clem Orig, Meth Thdrt lat-ff: ins BD?-3LPR-corr! rel syr Orig; Mac, Chr Thdrt. 
(Has pev been insd on acct of the Se follg, as Meyer,—or omd on acct of the d« 


precedg, as De W ?) 


mTayvTa was not mase sing acc.) 


ins ta bef ravta ACD'!P 17 Iren-ms Orig, Nys Chr: om 
BD?3FLN-corr! Clem Orig; Meth Mac, Thdrt,. 


(ra was prob a gloss to shew that 


16. for xpicrov, kvpiov BDF Thl-txt Ambrst Aug Sedul. (Mechanical repetn of vovy 
kup. above. So Meyer, rightly: addg, if any gloss had been written in marg on kupiov, it 
wd not have been xpiorou, but Oeov, seeing that the ref of the foregoing xvp.is to GOD.) 


Crap. III. 1. rec cat eyw, with L rel Thdrt Thl Gc: txt ABCDFPS a m 17 Clem 


Orig Chr Damasc. eduynbny C. 
always presupposes the infusion of the 
Holy Spirit, to quicken and inform the 
avedpa—so that there is no such thing as 
an unregenerate mvevparixds) judges of all 
things (Meyer, reading 7a mdvra, interprets 
it, ‘all spiritual things ;’ but the ordinary 
rendering, ‘ all things,’ is better: the Apos- 
tle is generalizing, and shewing the high 
position of the spiritual man, who alone can 
judge things by their true standard. 

The acceptation of mévra as mase. sing.,— 
“convincere potest quemlibet profanum,” 
as Rosenm.,—is against the context, which 
speaks of things, ta Tov mv.,—besides that 
mavra would not be used absolutely, for 
‘every man,’ but either mayta avOpwror, 
as Col. i. 28, or tov mdyra), but himself is 
judged of by none (who is not also mvevua- 
rids,see ch. xiv. 29; 1 Johniv.1, where such 
judgment is expressly attributed to Chris- 
tian believers). al yap 6 BAérwy, ravTa 
pey avtds Kabop& kal Tod wh BA€movTos, TH 
5é exelvou Tv uh BAewovTwy ovdels. Chrys. 
Hom. vii. p. 57. 16.] PRooF OF avTés 
82 ta 008. dvakpiverar. In order for an 
unassisted man, not gifted from Christ, to 
judge the mvevpatixés, he must know the 
vovs kupiov, the intent and disposition of 
Christ ; yea more, must be able to teach, to 
instruct, Christ—being not, as the mvev- 
parinéds,—taught by Him, he must have 
an independent wisdom of his own, which 
Christ has not:—and who is there, of 
whom this can be said? But we (mvev- 
patikol, among whom he ineludes him- 
self and the other Apostles) have (not a 
wisdom independent of Christ, nor do we 
know His mind, nor can we teach Him, 
but) the mind of Christ: the same mind, 
in our degree of apprehensiveness of it, by 
the imparting of His Spirit, which is in 
Him, and so can judge all things. The 
vovs xuplov is the spwitual intent and de- 


uu. bef AaA. DPLPabcefghlnovulg 


signs of Christ. kuptov in the prophecy 
is spoken of JEHOVAH ; but in the whole of 
Isa. xl., the zncarnate Jehovah is the sub- 
ject. The meaning of cup ibd Cw, to teach, 
belongs to the LXX: in the N. T. it is 
to conclude, to prove, to confirm, see reff. 

Ill. 1—4.] He could not speak 
to them in the perfect spiritual manner 
above described, seeing that they were 
carnal, and still remained so, as was 
shewn by their divisions. 1.] Kayo, 
I also; i. e. as well as the WuxiKds, was 
compelled to stand on this lower ground, 
—he, because he cannot understand the 
things of the Spirit of God: I, because 
you could not receive them. Or perhaps 
better, with Stanley, ‘al eyo, as in ii. 1, 
“What I have just been saying, was ex- 
emplified in our practice.”’” oaptivots is 
certainly the true reading, being, besides 
its manuscript authority, required by the 
sense. He was compelled to speak to 
them (this affirmative clause is to be sup- 
plied from the former negative one) as to 
men of flesh: not @s capkixots, for that 
they really were, and he asserts them yet 
to be, ver. 3. I quite agree with Meyer 
(against De Wette) that the distinction be- 
tween odpxivor and capxixol is designed by 
the Apostle, and further regarditasimplied 
in the very form of the sentences. Here, 
he says that he was compelled to speak to 
them as if they were only of flesh,—as if 
they were babes, using in both cases the 
material comparison, and the particle of 
comparison @s. But in ver. 3 he drops 
comparison, and asserts matter of fact— 
‘ Are ye not still caprixol (= ws odpkuvot), 
fleshly, carnal, living after the flesh, resist- 
ing the Spirit ?’°—q. d. <I was obliged to re- 
gard you as mere men of flesh, without the 
Spirit: and it isnot far different even now: 
ye are yet fleshly—ye retain the same cha- 


490 IIPOS KOPINOIOTS A. II. 

a. 165. . a > af Ate 

s=oh ils wg SarveupaTtiKois, GAN ws 'oapkivois, @s “vytriots €v ABCD: 
reff. f PN ~ / an ay LPNa 
un Mats. YplsT@. % Vydha twas “ erotica, ov * Bpdpar OUTW cdef 
25 ||L. Rom. : ei hk la 
ua Teh yap eduvacbe. Y*adr *ovde Ett viv SvivacBe % Ett yap nol7 
v 13. Ps a ’ ’ by Sy > con ed #9 \ » 47 
xviii 7. | “@apkKlKol eoTE, “OTOU Yap EV ULV Gyros Kai “ Epis, 

iii. 148. Peak / \ fo a 

Vik s” byl *aapKixol €ote Kal Kata avOpwrov * repiTatette ; 


Heb. v. 12, 


1 Tee, * OTav yap Aéyn "Tis "Eyw pév eiwe ‘Tlavdrov, » Erepos dé 


2only. Gen. 
xviii. 8. 
w Rom. xii. 20 reff. x Matt. xiv. 15 ||. Luke iii. 11. Rom. xiv. 15 al. Ezra iii. 7. y = 2 Cor. 
vii. 11. z = Acts xix. 2. ch. iv. 3 al. a here bis. Rom. xv. 27. ch. ix. 11. 2 Cor. i. 12. x. 
4. 1 Pet.ii. ll only. 2 Chron. xxxii. 8 compl. PE b = Heb. ix. 16. x. 18. James iii. 16. 2 Pet. 
li. 11. c Rom. xiii. 13. 2 Cor. xii. 20. Gal. v.20. Sir. xl. 5. d = Acts xiii. 45 reff. e ch. i, 
11 reff. f Rom. iii. 5. ch. xv. 32. Gal.i.1l. iii. 15, 1 Pet. iv. 6. (see Rom. vi. 19.) g = Rom. 


viii. 4. Eph. ii. 2 al. 


Clem, Orig, Chr Damasce lat-ff. 


h = Luke xi. 15, 16 al. 


igen., ch, i. 12 reff. 


rec capxicois (see notes), withC*D3FLP rel 


Clem, Orig,: txt ABC'D'!& 17 Clem-ms, Orig, Nys. 
2. ree ins ka bef ov Bpwpa, with DFL rel Syr wth arm (Orig,) Ces Thl Be: om 


ABCPR m 17 valg fri syr copt Iren-gr Clem, Orig, Eus Did Cyr, Cypr Hil. 


rec 


ndvvacde, with DL ac dk n 47 Iren Orig, Cas Dial Thdrt: txt A B(sie: see table) 


CFLP rel Clem Orig,. 
edfk17 Iren Clem Orig;. 


rec oute (see note), with L rel Orig, @e: txt ABCDFPR 
(om last clause m.) 


om et: B Orig-int, Cypro. 


3. capo (twice) DIF Orig, org Nys-ms-corr (error by repeatg capxw. from ver 1, 
the difference not being noticed: see there): txt ABCD3LPN rel Clem, Orig Nys-ms. 
Ist eore bef Ist capx. DF am(with demid har] tol) Clem Orig, Nys Cypr Thl 


Aug: txt ABCLPX rel Orig, Chr Thdrt. 


guy F, rec aft epis ins Kat d1x0- 


cracia (from Gal vy. 20), with DFL rel syrr Iren-gr Chr Thdrt Cypr,: om ABCPN a 
vulg fri copt 2th arm Clem, Dion Orig, Eus.—epeis AFL d fn. 


4. r1s bef Acyn DF vss lat-ff. 


racter.’ Both the cdpxivor, the meremen 
of the flesh, and the capxixol, the carnally 
disposed, are included under the more ge- 
neral Wuxixol, which therefore, as Meyer 
observes, is not here used, because this dis- 
tinction was to be made. @s vy. ev 
xp-] The opposite term, TéAcsor ev xp. is 
found Col. i. 28, and in connexion with this, 
Heb. v. 13, 14. Schéttgen (on 1 Pet. ii. 2) 
and Lightfoot adduce the similar Rabbi- 
nical term nipivn, sugentes, used of novices 
in their schools. A recent proselyte also 
was regarded by them as a newborn infant. 

He speaks of his first visit to Corinth, 
when they were recently admitted into the 
faith of Christ,—and excuses his merely 
elementary teaching by the fact that they 
then required it. Not this, but their sti/l 
requiring it, is adduced as matter of blame 
to them. 2.| See the same figure in 
Heb. v.12. So also Philo de Agricult. § 2, 
vol. i. p. 301, émel 5e vntlos pev eore 
yada Tpoph, TeAclois BE Ta ex mupav TEU- 
pata, kal Wuxijs yadanrédes wey bv elev 
Tpopal Kata Thy madinhy HAulay .. . TE 
Aciat 5& Kal avdpdow .... Basil, Hom. i. 
p. 4038, ed. Paris, 1638, cited by Meyer, 
explains, ydAa, Tir eisaywyiKhy K. amdov- 
arépav tov evaryyeAlou SidackaAdlav: see also 
Heb. vi. 1,—rdv ris apxijs Tov xpisTod 
Adyov. On érétiga... . Bpdua, Wetst. 
quotes véxrap 7’ 4uBpoolny Te, Td wep Ocol 
avto) %ovo1, Hes. Theogon. 640. See 


for erep. de eyw, eyw de A c 23. 224 Chr: om eyw m. 


Hom. Il. 6. 546. Winer, edn. 6, § 66. 
2. 1 ovTw yap édvvacGe}| Hither, 
for ye were not yet able (scil. Bpaua éo- 
Oiev),—or, for ye were not yet strong, 
dvvauar being used absolutely, as in De- 
mosth. 1187. 8, duvduevos Te TE mpaTTEW 
kK. T@ elmeiv, and 484. 25, T@v woArrevo- 
uévov Ties SuvnGévtes, and see other reff. 
in Meyer. In the former case, the ellip- 
sis is harsh: the latter meaning seems 
preferable, though not found elsewhere in 
the N. T. GAN ovdse Etc vov, but 
neither even now .. .; the otre of the 
rec. is grammatically inadmissible,—see 
Winer, edn. 6, § 55. 6. 3.) On 
gapktkoi, see above, ver. 1. oTrov, 
not = ézef, but putting the assumption 
in a local form, see reff. CaAos, emu- 
lation, in a bad sense; or as in reff. 
‘angry jealousy.’ Kata av@p., see 
reff., according to the manner of (unre- 
newed and ungodly) man, = kata odpxa, 
Rom. viii. 4; see note on ch. xv. 32. 

4.| He names but two of the foregoing 
designations, ch. i. 12: intending, both 
there more fully, and here briefly, rather 
to give a sample of the sectarian spirit 
prevalent, than to describe, as matter 
of fact, any sects into which they were 
actually divided : see note there, and on ch. 
iv. 6. Meyer sees in the mention here of 
Paul and Apollos only, a reference to the 
two methods of teaching which have been 


2—8, 


> nee : 
Eyo i’ Arovd, ovK ’ dvOpwrrot €oTE ; 


IIPO> KOPINOIOTS A. 


491 


5 rifs] ody éorop ise ver. 3. 


Acts xix. 


*AmroAnos ; tis] o€ éotw Tlainos ; Sudxovor Ov dv ant. nace 


k émiatevoate, Kal \é 


™ €bvtevoa, “AmroANws 

Marat HA em. 
@STE OUTE O 

6 °avéavev Ges. 


> [4 ‘ 
_ eiow, Exaotos S€ Tov idvov *wicOdv AnpryeTat KaTA TOV 


2 Cor. x. 16. *Col.i..6,.10. 
19. Gal. ii. 6. vi. 3, 15. 
r = Rom. iv. 4 reff. 


1 Pet. ii. 2 only. 
Demosth, 582. 27. 


EKaoTW WS O KUpLOS edwxKeED. 

la X ig \ 

* EmOTLTeD, avnra 0 Oeds 
) an 

putevov €otlv Prt, ote 0 ™ TOTiCwY, GAN’ » Rom. xii. 2 

86 ™ hutedov Oé Kal 6 ™ roTifev 4 &v 


intr., 


6 xii. 3. ch. vii. 
ey@ 17. z 
0) nueéavev" Matt. xv. 13. 


xxi. 33 || al. 
Gen. ii. 8 al. 


o tr., here bis. 


2 Cor. ix. 10 
only. Gen. 
xvil. 6, mid. 
or pass., 
Acts vi. 7 2eff. p = Acts y. 36. ch. x. 
q constr., John x. 30. xvii. 11, &c. Eph. ii. 14. 


rec ovxt (corr from ver 3), with DFLPN3 rel Dial Chr Thdrt Thl Ge: txt 


ABCN! 17 Damasc. 


rec for avOpwro, capkixa (corrn from ver 3), with LPX3 


rel syrr Dial Chr Thdrt: txt ABCDFN! 17 latt copt eth arm Did Damase Orig-int 
Ambrst Aug.—P adds at end ka: x. av0. wepirateite (also from ver. 3). 


5. 71 (twice) ABN? 17 latt eth lat-ff (prob corrn to suit the sense: 


the question 


being rather qualis est than quis est): tis CDFLPN3 rel syrr copt arm Chr Thdrt Thl 


Ge. 


rec mavAos Tis Se aroAAws (alteration of order, to suit ver 4), with D?L rel 


syrr eth arm Chr Thdrt Opt: txt ABC(D!3F)PN m 17 latt copt Damase Ambrst Aug 
Pel.—ree om 2nd eoriy, with DFL latt copt arm Chr Thdrt: ins ABCPX m 17. 
rec ins aAd’ n bef di:akov. (addition to complete the sense), with D?3LP rel syrr Chr 


Thdrt Thl Ge Opt: om ABCD!FX vulg copt zth arm Damase Ambrst Pel. 


ws C tol}. 


om 


6. [ adda, so ABD!EN. (for adda o, o Se f 17.) | 


7. om Ist ouvre A. 


treated of in this section: but as I have 
before said, the German Commentators 
are misled by too definite a view of the 
Corinthian parties. d&v@pwrot, i.e. walk- 
ing Kata &yOpwroy,—capiikol. 

5—15.| He takes occasion, by example 
of himself and Apollos, to explain to 
them the true place and office of Chris- 
tian teachers: that they are in them- 
selves nothing (vv. 5—8), but work for 
God (vv. 9, 10), each in his peculiar 
department (ver. 10; cf. ver. 6), each re- 
quiring serious care as to the manner of 
his working, seeing that a searching trial 
of its worth will be made in the day of 
the Lord (vv. 10—15). 5.] ovv 


follows on the assumption of the truth of. 


the divided state of things among them : 
‘Who then (What then)... ., seeing 
that ye exalt them into heads over you?’ 
The question is not asked by an objector, 
but by Paul himself; when an objector is 
introduced, he notifies it, as ch. xv. 35; 
Rom. ix. 19. émiotevoate, as in reff. : 
ye became believers. EKAOTW OS..., 
= as wk. 6 Kip. Exdotw, see reff. It 
refers, not to the teachers, but to the 
hearers, see below 6 avéavwy Oeds. In 
the rec. text, the question is carried on 
to the end of the verse by ad’ #, which 
is good Greek for ‘nisi,’ ‘ preeterquam,’— 
so ovde xpynoducba einynTth GAN i) Ta 
matpeq, Plato, Rep. p. 427, see Hartung, 
Partikellehre, ii. 44,—but seems to have 
been inserted from not observing the form 


for 2nd ouvte, ovde CR!. 


aAAa D!. 


of the sentence. 6.] The similitude 
is to a tilled field (yeepy.oy, ver. 9): the 
plants are the Corinthians, as members 
of Christ, vines bearing fruit: these do 
not yet appear in the construction: so 
that I prefer, with De Wette, supplying 
nothing after épirevoa and éemédticer, re- 
garding merely the acts themselves, as in 
K. V. If any thing be supplied, it must 
be duas, which would but ill fit ver. 7. 

Apollos was sent over to Corinth 
after Paul had left it (Acts xviii. 27), at 
his own request, and remained there 
preaching during Paul’s journey through 
Upper Asia (ib. xix. 1). 7.] éoriv 
tu, either, ‘ts any thing to the purpose,’ 


as in Aéyew 7, &e., or absol. is any 
thing: which latter is best: compare «i 
Kal. ovdev eiut, 2 Cor. xii. 11. 


GAN 6 avé. eds, scil. Ta wdvta eorl,— 
to be supplied from the negative clauses 
preceding. Theophylact remarks: dpa 
mas aveTaxOH moet Thy ekovdevwow TOY 
mpocoT@Twv ev Kopiv0w copay x. mAov- 
ciwyv, éavtov K. "ATOAAw Kata Td pawwd- 
pevov ekovdevadoas, Kk. diddtas, bri eG Set 
wove TposeXely, K. eis avToy dvaribévat 
mdyre. 7% ouuBalvovta ayabd. 8. ] 
év, in the nature of their ministry,— 

generically, kata THY broupyiavy aupd- 
Tepar yap To Oelw Staxovovcr BovaAr- 
patti. Theodoret. €kactos 5é . . «| 
Here he introduces a new glement—the 
separate responsibility of each minister 
for the results of his own labour, so 


492 


“t ” ' 
s=2Cor. vi. [Sov § KOTTOV. 
t 1 Thess. iii. 2 

only. 

u = Rom. xvi. 
3 reff. 

y here only. 
Prov. xxiv. 
30. xxxi. 16. 
(-yos, John d a e2 a 
xv.1.-yev, * TOS © eTOLKOOOMLEL. 
Heb. vi. 7.) 

w = Matt. 
xxiy. 1 || Mk. 
2 Cor. v. 1. 


Eph. ii, 21 only. (Rom. xiv. 19 reff.) 


ITPO> KOPINOIOTS A. 


ylov, Geod “ oixkodoun éote. 
TH *do0eicay jot ws Y coos *apyitéxtov * Oewédtov 
béOnka, GAdoS OE ° erroOLKOdOpE?. 
11 a Mewéduov yap adXrov ovdels 
dvvatat » Oeivar ‘rapa tov *®Kelwevoy, 65 éotw “Incods 


Ezek. xvii. 17. 


HEE i 


9t Aeod yap éopev ™ cuvepyol: Oeod * yewp- 


10 kata Thy *xapw TOD Beod 


exastos 66 * BrerréTo 


x ch, i. 4 reff. y = Exod. 


xxxy. 10. zhere only. Isa. iii. 3. Sir. xxxvili. 27. 2 Mace. ii. 29 only. a masc., 2 Tim. 
i.19. Rey. xxi. 19. = Rom. xv. 20. Heb. vi. 1. b Luke vi. 48. xiv. 29. c here &c.,4 
times. Eph. ii. 20. Col. ii. 7. Jude 20 only. Num. xxxii. 38 Ald. only. see Rom. xy. 20. d Luke 
viii. 18. Eph. y. 15. e = Mark xiii. 5 al. fr. = Luke iii. 13. Heb. xi.4. idal, émoler 

g Matt. 


GAAa rap’ & évourgev, Plato, Minos, 320. €xomev TL Tapa TaUTA aAAO A€yewy, id. Phedo, 80. 
vy. 14. 


8. om 2nd de C 31 Syr Aug. 


for koroy, roroy C. 


9. aft yewpyioy ins eore D? vulg(not harl') arm Chr. 
10. rec re@evxa, with C3DX% rel Orig, (Chr-mss) Thdrt Thl (ie, re@nea LP fn 


47: txt ABC!&! m! 17 (Chr). 


that, though kara thy srovpylay they 
are one,—kata 7d épyov (ib.) they are 
diverse. The stress is twice on Zd:ov. 

9.] Proof of the last assertion, and 
introduction of Him, from Whom each 
Ahuwerat. The stress thrice on #00 :— 
shall receive, &c.,—for it is of Gop that 
we are the fellow-workers (in subordi- 
nation to Him, as is of course implied : 
but to render it ‘fellow-workers with 
one another, under God,’ as Kstius pre- 
fers, and Olsh., al., maintain, is contrary 
to usage: see reff.;—and not at all re- 
quired, see 2 Cor. v. 20; vi. 1), of Gop 
that ye are the field, of Gop that ye are 
the building. This last new similitude is 
introduced on account of what he has pre- 
sently to say of the different kinds of teach- 
ing, which will be more clearly set forth by 
this, than by the other figure. 10. | 
Kata T. yap. &c., as an expression of humi- 
lity (reff.), fitly introduces the copds which 
follows. So Chrys.: épa yotv m@s merpiacet. 
eimay yap copby EavTdv, odK apiKkev avrTov 
TovTo elvat, GAA’ BAov éavTdy mpdrepoy 
avabels TG OcG TéTE EavTby oUTws exd- 
Aeoe. Hom. viii. p. 69. The ydpts is not 
the peculiar grace of his apostleship— 
for an apostle was not always required 
to lay the foundation, e. g. in Rome :— 
but that given to him in common with 
all Christians (ver. 5), only in a degree 
proportioned to the work which God 
had for him to do. codés, skilful, 
see reff., and many examples in Wetstein. 
The proof of this skill is given, in his 
laying a foundation: the unskilful master- 
builder days none, see Luke vi. 49. The 
foundation (ver. 11) was and must be, 
Jesus Crrist: the facts of redemption 
by Him (obj.), and the reception of Him 
and His work by faith (subj.). The 
mascul. form 6 @euéAtos (se. AlOos) is said 
by Thomas Mag. (in Wetst.) to belong to 


other. 


om 2nd de D Orig, Chr Gild. 


the kowh SidAexros—the Attic form is 
OeueAtov, or, if in the plur., of @euéAror: 
—oi yap OeuéAtor mavTolwy Albwy id- 
xewrat, Thucyd. i. 93. a@AXos, ‘ who- 
ever comes after me, —another: not only 
Apollos. étrotkodopet, pres., as the 
necessary state and condition of the sub- 
sequent teacher, be he who he may. The 
building on, over the foundation, imports 
the carrying them onward in knowledge 
and intelligent faith. ™Os, emphatic, 
= here, with what material. De Wette 
imagines that it also conveys a caution not 
to alter the foundations, and that the yap 
in ver. 11 refers to this. But the identity 
of the foundation is surely implied in 
émroiodouer. On the yap, see below. 
11. @. yap] q. d. ‘ I speak of superimposing 
merely, for it is unnecessary to caution 
them respecting the foundation itself: there 
can be but one, and that one HAS ALREADY 
BEEN (objectively, for all, see below) LArD 
BY Gop.’ At the same time, in taking this 
for granted, he implies the strongest pos- 
sible caution against attempting to lay any 
Svvarat, strictly can,—not ‘ ne- 
mini licet, as Grot., al., nor as Theophyl., 
od Stvara Ocivar, ews by mevn gopds 
apxiréextwv, evel dtav wh 7 Tis Top. apx., 
duvarat Oeivat, kK. ek TovTOV af aipécets :— 
for it is assumed, that 0€0¥ oikodounh is to 
be raised—and it can only be raised on 
this one foundation. All who build on 
other foundations are not cuvepynt Oeod, 
nor is their building cod oixodouy at all. 
GAdov .. . . mapd, see reff. and cf. 
Thuceyd. i. 23, ruxvdérepat mapa Ta ek Tod 
mply xpévov uynuovevdueva. keipevoy | 
not, ‘by me,’ but ‘by God,’ for universal 
Christendom; but actually laid in each 
place, as regards that church, by the 
minister who founds it. De Wette denies 
this universal reference, as introducing a 
new element into the context. But surely 


9—13. IPOS KOPINOIOTS A. 4,93 
yxpiatos. 12 ef dé Tis © errotkodopel emt Tov * Oewertov Mit x9... 
[ A ] r h » i x0 i , ik , James iv. 3. 
rovrov| xpuoov, ».apyvpov, | MiBous + tiulous, * EUAa, Rev. xiii 


, / c / \ lj 
‘yoptov, ™ xarauny, 13 Exdorov To epyov ” havepov ™ yevr- By xii. 
xviii, 12, 
1=here only. (Matt. 
n Mark vi. 


16. xxi. 11,19, Ps. xviii. 10. k = here only. Ezra y. 8. 
vi. 30 al. fr. Gen. ii. 5.) m here only. Exod. y. 12. xv. 7. 
ld, Acts vii. 13, Phil. i. 13. Gen. xlii. 16. 


Isa. v. 24, 

11. rec ins o bef xpiotos: om ABCDLPR rel.—xpior. ino. C3D vulg syr Orig, Ath, 
Chr, Max Damase Hil Jer Ambrst Augsepe Sedul: txt ABLPN rel Syr Orig, Marcell 
Ath, Arnob: om ing. Cl. (The rec ino. o xp. appears to have been a corrn to give a 
doctrinal meaning—‘ Jesus (is) the Christ.’ xp. ino. may have had the same intention, 


of ch xii. 3.) 


12. om tovroy ABC!N} fuld! sah wth Ambr (perhaps from similarity of endgs; or 
as unnecessary): ins C3 DLPN? rel latt syrr copt arm Orig Ath Cyr-jer Chr Thdrt 


Thl Gc Aug Jer. 
Clem. apyupvov BCR 73 Clem. 


xpvovoy B & 73 Clem. (C doubtful) 


add ra: B 73 xth 


13. for exaorov to yevnoetat, 0 mornoas TovTo To epyov pavepos yerntat (see ch v. 2) 


the reference in 6 OeuéAios 6 Kelwevos is 
too direct to the well-known prophecy of 
the divinely-placed foundation or corner- 
stone, to surprise any reader or divert 
his mind from the train of thought by a 
new element. *Incots xptordés, THE 
PERSONAL, HISTORICAL CHRIST, as the 
object of all Christian faith. Ifit be read 
as in rec., *Inocovs 6 xpiords, it need not 
necessarily be, that Jesus is the Christ, 
but may be in this case also, JESUS THE 
CuRist; not any doctrine, even that of 
the Messiahship of Jesus, is the foundation, 
but Jesus Himsrnr (see var. readd.). 

12.] The 8€ implies that though 
there can be but one foundation, there are 
many ways of building upon it. To the 
right understanding of this verse it may be 
necessary to remark, (1) that the similitude 
is, not of many buildings, as Wetst. and 
Billroth,—but of one, see ver. 16,—and 
that raised on Christ as its foundation ; 
—different parts of which are built by the 
ministers who work under Him,—some 
well and substantially built, some ill and 
unsubstantially. (2) That gold, silver, &c., 
refer to the matter of the ministers’ teach- 
ing, primarily ; and by inference to those 
whom that teaching penetrates and builds 
up in Christ, who should be the living stones 
of the temple: not, as Orig., Chrys., Theo- 
doret, Theophyl., Phot., Aug., Jer., &e., to 
the moral fruits produced by the preaching 
in the individual members of the church, 
—el tis kakdy Biov Exet meta TioTEws OpOijs, 
ov TpooTHoeTaL a’TOD 7) TloTIs eis TO pH 
KoAd(ec@at, Chrys. Hom. ix. p. 77. (8) 
That the builder of the worthless and un- 
substantial zs in the end SAVED (see below): 
so that even /is preaching was preaching 
of Christ, and he himself was in earnest. 
(4) That what is said does not refer, except 
by accommodation, to the religious life of 
believers in general—as Olsh., Schrader, 





see also the ancient Commentators above ; 
—but to the DUTY AND REWARD OF 
TEACHERS. At the same time, such accom- 
modation is legitimate, in so far as each 
man is a@ teacher and builder of himself. 
(5) That the various materials specified 
must not be fancifully pressed to indicate 
particular doctrines or graces, as e.g. 
Schrader has done, “ Some build with the 
gold of faith, with the silver of hope, with 
the imperishable costly stones of love,— 
others again with the dead wood of unfruit- 
fulness in good works, with the empty straw 
of a spiritless, ostentatious knowledge, and 
with the bending reed of a continually- 
doubting spirit.” Der Apostel Paulus, iv. 
p- 66. This, however ingenious, is beside 
the mark, not being justified by any indica- 
tions furnished in our Epistle itself. An 
elaborate résumé of the very various minor 
differences of interpretation may be seen in 
Meyer’s Comm. ed. 2, in loc. Cf. also 
Estius’s note ; and Stanley’s. AiBous 
tiptouvs | Not ‘gems,’ but ‘costly stones,’ 
as marbles, porphyry, jasper, &c., compare 
1 Kings vii. 9 ff. By the &vAa, xéprov, 
kaAdunv, he indicates the various per- 
versions of true doctrine, and admixtures of 
faise philosophy which were current: so 
Kstius, “ doctrina non quidem heretica et 
perniciosa, talis enim fundamentum de- 
strueret: sed minus sincera, minusque 
solida ; veluti si sit humanis ac philoso- 
phicis, aut etiam Judaicis opinionibus ad- 
mixta plus satis: si curiosa magis quam 
utilis; si vana quadam oblectatione mentes 
occupans Christianas.” Comm. i. p. 268 B. 

13.] Each man’s work (i.e. that 
which he has built: 47s part in erecting the 
oixodouy Oeod) shall (at some time) be 
made evident (shall not always remain in 
the present uncertainty, but be tested, and 
shewn of what sort it is): for the day shall 
make it manifest (the day of the Lord, as 


494: 


o — ch.i. 8 reff. 


IIPOS KOPINOIOTS A. 


TET. 


ren weTaur 9 yap °nuépa POnrAwoel, OTL ev TrUpL 4 aTroKa- 


Heb. x. 25. 
pch. i. 1] reff. 
q = Rom.i. 18 : 

reff. see s 
2 Thess. i. 7, OOKLMLACEL. 

8. 

r Acts xxvi. 29 
reff. 

s = Luke xiv. 19. ch. xi. 28. 

u vy. 10, 12. 


D! Ambrst. 


2 Cor. xiii.5. 1 Pet. i. 7. 


v ver. 8. 


Zech, xiii. 9. 
w Matt. iii. 12 |, L. xiii. 30. 


/ 4; ‘© Ud Noy, rs alr ’ \ lel os 
AUTTETAL, KAL EXATTOU TO EpyoV ' OTOLOY EaTLY TO TIP avTO 
14 ” \ ” t me A. Wed 60 

et TlVos TO Epyov * evel 0 “ érroLKOdO- 
pnoev, ¥ wucOov AnpapeTat. 


ils Sy Lo» " 
€l TLVOS TO EpyoV KaTa- 


t = Rom. ix. 11 reff. 


Acts xix. 19 al. Gen. xxxviii. 24. 


rec om avto (as unnecessary: but see note), with DLN rel vss 


Clem Orig, Chr-mss, Thdrt, Th] ic: ins ABCP(avtw) m 17 Syr Orig, Eus Bas Chr 


Thdrt, Procop. 


14. rec emwkodouncer, with B?C rel: txt AB! DLPN o 17. 


Vulg., ‘dies domini:’ see reff.,—and so 
most Commentators, ancient and modern. 
The other interpretations are (1) ‘the day 
of the destruction of Jerusalem, which 
shall shew the vanity of Judaizing doc- 
trines: so Hammond [but not clearly nor 
exclusively |, Lightf., Schéttg.,al..—against 
both the context, and our Apostle’s habit 
of speaking, and under the assumption, that 
nothing but Jewish errors are spoken of :— 
(2) ‘ the lapse of time,’ as in the proverb, 
‘dies docebit ;’—so Grot., Wolf, Mosheim, 
Rosenm., al., which is still more incon- 
sistent with the context, which necessitates 
a definite day, and a definite fire:—(3) 
‘the light of day,’ i.e. of clear knowledge, 
as opposed to the present time of obscurity 
and night: so Calv., Beza, Erasm.:—but 
the fire here is not a life-giving, but a 
consuming flame; and, as Meyer remarks, 
even in that case the jnuépa would be that 
of the mwapovota, see Rom. xiii. 12 :—(4) 
‘the day of tribulation ?—so Augustine, 
Calov.: but this again is not definite 
enough: uic@by Anuerar can hardly be 
said of mere abiding the test of tribula- 
tion) ;—because it (the day—not, the work, 
as Theophyl., (cum., al., which would 
introduce a mere tautology with the next 
clause) is (to be) revealed (the present 
arokaAUTTeTaL expresses the definite cer- 
tainty of prophecy : or perhaps rather the 
attribute of that day, which is, to be 
revealed, &c., as in the expressions 6 7ret- 
paCwy, 6 omelpwy, &e.) in fire (‘accom- 
panied,’ ‘ clothed,’ ‘ girt,’ ‘with fire;’ i.e. 
fire will be the element in which the day 
will be revealed. Cf. 2 Thess. i. 8, and 
Mal. iii. 2, 3, iv. 1, to which latter place 
the reference is,—see LXX. But notice, 
that this is not the fire of hell, into 
which the gold, silver, and costly stones 
will never enter, but the fire of judgment, 
in which Christ will appear, and by which 
all works will be tried. This univer- 
sality of trial by fire is equally against 
the idea of a purgatorial fire, which 
lucrative fiction has been mainly based 
by the Romanists on a perversion of this 
passage. See Aug. de Civ. Dei, xxi. 26. 


4, vol. vii. p. 745, who mentions the idea 
with ‘non redarguo, quia forsitan verum 
est... See Estius, who does not main- 
tain the allusion to Purgatory here; and 
Bisping, who does), and each man’s work, 
of what kind it is, the fire itself shall 
try (this clause does not depend upon 
671, but ranges with the following futures. 
It is a question whether épyov is nom. 
or ace.,—of what kind each man’s work 
is {Meyer],—or as above. In the only 
other places where Paul uses érotos, Gal. 
ii. 6, 1 Thess. i. 9 [see also Acts xxvi, 
29], it commences a clause, as here if 
épyov be accus. ;—we have a very similar 
expression, Gal. vi. 4, 7d Epyov éavTov 
doxiwalérw €xaorTos:—and it seems more 
natural that the action of the fire should 
be described as directly passing upon the 
work. For these reasons, I prefer the 
accus. 7) mwup avd, the fire itself, of 
its own power, being a wip katavadlc- 
kov. 14.] If any man’s work shall 
remain (i.e. stand the fire,—being of 
inconsumable materials. jmevet fut. (so 
latt syrr coptt), is better than the pres. 
of rec., as answering to «i... . KaTa- 
kuhoeta below), which he built on the 
foundation,—he shall receive wages (as 
a builder ;—i. e. ‘shall be rewarded for his 
faithful and effectual work as a teacher’): 

15.| if any man’s work shall be 
burnt up (i.e. consist of such materials 
as the fire will destroy: Stanley adds, 
“Tt is possible that this whole image, as 
addressed to the Corinthians, may have 
been suggested, or at least illustrated, by 
the conflagration of Corinth under Mum- 
mius: the stately temples [one of them 
remaining to this day ] left standing amidst 
the universal crash and destruction of the 
meaner buildings”), he shall be muleted 
(Cnuiw8., scil. tov picOdv, see ref. Matt., 
and Herod. vii. 39, Tod 5 évds, Tod mepi- 
éxea uddsora, Thy Wuxhy Chuidoent, and 
Plato, Legg., vi. p. 774, eis ev ody xpi- 
para 6 wy OeAwy yaueiv tocatra Cym- 
ovc@w): but he himself shall be saved 
(having held, and built on, the true foun- 
dation Jesus Christ, he shall not be ex- 


ABC 
Pra 
def 


ki 
o17 


1 
x) 


14—17. IIPO> KOPINOIOTS A. 495 
, , > 7 \ : 
Kanoetat, * CyuwOjnoerar: avtos d€ awOnceTas, ¥ OTS SE x Matt wi. 
, v a Steg. | apy” 
Yas *dua mupos. 1 *ovK *oldaTe Otte »vads Beod éote ji3. Pet 
\ \ a a 6 MC ee ee tane EY ar 17 <7 Mh \ Prov. xix. 19. 
Kat TO TTVEULA TOV UVEOU ~ OLKEL EV ULV 5 €l TLS TOV ~ VAOV i os : 
~ ~ , ee eed 7 ir o ‘ a ms yl jv. 1, ix 
Tov Oeod * Pbeiper, 4 POepet TodTOV 6 Oeds: 6 yap »vads TOD % Erb.¥ 
ii. 12. z see Isa. xliii. 2. Zech. xiii. 9. a Rom. vi. 16. ch. v. 6 al. b= ch. 
vi. 19. 2Cor. vi. 16. (2 Thess. ii.4 al.) Jer. vii. 4. c Rom. vii. 17 reff. d = here 
bis. ch. xy. 33. 2 Cor. vii. 2. xi. 3. Eph. iv. 22. 2 Pet.ii.12. Judel0. Rev. xix. 2only. Isa. liv. 


16. play on word, ch. vi. 12. 


16. ev vu bef oer BP m 17 Tert. 


17. for p@cper, POeiper DEP 47 am: POeipe? L. 


for rovtov, avtov (corrn as 


more usual) ADF Syrsyr-mg arm Chr,, c/lum latt Tren-int Cypr: txt BCLPN rel syr 
coptt «th Orig Eus Mae Did Amphil Chr, Thdrt Thl Qe. 


cluded from that salvation which is the 
Sree gift of God to all who believe on 
Christ, but shall get no especial reward 
as a faithful and effectual teacher. Cf. 
2 John 8, BAémere Eavtods, va wh aaro- 
Aéonrte & cipyardpeba, GAAG proBov wA- 
py aroAdBynre. Meyer remarks, that our 
Lord hints at such persons under the name 
of écxarot, Matt. xx. 16; Mark x. 31), but 
so, as through fire:—i.e. as a builder 
whose building was consumed would escape 
with personal satety, but with the loss of his 
*work. Chrys., Theophyl., Gic., strangely 
understand it, that he shall be burnt for 
ever in the fire of Hell, unconsumed: od xt 
kal avTds oUTws amodEiTat ws TA Epa, Eis 
Td pndev xwpGv" GAAG evel ev TH Tupl, 
Chrys. od etal, TovTéoti, cos THpetTa. 
dias aiwvlous tréxwv, Theophyl. But 
(1) the fire of Hell is quite alien from the 
context (see above),—and (2) the meaning 
given to o@(ec@a is unexampled,—and 
least of all could be intended where the 
coming of the Lord is spoken of: ef. inter 
alia, ch.v.5, mapadotvatk.T.A..... WaTd 
Tvevpa cwOy ev TH pep T. Kuptov. 
Grot., Elsn., al., explain os 61a mupds asa 
proverb, ‘tanquam ex incendio,’ for ‘ with 
difficulty.’ But this is needless here, as 
the figure itself is that of an ‘incendium:? 
and @s is not ‘tanquam,’ but belongs to 
o0Tws, see reff. The whole imagery of 
the passage will be best understood by 
carefully keeping in mind the sey, which 
is to be found in the @eov oikodouh, and the 
vads Geov, as connected with the prophecy 
of Malachi iii.andiv. There, ékaipyns Hkeu 
eis Toy vaby éavTov KUplos .... auTdS «is- 
mopeveTat ws Tp XwveuTnplov ... KabieiTaL 
xwvevwy Kal KabapiCwy as Td apytpioyv kab 
ws To xpuclov..... did dod juecpa (add 
kuplov A) épxeTar Karowéevn ws KABavos, 
k. pAckEL avTOUS, Kal EoovTaL... KaAgEN, 
k. avawer avTovs 7 Nuéepa 7 epxouevn. The 
Lord thus coming to His temple in flaming 
fire, all the parts of the building which will 
not stand that fire will be consumed : the 
builders of them will escape with personal 
salvation, but with the loss of their work, 


through the midst of the conflagration. 
16—23.] The figure is taken up 
afresh and carried further: and made 
the occasion of solemn exhortation, since 
they were the temple of God, not to mar 
that temple, the habitation of His Spirit, 
by unholiness, or by exaltation of human 
wisdom : which last again was irrelevant, 
as well as sinful ; for all their teachers 
were but their servants in building them 
up to be God's temple,—yea all things 
were for this end, to subserve them, as 
being Christ’s, by the ordinance, and to 
the glory of God the Father. 16. | 
The foregoing figures, with the occasion 
to which they referred, are now dropped, 
and the olxodouy Geod recalled, to do fur- 
ther service. This dué/ding is now, as in 
Mal. iii. 1, and as indeed by implication in 
the foregoing verses, the temple of God 
(vads 8cod, with emphasis on vads, not beod 
vads), the habitation of His Spirit. 
ovK oldate 6tT1—Are yeignorant that... 
an expression of surprise arising out of their 
conduct. Kal... év tptv—ev &, TouT- 
éoTw, ev duty. Meyer rightly remarks, 
that ‘“‘ vabs @eot is the temple of God, not a 
temple of God: for Paul does not conceive 
(as Theodoret, al.) of the various churches 
as various temples of God, which would 
be inconsistent with a Jew’s conception of 
God’s temple, but of each Christian church 
as, sensu mystico, the temple of Jehovah. 
So there would be, not many temples, but 
many churches, each of which is, ideally, 
the same temple of God.” And, we may 
add, if the figure is to be strictly justified in 
its widest acceptation, that all the churches 
are built together into one vast temple: ef. 
év @ kal tpets cuvoikoSopetabe, Eph. ii. 
22. 17.] 9ctper, mars, whether 
as regards its unity and beauty, or its 
purity and sanctity : here, the meaning is 
left indefinite, but the latter particulars are 
certainly hinted at,—by ayios below. 
Gepet, either by temporal death (Mey.), 
as in ch. xi. 830; or by spiritual death, 
which is more probable, seeing that the 
Jigurative temple is spoken of, not (as 


496 


e=Rom.vi.2. Megp dylos éoTw, °oltwes eoTE vets. 


f Rom. vii. 11 


TIPO} KOPINOIOTS A. 


III. 18—23. 


18 undeis EavTov ABCD 
LPR a 


~ ig lal > a 
gw thvii2 '€Eamatdtw el Tis ® boKxel coos eivar ev vyiv ev THcdef 


Phil. iii. 4. 
James i. 26, 
h Rom. xii. 


k ch. i. 18 reff. F hae Ss 
"Gal ii, Mal. TH ° WAVOUPY la avTOD. 
m Jos v.13 (but 


h aide" tobT@, ‘'wwpos yevérOa, iva yévntar codos. 
yap copia Tod Kocpouv TovTov * wwpia ‘rapa [Tro] Ged 
éotw. yéypartar yap ™‘O “dpacaopevos Tous copovs év 
20 Kal mad Kupws ywaeoker Tovs 
P Stadoyicpovs TOV copay 16TL Elciv * waTaLoL. 


21 8 @oTE 


KaTaAap.- 
ave and y pele , , \ OG 
aa t Aa * a} . u 
dpovncet). pendels KAVY aT @ “€V av PpeTrols TaAVTaA 2p ULWY EOTLY, 
ly. , ’ 
a pare 2. y. 12. Num. y. 26. (Ps. ii. 12, w. gen.) Herod.,’iii. 13. Jos. B. J. iii. 8.6. Dion. Hal. ix. 21. 
=) Luk .23. 2Cor.iv.2. xi.3. Eph.iv. 14 only. Josh. ix.4 (10). (-yos, 2 Cor. xii. 16.) p = Rom. 
ik , 2. ames ii. 4. aa xciii. 11. 4 q constr., ch. xvi. 15 al. fr. Winer, edn. 6, } 66. 5. a. r Acts 
xiv. 15. ch. xv.17. Tit. iii.9. Jamesi. 26. 1 Pet. i. 18 only. Exod. xX. 7. 8 = ch. iv. 5. tch. 
i. 31. Rom. ii. 17 reff. u gen.,ch.i.12. Rom. xiv. 8. 2 Tim. ii. 19. 
18. aft efaratatw ins Kevois Aoyos (see Eph v. 6) D 23-marg 73. 118. ev UL. 


ewat cop. P. 


19. rec ins rw bef Oew (corrn: but art is unnecessary aft prepn), with ABLPR rel 


Orig, Dion Eus Chr Thdrt: om CDF b! o Clem Orig,. 


and tous F. 
21. avOpwrw F lat-ff(not Pel Bede). 


Mey.) the material temple :—and as tem- 
oral death was the punishment for de- 
filing the material temple (Exod, xxviii. 43. 
Levit. xvi. 2 al. fr.), so spiritual death for 
marring or defiling of God’s spiritual tem- 
ple. Gytos, the constant epithet of 
vads in the O.T., see Ps. v.77; x. 5 (LXX). 
Hab. ii. 20, and passim. ottwves, i. e. 
&y.01, not, ‘which temple are ye,’ which 
would be tautological after ver. 16, and 
would hardly be expressed by ofrwes, ‘ut 
qui,’ or ‘quales.’ Meyer well remarks, that 
olriés éore duets is the minor proposition 
of a syllogism :—‘ Whoever mars the tem- 
ple of God, him will God destroy, because 
His temple is holy: but ye also, as His 
ideal temple, are holy: —therefore, whoever 
mars you, shall be destroyed by God’ 
18—20.] A warning to those who 

would be leaders among them, against self- 
conceit. 18.] é&atratdtw, not, as 
Theophyl., vouitwy dre &AAws exer 7d 
mpayya Kat ovx ws elroy :—it is far more 
naturally referred to what follows, viz. 
thinking himself wise, when he must be- 
come a fool in order to be wise. If any 
man thinks that he is wise among you in 
this world (¢v 7@ ai. rovTw belongs to 
done? cop. elv. €v bu.,—to the whole as- 
sumption of wisdom made by the man, 
which as made in this present world, must 
be false : not (1) merely to copds, Grot., 
Riickert, al..—as the arrangement of the 
words shews,—nor (2) to pwpds yevécbw, 
Orig., Chrys., Luther, Rosenm., al., in 
which case, the stress being on pwpds, it 
must have been pwpds yevérOw ev Ta 
aiav. tovT@), let him become a fool (by 
receiving the gospel in its simplicity, and 
so becoming foolish in the world’s sight), 


om yap D!. om 6 


that he may become (truly) wise. 

19.] Reason why this must be :—shewn 
from Scripture. mapa §., in the 
judgment of God, reff. 
The sense of the Heb. is equally expressed 
by the Apostle and the LXX. The words 
are taken out of the context as they stand, 
which accounts for the participle, see Heb. 
i. 7. The sense is, ‘If God uses the craft 
of the wise as a net to catch them in, such 
wisdom is in His sight folly, since He 
turns it to their confusion. “ 8pacodpe- 
vos [ possibly a provincialism ] is substituted 
for karaAauBavey, as a stronger and live- 
lier expression for ‘ grasping,’ or ‘ catching 
with the hand.” Stanley. Cf. Judith 
xiii. 7. 20.] The LXX have avépé- 
may (Heb. 07x); the Psalmist however is 
speaking of the proud, ver. 2 f., and such, 
when diaAoyicuol are in question, would 
be the worldly wise. 21—23.] A 
warning to them in general, not to boast 
themselves in human teachers. 21.] 
Gste, viz. seeing that this world’s wisdom 
is folly with God: or perhaps as a more 
general inference from what has gone be- 
fore since ch. i., that as the conclusion 
there was, 6 kavxdmevos, ev kupl@ Kav- 
xdc0w,—so now, having gone into the 
matter more at length, he concludes, undels 
Kavxdcbw év avOpémos. This boasting in 
men is explained in ch. iv. 6 to mean py} 
cis Omtp Tod Evds muciodcba KaTd TOU éré- 
pov. Kavxdao0w after éste isa change of 
construction. A somewhat similar change 
occurred in the parallel ch. i. 81, Wa... . 
kavxdo0w : but there, by the citation being 
adduced in its existing form. TaYTS. 
yap tp. éor.] ‘For such boasting is a 
degradation to those who are heirs of all 


6 Spacc. | 


hkli 
19» nol 
7“ 


FV, 2. 


IIPOS KOPIN@IOTS A. 


497 


* Vette IladNos elite "AmroAdnws elte Kndas, elite Kdapos ¥ 5° Rom. xii. 


wso Rom. viii. 


\ lal 
elite Can el'te “ Oavaros, elite “* éveat@ta elre ¥Y wédXovTa, “3s. 


TavTa “tuav, * duets SE “ypucTod, xpicTos Oé “ Geod. 


x see 2 Thess. 
ii. 2. 
y = Acts xxiv. 


IV. 1 2OdbrTas Huds * AoyifEc Ow » dvOpwtros, * ws © brNpétas 2 aie is 


xptoTtod Kai 4 


= ch. xi. 28. Gal. vi. I. 


xii. 42. xvi. 1, &c.) e ch. ii. 7 reff. 


22. aroAAw F 17. 


ec = Acts xiii. 5 reff. 


ins 6? bef vuwy F. 


Ud rn e reff. PCS 
oixovomous © wvotnpiov Geod. * fade © Nos~ a Kom. vii 36 
ed. oo. 


= Tit. 1,7. 


d 1 Pet. iv. 10. (Luke 
Heb. xiii. 14. 


f = Col. iv. 9. g ch. i. 16 reff. 


newr, and in ver. 23 ques B48 Orig,. 


rec at end ins eoriv, with D?3L rel vulg Chr Thdrt: om ABCD!FPR 17 Dial 


Ambrst Aug. 
Crap. IV. 1. ins tov bef Oeou F. 


2. rec 8 de Aormoy, with D%L rel Orig, Chr Thdrt Thl Ge: txt ABCD!FPN 17 latt 


things, and for whom all, whether minis- 
ters, or events, or the world itself, ave 
working together: see Rom. viii. 28: and 
iv. 13. 22, 23.] Specification of some 
of the things included under ravta: and 
Jirst of those teachers in whom they were 
disposed to boast,—in direct reference to 
ch.i.12. But having enumerated Paul, 
Apollos, Cephas, he does not say etre xpi- 
otés, but adding the world itself and its 
events and circumstances, he reiterates the 
wdvra ouay as if to mark the termination 
of this category, and changing the form, 
concludes with duezs 5¢ (not only one part 
of you) xpiorod- xpiotds Se Oeod (see 
below). The expressions (#7, @dvaros, 
évetT@ta, “éAAovTa, have nothing to do 
with the teachers, as Chrys., Theophyl., 
Grot.—7 (wh, ono, Tav didacKkdrAwy SP 
buas eotiv iva wpedjobe Sidackduevor kK. 
6 Odvaros abtay SC buds: bwép buoy yap 
KiwOvvevovot Kal Tis buetepas owTnplas, 
Theophyl.,—and “ presentia, . . . lingua- 
rum et sanationum dona... .futura,.... 
rerum futurarum revelationes,’ Grot.,— 
but are perfectly general. ever TOTO. 
is things actually present,—see note on 
2 Thess. ii. 2. 23. |] On the change of 
the possessives, see above :—Christ is not 
yours, in the sense in which rayta are,— 
not made for and subserving you—but (dé) 
you are His,—and even that does not reach 
the Highest possession: He possesses not 
you for Himself; but (5€ again) kepady 
Xpiatov 6 Oeds, ch. xi. 3. Curist Hiu- 
SELF, the Incarnate God the Mediator, 
belongs to God, is subordinate to the 
Father, see John xiv. 28; and xvii. pas- 
sim. But this mediatorial subordination 
is in no way inconsistent with His eternal 
and co-equal Godhead: see notes on Phil. 
ii.6—9; and on ch. xv, 28, where the sub- 
jection of all things to Christ, and His 
subjection to the Father, are similarly set 
forth. There is a striking similarity 
in the argument in this last verse to that 
Voz. II. 


in our Lord’s prohibition, Matt. xxiii. 
8—10. See Stanley’s beautiful note. 
IV. 1—5.] He shews them the 
right view to take of Christian ministers 
(vv. 1, 2); but, for his part, regards not 
man’s judgment of him, nor even judges 
himself, but the Lord is his Judge (vv. 3, 
4). Therefore let them also suspend 
their judgments till the Lord’s coming, 
when all shall be made plain. 
1.] ovrws, emphatic, preparatory to as, 
as in ref. avOpwros, as E. V., a man, 
in the most general and indefinite sense, 
as ‘man’ in German: not a Hebraism, 
nor = éxactos. The whole is opposed to 
kavxnois ev avGpemos: the ministers of 
Christ are but subordinates to Him, and 
accountable to God. pas, here, 
not, ‘us ministers generally, see below, 
ver. 6, but ‘myself and Apollos, as a 
sample of such. umnp. XptoTov, see 
ch. lii. 5, 22, 23. But in oikov. puor. 
@eod we have a new figure introduced. 
The Church, 1 Tim. iii. 15, is the ofkos 
@eod—and those appointed to minister in 
it are oikovduot, stewards and dispensers 
of the property and stores of the oirodec- 
métns. These last are the npvorhpia, hid- 
den treasures, of God,—i. e. the riches of 
his grace, now manifested in Christ, ch. 
ii. 7; Rom. xvi. 25, 26, which they an- 
nounce and distribute to all, having re- 
ceived them from the Spirit for that pur- 
pose. ‘Ea mysteria sunt incarnationis, 
passionis et resurrectionis Christi, redemp- 
tionis nostree, vocationis gentium, et cetera 
que complectitur evangelica doctrina.” 
Kstius, who also, as a Romanist, attempts 
to include the sacraments among the pvo- 
thpia in this sense. The best refutation 
of this is given by himself: ‘sed cum ipse 
Paulus dixerit primo capite, Non misit me 
Christus baptizare, sed evangelizare, rec- 
tius est ut mysteria Dei intelligantur fidei 
nostre dogmata.” It may be doubted, 
whether, iz the N. T. ssi pvoThpia, 
K 


h = 2 Cor. xiii Tov 


— Matt. i. 18. 8 
Acts v. 39. 
Rom. vii. 10. 


erated! Matt. 
x. 25. xviii. a 
iii. 2. 
vy. 9. ch. vi. "nl. 


n Acts iv. 9 reff. 
Gal. ii. 17. iii. 11. v. 4. 


syrr copt «th arm Orig-int, lat-ff. 


IIPO> KOPINOIOTS A. 


o Acts xvii. 25 reff. 
Acts y. 2. xii.12. xiv.6 only. Lev. y.1. Job xxvii. 6 only. 1 Macc. iv. 21 al. 
t = ch. iii. 21. 


aft Aouroy ins T1 X1(om N-corr! ?). 


TV 


~Gyretras €v TOUS * oiteovepows iva TLoTOs TIS  evpebf. A <_< 
K gwot dé} ets eXaYLTTOV éotw ™ wa up oma read ea 1 
i) UTr0 ° avOpwmivns P mypeepas® 4 GAN 4 ovdE ewavToy 
kplva * ovdev yap euavT@  givolba, GAN ovK § ev TOUTM 
°Seduxaiwparr 6 O€ “avaxpivay pe KUpLos éoTLV. 


5 t MoTE 


= ch. i.8 reff. = Acts xix. 2. ch. 


q 
s Acts xiii. 39. Rom. 


(ntrevte 


(itacism ?) ACDFPX f gn 17 (and mss mentd by Gc): txt BL rel latt syrr &e. 
tis evpeOn bef matos Tis D3: bef moros D?F goth. 


3. nuev A. ana D}. 


4. for ovr, ovde P. 


the sacraments can be in any way reckoned 
as such: for wvor. is a (usually divine) 
proceeding, once hidden, but now revealed, 
or now hidden, and to be revealed ; under 
neither of which categories can the sacra- 
ments be classed. 2.| Moreover, here 
[on earth] (see var. readd. and reff. Ode 
is emphatic, and points to what follows, 
that though in the case of stewards 
enquiry was necessarily made here below, 
yet he, God’s steward, awaited no such 
enquiry ir avOpwrivns juépas, but one at 
the coming of the Lord. Lachmann, I 
cannot bat think somewhat strangely, 
places ade at the end of ver. 1: oikovduous 
pvaotnplwy Oeod wde. Stanley takes dd 
for ‘in this matter,’ and supports the 
meaning by Rev. xiii. 10, 18; xiv. 12; 
xvii. 9) enquiry is made in the case of 
stewards (or, it is required in the case of 
stewards), in order that (or that, the 
purport of the requirement expressed as 
its purpose) a man may be found (proved 
to be) faithful (emph.). 3.| But 
to me (contrast to the case of the 
stewards into whose faithfulness enquiry 
is made de, here on earth) it is (amounts 
to) very little (Meyer compares és xdpw 
TéAAeTat, Pind. Ol. i. 122, and Theognis, 
162, ofs 7d Kakxdv Boxéov ylyvera eis 
aya0dv) that I be (the ta, here and 
always, is more or less the conj. of pur- 
pose. The construction is a mixed one in 
such clauses as this, compounded of éAd- 
xiordy eorw avaxpiOjva, and édAaxlorov 
ty mpiatunv, Wa dvaxpi6@) judged (en- 
quired into, as to my faithfulness) by you, 
or by the day of man (in reference to dde 
above, and contrast to the 7juépa Kuplov, to 
which his appeal is presently made, ver. 5, 
and of which, as testing the worth of the 
labour of teachers, he spoke so fully ch. iii. 
13—15. Jerome, Queestiones ad Algasiam, 
Ep. xxxi. [cli.] 10, vol. i. p. 879, num- 
bers the expression among the cilicisms of 


for ovde, ovd F. 
for Se, yap 8! Syr wth. 


at end ins @eos D. 


the Apostle. Estius, al., suppose it to be 
a Hebraism, referring to Jer. xvii. 16, 
which is irrelevant. All these are pro- 
bably wrong, and the expression chosen 
purposely by the Apostle. Grot. com- 
pares ‘diem dicere,’ ‘to cite to trial ;? 
to which Stanley adds the English ‘days- 
man’ for arbiter [see Job ix. 33], and the 
Dutch ‘dagh vaerden’ and ‘ daghen,’ to 
‘summon’),—nay, I do not judge even 
(hold not an enquiry on: lit. ‘but neither 
do f, &c.) myself: 4.) for I am 
conscious to myself of no (official) de- 
linquency (so Plato, Apol. p. 21, otre 
péya ovre cuixpby tdvoida euavT@ copds 
év,—ib., Rep. i. [Wetst.], r@ 5€ pndev 
éavT@ adixwy EvverddT: nodeia eAmls Gael 
mdépeott, and Hor., Epist. i. 1. 61, ‘Nil 
conscire sibi, nulla pallescere culpa.’ 
The E. V., ‘I know nothing by myself, 
was a phrase commonly used in this ac- 
ceptation at the time; cf. Ps. xv. 4, Com. 
Prayer Book version, ‘He that setteth 
not by himself, i.e. is not wise in his 
own conceit. ‘I know no harm by him’ 
is still a current expression in the midland 
counties. See Deut. xxvii. 16; Ezek. 
xxii. 7, in E. V. So Donne, Serm. lvii., 
“If thine own spirit, thine own con- 
science, accuse thee of nothing, is all well ? 
why, I know nothing by myself, yet am I 
not thereby justified.’ This meaning of 
‘by’ does not appear in our ordinary dic- 
tionaries), but I am not hereby justified 
(i.e. it is not this circumstance which 
clears me of blame—this does not decide 
the matter. There can be no reference [as 
Meyer] to forensic justification here, by 
the very conditions of the context: for he 
is speaking of that uiods of the teacher, 
which may be lost, and yet personal salva- 
tion be attained, see ch. iii. 15); but he 
that judges (holds an enquiry on) me is 
the Lord (Christ, the judge). 

So then eae the Lord is the sole 


" ava- 0 17. +: 


5—6. IIPO> KOPINOIOTS A. 4.99 
Bn “apo “Katpod te Kpivete, Ews av EXOn 6 KUptos, ds Kal u Matt, vii. 
6 29only. Sir. 
‘hotice ta “ KpuTTa TOD cKdToUs Kal * havepwooe Tas BER ; 
a a , 10 only. Jos. 
¥% Boudas Tov *Kapdi@v, Kab TOTE O *érratvos ” yevrceTaL Ant. viii.d. 


Pa, LS < 8. (lon i. 

exaoT@ aro Tod Oeod. w Rom, ii, 16 

a wwe reff. 

6 Tabdra Sé, adeddol, ° wererynwatica eis euavrov Kal x Rom. i. 19 
ren. 


| cr al ° 
AmorXrw ou’ tpuas, va *év jyiv waOnte © Td wn dep & ¥Prhere 


only. 2 Chron. 
xxii. 5 al. z Sir. xxxvii. 13. a Rom. ii. 29 (reff.). b ch. i, 30 reff. c 2 Cor. 
xi. 13, 14,15. Phil. iii. 2l only +. 1 Kings xxviii. 8 Symm. Jos. Antt. vii. 10. 5. d = John 
xiii. 35. Gen. xlii. 33. e = Rom. viii. 26 reff. f=ch.x.13. 2 Cor. xii. 6. 


5. kpwerar (ttacism?) APN 3.17.39. 48. 72. 
last tov D 1. 

6. om de N1(ins X-corr!) arm. om es F. amokAwv A Bl(amro moAAwy B?) 
XI: txt CDFLPN-corr!(?) rel. ev vyuity D1117, 23. 115 syr copt Chr, Antch Bede. 
om To F 2. rec (for &) 8, with DFL rel Syr goth arm Chr Thdrt: txt ABCP 17 syr 
copt Ath Chr-ms Cyr. (Meyer and De W. think that & has been a corrn to suit ravra 
preceding. But I can hardly think this probable: is it not more likely that in a pro- 
verbial exprn the sing seemed most appropriate, and thus & has been corrd to & ?) 


om os DIF Augyene (ins,). om 


infallible dijudicator) decide nothing (con- 
cerning us, of merit or demerit) before the 
time, until the Lord shall have come 
(explains 7pd katp.), who shall also (kal, 
inter alia: as part of the proceedings of 
that Day: or both) bring to light (throw 
light on) the hidden things of darkness 
(general—all things which are hidden in 
darkness), and shall make manifest the 
counsels of the hearts (then first shewing, 
what your teachers really are, in heart), 
and then shall the (fitting) praise accrue 
to each from God. émat.vos is not a vor 
media, praise or blame, as the case may 
be, but strictly praise. Theophyl., Grot., 
Billr., Riick., Olsh., suppose the word to 
be used euphemistically, ‘‘unde et con- 
trarium datur intelligi, sed mavult «v- 
pnueiv,” Grot.: Calv., Meyer, al., think 
that he speaks without reference to those 
who will obtain xo praise: “hee vox ex 
bone conscientiz fiducia nascitur.”” Calv. 
But I agree with De Wette, in thinking 
that he refers to kavxaoba ev avOpdros : 
—they, their various parties, gave exrag- 
gerated praise to certain teachers: let 
them wait till the day when the /itting 
praise (be it what it may) will be ad- 
judged to each from God; Christ as the 
Judge being the wpicuéevos brd Tod beod 
kpitjs, Acts x. 42, and so His sentences 
being amd @eod. See also Acts xvii. 31, 
and Rom. ii. 16, kpive? 6 Beds Ta KpuTTa 
Tay avOpdrwv, ... dia “Inoovd xpioTod. 

6—18.] He explains to them 
(ver. 6) that the mention hitherto of him- 
self and Apollos (and by parity of reason- 
ing, of Cephas and of Christ, in ch. i. 12) 
has a more general design, viz. to ab- 
stract them from all party spirit and 
pride: which pride he then blames, and 
puts to shame by depicting, as a asia! 


the low and afflicted state of the Apostles 
themselves. 6.] But (transeuntis : 
he comes to the conclusion of what he has 
to say on their party divisions) these things 
(De Wette, Meyer, al., limit tadra to what 
has been said since ch. iii. 5. But there 
surely is no reason for this. The Apostle’s 
meaning here must on all hands be acknow- 
ledged to be, ‘I have taken our two names 
as samples, that you may not attach your- 
selves to and be proud of any party leaders, 
one against another. And if these two 
names which had been last mentioned, why 
not analogously, those four which he had 
also alleged in ch.i.12? There can be no 
reason against this, except the determina- 
tion of the Germans to regard their Paulus- 
parthei, and Apollos-parthei, and Petrus- 
parthei, and Christus-parthei, as historical 
facts, and consequent unwillingness to part 
with them here, where the Apostle himself 
by implication repudiates them as such) I 
transferred (the epistolary aorist) to myself 
and Apollos (i.e. when I might have set 
them before you generally and in the ab- 
stract as applying to all teachers, I have 
preferred doing so by taking two samples, 
and transferring to them what was true of 
the whole. This is far more probable than 
the explanation of Chrys., al., that he put 
in his own name and that of Apollos instead 
of those of the real leaders of sects, conceal- 
ing them on purpose. On meracx., see 
reff. and ef. Plato, Legg. x. p. 903, 
MeTacxnuati(wy Ta mdvTa olov ek mupds 
tdwp,—and p. 906, Toiro Td pia per- 
eoxnuaticuévoy, Meyer) on your account, 
that ye by us (as your example: by 
having our true office and standing set 
before you) might learn this, ‘‘ Not 
above those things which are written’’ 
(i.e. not to exceed in your estimate of 
K 2 


: 
500 TIPO KOPIN@IOTS A. Ty? 

gw-indic . yéyparrrat, Siva py els drép Tod » évos ' pucwodebe Kata Axct 
17. Tit. ii. k A ieee? tf \ Nall t BENE EG a >» LPR¢ 
ison. § Tob érépov. 7 tis yap oé \Svaxpiver; Ti Oe Eyels 0 OVK cde 
} ay ess. v.11 EX, * ? be } EX / m ha ¢ \ N B ee hklir 
nitnesv.1. €EaBes ; e¢ O€ Kal EXaPes, TL ™Kavyaoar ws wn) aPov ; 017. 


ch. y. 2. vill. 

1. xiii. 4. 

Col. ii. 18 

only+. (-wots, 2 Cor. xii. 20.) k Rom. ii. 1 reff. 
ch. i. 29 reff. n Acts xxvii. 38 only. 
18. Luke xii. 21. Hos. xii. 8. 


Deut. xxxi. 20 only. 


8 dn ™ KeKoperpévor EaTé, 70n ° ETOUTHTATE, YOPLS LGV 


see Acts xv. 9 reff. m absol., 


1 = here only. 
o 2 Cor, viii. 9. Rey. iii. 17, 


rec aft yeypamrra: ins ppovey, with C(appy) D&LPN% rel syrr goth arm Chr Cyr 


Thdrt: om ABD!FN? latt Orig lat-ff. 


yourselves and us, the standard of Scrip- 
ture,—which had been already in part 
shewn to them in the citations ch.i.19, 31; 
iii. 19. To refer yéyparta to what has 
been written in this Epistle, as Luth., 
Calov., Calv. [altern. ],is quite inadmissible, 
for, as Grot. remarks, “yéypamra: in his 
libris semper ad libros Veteris Testamenti 
refertur.” But he {and Olsh.] refer the 
words to Deut. xvii. 20,—whereas it is far 
better to give them a perfectly general re- 
ference. Chrys., Theodoret, and Theophyl. 
refer it to words of our Lord in the N. T., 
such as Matt. vii. 1, 3; xxiii.12; Mark x. 
43, 44, but these could not be indicated by 
yéyparrai,—ef. ch. vii. 10 and note. 

The ellipsis, as here, of the verb in prohibi- 
tory clauses with uf, is common enough: 
thus, Aristoph. Vesp. 1179, un pol ye 
nvOous. Soph. Antig. 577, uy tpiBas er, 
GAAG viv Koutcer? efow. Demosth. Phil. i. 
p- 46, uh mor puptous pnde dispuplous Eevous. 
Hartung, Partikellehre ii. 153, where see 
more examples), that ye may not one on 
behalf of another be puffed up against a 
third (i.e. ‘that you may not adhere to- 
gether in parties to the detriment or dis- 
paragement of a neighbour who is attached 
to a different party’). There is a gram- 
matical difficulty here, the occurrence of 
tva with an indie. pres. This is variously 
explained. See Winer, edn. 6, § 41. b. 1. 
c. Some suppose that here, and in ref. 
Gal. St. Paul has committed a philological 
error in the formation of the subjunctive, 
and written the indic. for it. It is at 
least remarkable, that that other instance, 
iva avtovs (ndodrte, is also in the case of 
a contracted syllable in ov,—so that we 
might almost suppose that there was some 
provincial usage of forming the subj. of 
contracted verbs in ow, which our Apostle 
followed. At all events (especially con- 
sidering that we have two other cases of 
iva with an indic., see reff.) it is better to 
suppose a solecism or peculiar usage, than 
with Meyer to give ta a local sense,— 
‘where,’ i.e. ‘in which case ye are not 
(pres. for the future) puffed up,’—i.e. if 
you keep to the Scripture measure: the 
double iva of the purpose being, as he 


om 2nd un D. for umep, kata F. 
himself observes, according to Paul’s 
usage, Rom. vii. 13; Gal. iii. 14; iv. 5, 
al., and here being absolutely demanded 
by the sense. 7. | For (reason why 
this puffing up should be avoided) who 
separates thee (distinguishes thee from 
others? meaning, that all such conceits 
of pre-eminence are unfounded. ‘That 
pre-eminence, and not merely distinction 
[Meyer], is meant, is evident from what 
follows)? And (dé connects interrogative 
clauses, as Od. a. 225, tls dats, rls dé 
duirdos 68° erAero; and Il. ec. 704, 0a 
tiva mpatov, Tlva 8 toraroy etevapiter ; 
See Hartung, Partikellehre, i. 169) what 
hast thou which thou receivedst not (‘from 
God’—not, ‘from me as thy father in 
the faith’)? but if (which I concede ;— 
oréyar Se ef kal juiy av’tots ciow, GAAG 
ma AV ovx trmos; Xen. Cyr. vi. 1. 14. 
Hartung, i. 140) thou receivedst it, ec. 
He speaks not only to the leaders, but to 
the members of parties,—who imagined 
themselves superior to those of other par- 
ties,—as if all, for every good thing, were 
not dependent on God, the Giver. 

8.] The admonition becomes ironical: 
‘You behave as if the trial were past, and 
the goal gained; as if hunger and thirst 
after righteousness were already filled, and 
the kingdom already brought in.’ Kkay@dav 
avTovs €Aeyey OUTw TaxEews Tpds TH TEAOS 
epOdoare, brep advvaToy hv yevérOa Sid 
tov kapdv. Chrys. Hom. xii.p.138. The 
emphases are on #57 in the two first clauses, 
and xwpls j7ua@v in the third. The three 
verbs form a climax. Any interpretation 
which stops short of the full meaning of 
the words as applied to the triumphant 
final state (so Grot., Est., Calvin, Wetst., 
al., interpreting them of knowledge, of 
security, of the lordship of one sect over 
another), misses the force of the irony, 
and the meaning of the latter part of the 
verse. xwpls pay | ‘because we, as 
your fathers in Christ, have ever looked 
forward to present you, as our glory and 
joy, in that day,’ There is an exquisite 
delicacy of irony, which Chrys. has well 
caught: moAA} Eupacis evtavOa Kal mpbs 
Tovs SidacKdAous Kk. mpos Tods pabyrds. 


7—11. 


P €BacirevoarTe. 
e lal c lal r £ 
nuets viv * cuuPacievowper. 


IIPOY KOPINOIOTS A. 


501 


= Rom. v.17. 


\ , vA 
Kal Idperov ye ? éBacirevaaTe, iva Kab ?5,2™;% 


Rey. v. 10. 
xx. 4, 6. 
xxii. 5. 


98 Sox@ yap, 0 eds 


con \ > r be A 
NaS TOUS aTTOTTONOUS EayaTous tamédevEEV ws “ errLMava- 22,00". %,1. 


/ (4 Vv / ’ / A 4 \ > lé 
Tlous, OTe ‘ Béatpov éyevnOnuev TO KOTWO Kal ayyédols 
10 jwets  wewpot Sua yxpioTov, tpwels Se 


\ > , 
Kat av perro.s. 


Rev, iii. 15 

only. 4 Kings 

y.3. Job 

xiv. 13. Ps. 

exvili. 5 only. 
r 2 Tim. ii. 12 


/ ? lal A cal a 
*Ppovipor ev xpioT@ Hels * aaGeveis, bwels dé ¥ ioyupot: * omy t. 


s ch. hi 18 reff. 


ig Lal lal an 
Upets ¥ évdokor, yuets Sé*atysor. U4 aye” THs » apts dpas Acts ii. 2 


Nic a \ 8 a ‘a ss ie 
Kab © mewapev Kal Orpamev Kat 4 yumverevowev Kal © Ko- 


v = here (Acts xix. 29, 31) only +. 
xi. 12. iron., 2 Cor. xi. 19. 


xiii. 57. Mark vi. 4. ch, xii. 23 only. Isa. liii. 3 


e Rom. xii. 20 reff. d here only +. 


8. om xep. nu. «Bac. (hom) A. 
ins ovv bef vuw D!. 


reff. (-ts, 
ch. ti. 4.) 

u here only +. 
see note. 


w ch. i. 25 reff. (see ch. ii. 3, 14.) x Rom. xi. 25 al. Prov. 
y Luke vii. 25. xiii. 17. Eph. v. 27 only. 1 Kings ix. 6 al. z Matt. 
i a Rom, viii. 22 reff. b here only. 
e Matt. xxvi. 67 || Mk. 2 Cor. xii. 7. 1 Pet. ii. 20 only +. 
wperov D3. 1. om ye D'F, 


9. rec aft Soxw yap ins ori, with D3 LPN? rel Chr Thdrt Ambr: om ABCD!FN! am 
(with demid fuld tol) Clem Orig Cyr Damase Thl Tert Ambrst. 


11. for axp: Ts, ews F. 


rec yuuryntevouev (see note), with L rel: txt A2 


B%(sic: see table) CDFPX a g h m, yuurerrevouey B1.—om yuu. rar Al. 


kal To dovveldntoy Se avtTay SelevuTa Kk. Td 
opddpa avdnrov. % yap A€yet, TOUTS eoTiV. 
ev mevy Tots mévois gnoly eivar mavTa 
Kowa Kal nuiy Kk. bulv, ev de Tots émdd- 
Aols K. Tots TTEPadyors Huets mparor. p. 99. 

The latter part of the verse is said 
bond fide and with solemnity: And I would 
indeed (ye strengthens the wish; so 7 & 
efAc®’.. . bs ye unwor dSperev AaBew... 
MevéAaov, Eur. Iph. Aul. 70. Hartung, 
i. 373. Sedov is used in LXX and 
N. T. as a particle, with the indic.: also 
with optative. See, for both, reff.) that 
ye did reign (that the kingdom of the 
Lord was actually come, and ye reigning 
with Him), that we also might reign 
together with you (that we, though 
deposed from our proper place, myight at 
least be vouchsafed a humble share in 
your kingly glory). 9.] For (and 
there is abundant reason for this wish in 
our present afilicted state) I think,—God 
set forth (before the eyes of the world,— 
the similitude is in @¢atpoyv following) us 
the Apostles (meaning all the Apostles, 
principally himself and Apollos) last (the 
rendering of Erasm., Calv., Beza, al., ws 
who were last called to be Apostles, q.d. 
TOUS Gar. TOUS ETX., OY TOUS eX. ATOTT..— 
is ungrammatical. éoxatous, last and 
vilest: not, ‘respectu priorum,’ last, as 
the prophets were before us, as Corn.- 
a-lap., and in part, Bengel) as persons 
condemned to death (as katadixous, 
Chrys. Tertullian seems to define the 
meaning too closely when, De Pudic. 14, 
vol. ii. p. 1006, he interprets it ‘ veluti 
bestiarios. Dion. Hal. vii. 35, says of 
the Tarpeian rock, @ev avtots @00s Bda- 
Aew rovs emiavatiovs)—for we are he- 


come a spectacle (@¢atpav = Oana: so 
Achilles Tatius, i. p. 55 [Kypke], and 
0gatpa mointa@v, Aischines, Dial. Soer. iii. 
20 :—see Oearpi(duevor, Heb. x. 33) to the 
world, as well to angels (good angels: 
&yyedor absol., never either includes, or 
signifies, bad angels) as to men (kécup 
being afterwards specialized into angels 
and men). 10.] Again, the bitterest 
irony: ‘how different our lot from yours! 
How are you to be envied—we, to be 
pitied !’ There is a distinction in da 
xpiorév and é€y xpiorgG—q.d. We are 
foolish for Christ’s sake (on account of 
Christ,—our connexion with Him does 
nothing but reduce us to be fools), 
whereas you are dpdvipor év xpiore, 
have entered into full participation of 
Him, and grown up to be wise, subtle 
Christians. agbevets — ioxupot are 
both to be understood generally: the 
aobévera is not here that of persecution, 
but that of ch. ii. 3; the strength is the 
high bearing of the Corinthians. Ye 
are glorious (in high repute, party leaders 
and party men, highly honoured and 
looked up to), whereas we are un- 
honoured. Then &rimuor leads him to en- 
large on the disgrace and contempt 
which the Apostles met with at the 
hands of the world, 11—13.] He 
enters into the particulars of this state 
of affliction, which was not a thing past, 
but enduring to the present moment. 

11.] dxpt tT. Gpte Spas is evidently not to 
be taken strictly as indicative of the situa- 
tion of Paul at the time of writing the 
Epistle, but as generally describing the 
kind of life to which, then and always he 
and the other Apostles were exposed: od 


502 


f here only t. 

g Rom. xvi. 6, 
12 reff. 
= Acts xviii. 
3 reff. 

i Eph. iv. 28. 
1 Thess. iv. 
ll. Wisd. 
(iii. 14) xv. 
17. 

k Acts xxiii. 4 


IIPOS KOPINOIOTS A. 


TY 


Aadilopeba Kab faortatodper, Kai % KoTidpev ™ épyavo- 
pevor tais idiais iyepoiv: * Novdopovpevor ‘ evAoyodpen, 
™ Suaxopevor ™ aveyoueba, 13 ° dusnuovpevor ? mapaxadov- 
e / nr / > / / 
pert ws mepixabdppata Tod Koopou éyevnOnuwev, Tav- 
cy, ” > > / ¢€ lal 7]. 
Tov * mepinua * ws apt. | oun * evtpeTwv vpas ypapw 


ae " rn >] / ’ \ lal \ 
nt qadTa, GAN os Téxva pou “ayarnta ‘vouvdeTa. | éav 
= Matt. v. 

m0, &e. che xy. 9. 2 Kings xxi. 5. n absol., 2 Cor. xi. 4. (Acts xviii. 14 reff.) o here 


only+. 1 Mace. vii. 41 only. (-péa, 2 Cor. vi. 8.) 
20. 2 Tim. iv. 2 al. 

xxii. 28 Schol. ap. Tromm. 
only. 


2 al.) u Rom. i.7 reff. 


q here only. Proy. xxi. 18 only. 

s Matt. xi. 12. 
t act., here only. = pass., 2 Thess. iii. 14. Tit. ii. 8 only. Ps. xxxiy. 26. 
y Acts xx. 31 reff. P. 


p absol., Luke iii. 18. Rom. xii. 8. 2 Cor. y. 

r here only+. Tobit v.18 only. Jer. 
John ii. 10. v.17. xvi. 24. ch. viii. 7. xv.6. 1 John ii. 9 
(mid., Luke xviii. 


12. Aoidop. Kat evd. and Biwk. kat avex. F Syr Orig-int. 
13. ree BAarpnuovpevor (substitution of more usual word), with BDFLN% rel Orig, 


Chr Thdrt: txt ACP! 17 Clem Orig, Eus Cyr Damase. 


-yara) D}. 


14. ravta bef ypapw DF k latt Ambrst Pel. 


mepicadapua (for 
aaa B(C doubtful). 


vovderwy ACP 17 Thi-txt: txt BDFL rel latt. 


moka dSinyoduat mpdyuata, GAA’ Grep 
kal 56 mapév por kaipos paptupe. Chrys. 
See, on the subject-matter, 2 Cor. xi. 
23—27. yupvir.| are in want of 
sufficient clothing: cf. ev Wuxe: kK. yuL_- 
vérntt, 2 Cor. xi. 27. Meyer (after 
Fritzsche) believes yuuritevouey to be a 
mistake in writing the word, of very 
ancient date: but surely we are not justi- 
fied, in such a conventional matter as the 
form of writing a word, to desert the 
unanimous testimony of the oldest Mss. 
And we have the forms yvupvirns, and 
yupviris: why not then yuuriteda ? 

Koad. | are buffeted—see reff., there is 
no need to press the strict meaning. 

dotat.| TovtécTiv, chavydueba, pevyouev. 
Theophyl. 12.) As testimonies to 
Paul’s working with his own hands, see 
Acts xviii. 3; xx. 34; ch. ix. 6; 1 Thess. 
ii. 9; 2 Thess. iii. 8. That the other 
Apostles did the same, need not necessarily 
be inferred from this passage, for he may 
be describing the state of all by himself as 
a sample; but it is conceivable, and indeed 
probable, that they did. NOK bio oie 
x.7.A.| ‘So far are we from vindicating to 
ourselves places of earthly honour and 
distinction, that we tamely submit to re- 
proach, persecution, and evil repute ;—nay, 
we return blessing, and patience, and soft 
words.’ 13.] wapak., av7l Tov, mpao- 
Tépois Adyots K. MadaKTiKots dperBdoueba. 
Theophyl. Os Tepikadappata| A 
climax of disgrace and contempt, summing 
up the foregoing particulars. We are be- 
come as it were the refuse of the world. 
mepix. from mepikabalpw, that which is 
removed by a thorough purification, the 
offal or refuse. So Ammonius (in Wetst.) : 
Kabdpuara, Ta peTa TO KabapOjvaL amrop- 
pirrdueva:—Theophylact, bray pumapdy 
tT. Groomoyylon Tis, Tepikdbappa A€yerat 


7) amoonéyyisua exetvoy: and similarly 
(cum. Wetst. gives many examples of 
the metaphorical usage of the term nd6apya 
as a reproach, from Demosth., Aristoph., 
Lucian, al., and of purgamentum in Latin. 
mepikabapuata is found in Arrian, Epict. 
iii. 22, Mpiauos, 6 viv yevvioas mTept- 
Kaddppara. But Lutber and very many 
Commentators suppose the word to imply 
piacula, as Schol., Aristoph. Plut. 454 
(Wetst.), Kaldpuara €éAéyovto of emt 
Kabdpoet Aoiuod Tivos H Tivos ETépas vdcou 
Ouduevor Tots Beots, ToUTO Se TO eos Kar 
map “Pwuatois emexpdtnoe. Meyer well 
remarks that meptkaldpyara will hardly 
bear this meaning, and that zepl)nua 
in the sing. would not suit it. Still we 
may remark, with Stanley, that ept- 
kaQappe. is so used in ref. Proy., and qept- 
Wypa in ref. Tobit: and that Suidas says, 
mepinug....+, OUTwS eméAeyoy TE Kar 
eviavToy ouvéxovTt TaY Kak@y Teplynua 
Hua yévou' Hrot, cwrnpta Kal amrorAUTpw- 
ois’ kal otrws evéBadrov TH Parddoon ws- 
avei TS Towedavt Ovoiay amotivyuvTes. 

meptiy.| much the same as mepuradp- 
pata,—but the expression is more con- 
temptuous :—the individual repixadpuara 
are generalized into one weplynua, the tod 
kdopmov is even further extended to rayvtwy, 
—see ch. ili. 22. 14—21.] Conelu- 
sion of this part of the Epistle :—in what 
spirit he has written these words of blame: 
viz. in @ spirit of admonition, as their 
father in the faith, whom they ought to 
imitate. To this end he sent Timothy to 
remind them of his ways of teaching,— 
would soon, however, come himself,—in 
mildness, or to punish, as the case might 
require. 14. odk évtpérwv] not 
as one who shames you, see reff., and 
ch. vi. 5; xv. 34,—and for the force of 
the participle, ch. ii. 1. vouvleTo 


ABCDF 
LPNab 
edefg 
hklmna 
o 17, 47 


12—18. 


yap " pupious * maBaryoxyods exe év XPLOTO, 


IIPO> KOPINOIOTS A. 


503 


y arn ov w ch, xiy. 19. 


uate a lii. 


TOANOVS marTépas: év yap ypiaTta “Incod Sia Tov evary- Esther il 9 


ee ey vas 


x Gal. iii. 24, 


16a 25 
% éyévunod. TapaKane ov vas, » ay iy 
eaerat juov vive de. 17 §ua TOUTO errepnfras® sea Tipobeor, Hee 6 
i. 4, 


os éoriv ov TEKVODV © angie Kal 1 orygtov é eV * xupior, os 1 Mace. ii. 


Pees ig 2 , \ 
ULasS QVaALVNOEL TAS 


fal > / 
SqravTaxov év Taon éexkAnola SibacKw. 


fod0vs pou Tas év Xplor gs rears iver is 10. 


Sh Wg pip Epyo- Eph vi. 


1 Thess. i. 


6. ii. 14. Heb. vi.12 only+. (-seto@at, 2 Thess. iii. 7, 9.) c dat., Acts xi. 29. Phil. ii. 19. 
dsee Eph.i.l. Acts xvi. 15. e Mark xi. 21, xiv. 72. 2 Cor. vii. 15. 2Tim.i.6. Heb. x. 32 
only. f = ch. xii. 31. see Acts xiii. 10 reff. 


g Acts xvii. 30 re 
$ 65. 9. 


15. om iqoov B Clem Pac: 
16. for ovyv, 5 D1F. 
17. aft rovro ins avto APN! 17 syr. 


Gen. viii. 1 Ed-vat. [B def.] (-svyots, ch. xi. 24.) 
ff. h w. gen. abs., 2 Cor. v. 20, 


2 Pet.i.3. Soph. Ged. Tyr. 11, Winer, edn. 6, 


ins ACDFLNX rel vulg Syr Orig-int,. 


ree Texvoy bef ov (corrn to more usual 


order), with DFLP rel latt Orig Thdrt Thl (c lat-ff: txt ABCPX m 17 arm Chr 


Damasc. mirtos EF. 


for kupiw, xpioTw A. 


avaptuynoer(sic) A al, 


for xpistw, xp. moov CD?X b mo 17 vulg-ed syr copt Chr Damase lat-ff: 
kup ino. DIF: txt ABD3LP rel am(with demid al) Syr Orig Thdrt Thl Ge. 


contrasts with évrpémwv ypadw, the con- 
struction being purposely adopted, to set 
in a more vivid light the paternal inten- 
tion:—I am not writing these things 
(vv. 8—13) as shaming you,—but I am 
admonishing you as my beloved children. 

15.| Justification of the expression 
TEKVa Mov. puptous, the greatest 
possible number—see reff. Tavoay. | 
He was their spiritual father: those who 
followed, Apollos included, were but 
tutors, having the care and education of 
the children, but not the rights, as they 
could not bave the peculiar affection of 
the father. He evidently shews by 
puptous, that these madaywyot were more 
in number than he could wish,—including 
among them doubtless the false and party 
teachers: but to refer the word only 
to them and their despotic leading (as 
Beza, Calvin, al., and De Wette), or to 
confine its meaning to the stricter sense of 
Tmadaywyds, the slave who led the child to 
school, is not here borne out by the facts. 
See ref. and note: and for the wider sense 
of raday., examples in Wetst. GAN’ ob 
brings out the contrast strongly, giving 
almost the sense of ‘at non ideo: so 
Esch. in Ctes. § 155, kal yap éedy abra 
dteély Ta €k TOD WHhlopaTos TposTaymara, 
GAN ov TOY ek TIS GAnOelas aioxpdy ciw- 
mnOhoer at. See Hartung, Partikellehre, 
ii. 40. év yap xp.| For in Christ 
Jesus (as the spiritual element in which 
the begetting took place: so commonly év 
xpioT@, applied to relations of life, see ver. 
17, bis,—not to be joined as De W. with 
eye, q.d. eyw yap ev x. “Inood 5. Tt. ev. 
bu. éyevynoa) by means of the gospel (the 
preached word being the instrument) I 


(emphatic) begat you (there is also an 
emphasis on buas, as coming before the 
verb, q. d. in your case, I it was who 
begat you). 16. | ovy, because I am 
your father. pupnrat, not only, nor 
perhaps chiefly, in the things just men- 
tioned, vv. 9—13,—but as ver. alee ate) 
ai 650i pov ai ev xp., my iaanes' a life 
and teaching. See reff. 17.] da 
Tovto,—in order that you may the better 
imitate me by being put in mind of my 
ways and teaching: not, as Chrys., Theo- 
phyl., al., ere:d% ws raldwv Khdoua, Kad ds 
yeyevynkés,—which would make ver. 16 
a very harsh parenthesis, and destroy the 
force of what follows. On the fact, see 
Prolegg. to 2 Cor., § ii. 4. TéKVoY | 
see 1 Tim. i. 2, 18; 2 Tim.i. 2. Meyer 
remarks, that by the strict use of the 
word tréxvov in this passage (vv. 14, 15) 
we have a certain proof that Timothy 
was converted by Paul: see Acts xiv. 6, 
7 and note. “The phrase seems to be 
used here in reference to réxva ayarnrd, 
ver. 14: ‘I sent Timotheus, who stands 
to me in the same relation that you stand 
(in).’” Stanley. év kupi@ points 
out the spiritual nature of the relation- 
ship. dvapvyice.] Timothy, by 
being himself a close imitator of the Chris- 
tian virtues and teaching of his and their 
spiritual father, would bring to their minds 
his well-known character, and way of teach- 
ing, which they seemed to have well-nigh 
forgotten. See 2 Tim. iii. 10. «adds 
specifies what before was expressed gene- 
rally : so Luke xxiv. 19, 20, 7a epi “Ingo 
: . Gtws Te Tapddwkay avToy oi apx- 
tepeis K.T.A.; and Thucyd, i. 1, roy 76- 
Aeuov tay TleA. k. °AO., @S emoddunoay 


&c. 
1 James iv. 15. 


Sir. xxxix. 6. 
m 1 Thess. i. 5. 
see Rom. xv. 


18 reff. 
n = Rom. xiv. 


copat S€ Ttaxyéws mpos vpuas, 


ITPOS KOPIN@OIOTS A. IV. 19—21. 


pévov 6€ pou mpos buds | éepvowwbnody * tives 1 €ev- 


1 “TAX 


/ 
éav 0 ‘Kvpwos | Oedijo7, ; 
\ , \ 1 - 4 . 
Kal yvooouat ov TOV ™)oyov TOV 'Tepvolwpévory, ara Ang 
\ , ~ ~ : 
Thy ™ dvvauw: 29 od yap év ™ Noyw 7) ™ BacireEla TOD ® Bed, 


cdf 
kim 
aXN °éy Suvaper. 21 rh Oérere; P1év * paBd@ EXOw Tpos 


017. 


17. CoA x p > b ‘ s A / t oh 
o Rom. i. 4 reff. UMAS, 7) * EV ayaTr), TTVEUVHLATL TE TT PQAUTHTOS 5 


p =ch.v. 8. 
2 Cor. ii. 1. Eph. i. 8. iii. 12. iv. 15, 17 al. 
i. Sal. s Rom. xi. 8 reff. 
21. ili.13. 1 Pet. iii. 15. Ps. xliy. 4. 


18. om de F latt copt lat-ff. 
19. @eAncer LP. om ov D!, 


q Rev. ii. 27. 
t Paul (2 Cor. x. 1. 


Isa. x. 24. r Matt. x. 10 ||. Heb. 


Gal. v. 23. vi. 1 al4.) only, exc. James i. 


aft Aoyoy ins avray F. Tov Tepu- 


ciwuevoy Lh m 38. 461-9. 57. 109-16 lectt-7-12 Orig (not Clem Chr Thdrt &c). 
21. rec mpaotytos, with DFLPX rel(many greek fathers): txt ABC! or 2 17 Damasc. 


mpos GAAHAous. mavTaxov év 1. 
éxxA.| To shew the importance of this his 
manner of teaching, he reminds them of his 
unvarying practice of it: and as he was 
guided by the Spirit, by inference, of its 
universal necessity in the churches. 
18—20. | To guard against misrepresenta- 
tion of the coming of Timothy just an- 
nounced, by those who had said and would 
now the more say, ‘ Paul dare not come to 
Corinth,’ he announces the certainty of his 
coming, if the Lord will. 18.] as pq 
épxopevov forms one idea, and the dé is in 
consequence placed after it all: so Thucyd. 
i. 6, €v Tots mp@to 5€ *A@nvator: Isocr. 
mept cip., p. 160, bri ay TIXH 5E yevnod- 
pevov. Hartung, Partikellehre, i. 190. 
@s expresses the assumption in their minds: 
the present part. épxouevov refers to their 
saying—ovr épxetat, as Meyer. 19.] 
éXevoopar is prefixed, for emphasis, being 
the matter in doubt: as we say, ‘Come I 
will? taxéws | How soon, see ch. 
xvi. 8. yvooopnat| I will inform 
myself of—not the words of those who 
are puffed up (those I care not for), but 
their power: whether they are really 
mighty in the Spirit, or not. This general 
reference of dv. must be kept, and not 
narrowed, as Chrys., Theophyl., to power 
of working miracles : or “ quantum apud 
vos sua scientia et doctrina quam jactant 
profecerint,” Est. ; or virtuous lives (Theo- 
doret, al.), or energy in the work of the 
gospel (Meyer): he leaves it general and 
indefinite. 20.| Justification of this 
his intention by the very nature of that 
kingdom of which he was the ambassador. 
H Bac. tr. Geov, the Kingdom (r. odp. 
Matt. iii. 2; iv. 17 and passim; 7. 6. Mark 
i. 15, al.) announced by the prophets, 
preached by the Lord and the Apostles, 
being now prepared on earth and received 
by those who believe on Christ, and to be 
consummated when He returns with His 
saints: see Phil. iii. 20, 21; Eph. v. 5. 
év Adyo.... év Buvdper.... is 


not (i.e. does not consist in, has not its 
conditions and element of existence) in 
(mere) word, but in might—is a kingdom 
of power. 21.] He offers them, with 
a view to their amendment, the alterna- 
tive: ‘shall his coming be in a judicial or 
in a friendly spirit ?’ as depending on 
themselves. tt not for rérepoy (as Meyer, 
De W.), but general, and afterwards con- 
fined to the two alternatives: What will 
ye (respecting my coming) ? Ow, 
must I come? év paBSo, with a 
rod; but not only ‘with,’ as accompanied 
with: the prep. gives the idea of the 
element im which, much as év dé: not 
only with a rod, but in such purpose as to 
use it. There is no Hebraism: see Pas- 
sow under év, No. 3 and 4. He speaks as 
a father: tl éotww, ev papdw; ev koAdcet, 
e€v Tiuwpia, Chrys. a1rvevp.. T. ™Tpav- 
tyTos | Generally, and by De Wette, ex- 
plained, @ gentle spirit, meaning by mvevu. 
his own spirit: but Meyer has remarked, 
that in every place in the N. T. where 
mvevua is joined with an abstract genitive, 
it imports the Holy Spirit, and the abstract 
genitive refers to the specific working of 
the Spirit in the case in hand. So ap». 
THs GaAnGelas (John xy. 26; xvi. 13; 
1 John iv. 6), vio8erlas (Rom. viii. 15), 
THs mlotews (2 Cor. iv. 13), copias (Eph. 
i. 17), aywotvns (Rom. i. 4). [This does 
not however appear to be without ex- 
ceptions: cf. rvetua aobevelas, Luke xiii. 
11; dovAcfas, Rom. viii. 15; karavitews, 
Rom. xi. 8; deiAfas, 2 Tim. i. 7; ris 
mAdvns, 1 John iv. 6. We may indeed 
say, that in none of these cases is the 
mvevua subjective, or the phrase a mere 
periphrasis: but the avedua is objective, 
a possessing, indwelling spirit, whether of 
God or otherwise.] And so Chrys., Theo- 
phyl..—é yap kal mvedua avornpdrnros 
k. Tiwwplas, GAN ard TeV xXpnoTOTEpwy 
avTd Kader ws Kal Thy Bedy oixtipuova kK. 
éAehmovd auev, GAN ov KoAaoThy, Kal- 
Tovye kat TovTO dvta. Theophyl. 


Wer, 2. 


IIPO> KOPINOIOTS A. 


505 


A > 7, a 
V. 1 °"O)Xas VY axoveras ev tuiv “ tropvela, Kab Tovadrn © Matt. v. 34. 


ch. vi. 7. xy¥. 
29 only +. 


w / x ¢ y ee 5) n xO ef Aes 
TTOPVELA ~1TLS °- QUOE EV TOLS EUVETLV, WSTE YUVALKA TLVE y = here only. 


an \ zo eora Nie: a 
TOU TATpPOS EX ELV ~ “Kab VLELS 


oN lal fal a 
ovyl padXov ° éerrevOjaate, “iva * apOn ‘ek fwéoou buav 6 


/ > \ \ 
TEPUTLWLEVOL ETTE Kab 


2 Mace. x. 13, 
see Acts xi. 
22 reff, 


© w Matt. v. 32. 


ch. vi. 13, 18 
al. Gen. 
XXXViii. 24. x = Heb. ii. 3. y = Matt. vi. 29. ch. xiv. 21. Gal. ii. 5 al. z = Matt. 
xiv. 4. xxii. 28. ch. vii. 2,29. Deut. xxviii. 30, a interrog., Luke x, 29. xviii. 26. John 
ix. 36. 2 Cor. ii. 2. b ch. iy. 6 reff. c Matt. v. 4. ix. 15. Mark xvi.10. Luke 
vi. 25. 2 Cor. xii. 21. Jamesiv.9. Rev. xviii. 11, 15,19 only. Isa. lxi. 2. d = John xi. 15. 
e = Matt. xiii. 12. Luke xi. 22. Johnii.16 al. Isa. lvii. 1, 2. f Acts xvii. 33 reff, 


Cuap. V. 1. rec aft eveow ins ovomateta (see note), with LPN? rel syrr Chr Thdrt 


Cassiod: om ABCDFN? 17 latt copt «eth arm Orig Manes Tert Lucif. 


matpos exew bef twa DF. 
2. for ovxt, ov F. 


V. 1—13.] ConCcERNING A GROSS CASE 
OF INCEST WHICH HAD ARISEN, AND WAS 
HARBOURED, AMONG THEM (vv. 1—8): 
AND QUALIFICATION OF A FORMER COM- 
MAND WHICH HE HAD GIVEN THEM RE- 
SPECTING ASSOCIATION WITH GROSS SIN- 
NERS (9—13). The subject of this chapter 
is bound on to the foregoing by the ques- 
tion of ch. iv. 21: and it furnishes an 
instance of those things which required 
his apostolic discipline. 1.] ddws, 
actually, ‘omnino,’ see reff.: in negative 
sentences, ‘at all.’ GkoveTar ev Up. 
mopveta | another way of saying &kovovacl 
Twes ev bu. mépvoi,—the character of 
aépvos is borne (by some) among you,— 
fornication is borne as a character among 
you. From missing this sense of axovopat, 
Commentators have gone wrong (1) as to 
dAws, rendering it ‘commonly, to suit 
axoverat, ‘is reported, —(2) as to ev duty, 
joining it with ropyeta, whereas it belongs 
to akoverai,—(3) as to Aris ovdE ev T. 
26v., see below. Kal ToLavT. ‘1. | 
And fornication of such a sort (the kat 
rises in a climax, there being an ellipsis of 
ov pwdvov...,aAAG... . before it; so 
Avistoph. Ran. 116, 6 oxérALe, TOALHOELS 
yap ievat kal ov ye; see Hartung, Parti- 
kellehre, i. 134), as (is) not (borne as a 
character) even among the heathen. The 
dvouacerar of the rec. is a clumsy gloss, 
probably from Eph. v. 3: the meaning 
being, that not even among the heathen 
does any one akover: mépvos in this sense, 
that it was a crime that they would not 
tolerate as a matter of public notoriety. 
So that one among you has (as wife most 
probably, not merely as concubine: the 
word €xw in such cases universally in the 
N. T. signifying to possess in marriage: 
and Meyer remarks that 6 7d &pyov Todo 
moinoas (ver. 2), and toy ottTws TovTo 
kKatTepyaoduevoy (ver. 3) seem to point to 
a consummation of marriage, not to mere 
concubinage) his father’s wife (i.e. his 
step-mother, see Lev. xviii. 8; ov« eime 


TOV 


rec efap0n (corrn from ver 13), with L rel Chr Thdrt: txt 


MnTpuiay GAG yuvaika marpds, Ssre TOAAG 
Xarerdrepoy mwAHEa, Chrys. Hom. xy. 
p- 125). The Commentators gene- 
rally refer to Cicero, Pro Cluentio, 5, 6, 
“Nubit genero socrus, nullis auspicibus, 
nullis auctoribus, funestis ominibus om- 
nium omnibus. O mulieris scelus in- 
credibile, et preter hance unam, in omni 
vita inauditum,” &e. It may seem 
astonishing that the authorities in the 
Corinthian church should have allowed 
such a case to escape them, or if known, 
should have tolerated it. Perhaps the uni- 
versal laxity of morals at Corinth may have 
weakened the severity even of the Chris- 
tian elders: perhaps, as has often been 
suggested, the offender, if a Jewish con- 
vert, might defend his conduct by the 
Rabbinical maxim that in the case of a 
proselyte, the forbidden degrees were an- 
nulled, a new birth having been undergone 
by him (see Maimon. in Wetst.). This 
latter however is rendered improbable by 
the fact that the Apostle says nothing of 
the woman, which he would have done had 
she been a Christian:—and that Jewish 
maxim was taxed with the condition, that 
a proselyte might marry any of his or her 
former relatives, ‘modo ad Judaicam re- 
ligionem transierint. The father was 
living, and is described in 2 Cor. vii. 12, as 
6 aSixnGels ;—and from the Apostle saying 
there that he did not write on his account, 
he was probably a Christian. 2.) kat 
often introduces a question, especially one 
by which something inconsistent or pre- 
posterous is brought out,—see reff.: and 
note on 2 Cor. ii. 2. mehuo. éoreé | 
Not, which would be absurd,—at the oc- 
currence of this crime, ovk én) TG Guapth- 
Mart TovTO yap aAoyias. Chrys.: neither, 
as he proceeds,—daaa’ em) 77 didacKarla 
7H ekelvov, imagining the offender to have 
been some party teacher: so also Theo- 
phyl.:—but, as before, with a notion of 
your wisdom and spiritual perfection : the 
being puffed up is only cum hoe, not 


506 


= ch. xi. 18. 
2 Cor. x. 2, 
11. xiii, 2, 
10. Wisd. 
xi, 11, xiv. 
17. 

i as above (h). 


Phil. i, 27. 


Col. ii. 5 


Wisd. ix. 6 
only. 
j Acts xii. 20. 2 Cor. xi. 8 al. 
xy. 19 reff. m Rom. ii. 9 reff. 


ABCDPR® a m 17 Epiph. 
BDFLP rel Chr Thdrt. 


IIPOS KOPINOIOTS A. 


k Acts xvii. 16 reff. Col. ii. 5. 
n epp., here only. 


ve 


hj x be a k “g HO l / e j \ 
batt, Ncapov b& Td * rvevparti, 76n 'Kéxpixa ws ) Tap@r ¢ 
la) an > , fal 
Tov oUTwS TODTO ™KaTEpyacapevoy, * Ev TH OVOMATL TOU o17.: 


To &pyov TobTo Tromoas ; % éyw ® wey & yap “Mata@v TO ow- ABCT 


LPR a 
dfs 
m 


n~ VV 4a 


see ch. vii. 34. 1= Acts 


= Acts xiv. 27. xx. 7, 8 al. 


for monc., mpatas ACN m 17 Orig Epiph Bas: txt 


3. rec ins ws bef amwy (to corresp with ws mapwy below, it being imagined that amv 


mvevp. was to be taken together: so Mey), with D?FL rel syr Dial Chr Thdrt 


Th! Gc Lucif Aug, Pel Bede: om ABCD!PX m 17 vulg copt Manes Epiph Orig-int 


Thi. 


om touto F latt arm Lucif Aug. 
4. om Ist nuwv AX demid Bas Lucif Pac. 


rec aft 1st ino. ins xpiorou, with 


D3FLPX rel Syr syr-w-ast copt goth arm Dial Chr Thdrt lat-ff: om ABD! am eth-rom 


Lucif. (C doubtful.) 


rec aft 2nd ino. ins xpicrov, with D3FL rel vss Orig, Chr 


Thdrt Lucif, Aug, Pac: om ABD!PX vulg syr-txt zth-rom Orig, Dial lat-ff. 


propter hoc. érevOnoate |] And did 
ye not rather mourn (viz. when the crime 
became first known to you), in order that 
(your mourning would be because of the 
existence of the evil, i. e. with @ view to 
its removal) he who did this deed (the 
past part. ro:joas is itself used from the 
past point of time indicated by érevéq- 
gate, and must therefore be expressed by 
the past) might (may) be removed from 
among you (viz. by your casting him out 
from your society) ? 3—5.]| justifies 
the expression iva ap@yj just used, by 
declaring the judgment which the Apostle, 
although absent, had already passed on the 
offender. 3.| eym ey yap, I for my 
part...., ‘ego certe:’ so Aristoph. Plut. 
355, wa AP, eyw pey od: see Hartung, 
Partikellehre, ii. 413. Os Tapdy, as 
if really present, not, as being present in 
spirit. TOV OUTwS TOUTO KaT.| The 
object is put foremost for emphasis’ sake, 
and after several intervening clauses, taken 
up again with 7dv ro.odToy, ver. 5. 
ovtTws, Meyer thinks, alludes to some pe- 
culiarly offensive method in which he had 
brought about the marriage, which was 
known to the Corinthians, but unknown 
tous. Olsh. understands it, ‘under such 
circumstances, ‘being such as he is, a 
member of Christ’s body.’ But this, being 
before patent, would hardly be thus em- 
phatically denoted. Perhaps after all, 
TovTo Karepyarduevoy refers to mopvela 
generally, ofrws to ToravtTy mopvela, ver. 1. 
4.| We may arrange this sentence 
in four different ways: (1) ev tq ov. may 
belong to cuvax0évray, and aby rH Sur. 
to rapadotvai,—so Beza, Calov., Billroth, 
Olsh., al.: (2) both év 7@ ov. and avy 
7H Suv. may belong to cuvax0évtwy,—so 


Chrys., Theophyl.(altern.), Calvin(quoting 
for ctv 7H duv. Matt. xviii. 20), Grot., 
Riickert : (3) both may belong to mapa- 
dodvat,—so Mosheim, Schrader, al.: or (4) 
év T@ ov. belongs to mapadovva, and cody 
Th Suv. to cvvaxdéevtwv,—so Luther, Cas- 
tal., Estius, Bengel, De Wette, Meyer, al. 
And this, I am persuaded, is the right ar- 
rangement. For according to (2) and (3), 
the balance of the sentence would be de- 
stroyed, no adjunct of authority being 
given to one member of it, and both to the 
other: and (1) is hardly consistent with 
the arrangement of the clauses, the paren- 
thetical portion beginning far more natu- 
rally with the participle than with é 7@ 
év.,—not to mention that the common 
formula of the Apostles’ speaking authori- 
tatively, is év TG dvduati’Inood xp. or the 
like: see Acts ili. 16; xvi. 18; 2 Thess. 
iii. 6. The sentence then wiil stand :—(I 
have decreed),—in the name of our Lord 
Jesus (when ye have been assembled to- 
gether and my spirit with the power of 
our Lord Jesus), (i.e. ‘I myself, in spirit, 
endowed by our Lord Jesus with apostolic 
power: atv 77 Suv. belongs to tod euod 
mvevu., and is not, as in Chrys.,—see above 
—merely an element in the assembly) to 
deliver such an one (reff.) to Satan for 
the destruction of his flesh, that his 
spirit may be saved in the day of the 
Lord. What does this sentence import? 
Not, mere excommunication, though it is 
doubtless included. It was a delegation to 
the Corinthian church of a special power, 
reserved to the Apostles themselves, of in- 
Jlicting corporeal death or disease as a 
punishment for sin. Of this we have no- 
table examples in the case of Ananias and 
Sapphira, and Elymas, and another hinted 


kuplov juov “Incod ®avvaxdévTov buav Kal TOU €MOD Saree 
an fal “~ > rn 
larvetpatos avy TH Suvauer Tov Kuplov Hnuav ‘Inood 


away 
Cc. 


3—7. IIPO> KOPINOIOTS A. 507 


x fal lal a . 
5 P qapadovvat TOV 1 ToLovTOY TH GaTava P eis * dAEOpoy °=1Tim.i.20. 


Luke xxiii. 


a , Y \ a a ms is : 
THS Saapkos, iva TO Srrvedua cwoOn ev TH ‘hepa Tod Sin" 

/ ar \ Na ie aan > WO ol. P Mark xilieie: 
Kupiov. § ov Kadov TO “Kavynua bud. ovK oOldaTE OTL Eph.iv.19. 


Isa. liit. 12, 
\ , \ re , 7 a ii, 22 
YW wixpa Y* Cuun Odov TO Y hupaya ** Cumot ; 7 4 éxxada- 9A” 


> , v1 Thess. v. 3. 

pate tHv » tradaav “ Gopnr, va Are véov ¥ dipapa, Kabods © 2 Thess.:9: 

é€aTe c ie ou Kal \ \ de wd e lal ef 2 50 / only. Proy. 
atvpou Kat yap TO oxa nuav * érv0n ypictos. Sty 


1 Tim, vi. 9 

s Matt. xxvi. 
t ch. i. 8 reff. u Rom. iv. 2 reff. v Gal. 
; x Matt. xiii. 33, xvi. 6. Exod. xii. 15 al. y Rom. 
ix. 2l reff. = Exod. viii. 3. z (in N. T. alw. w. 0A.) as above (w). Matt. xiii. 33 || L. only. Hos. 
vii. 4. a2 Tim. ii. 2lonly. Deut. xxvi.13. Judg. vii. 4 B al.(Soxeu. Ajonly. b Rom. yi. 6 
reff. 2Cor.iii. 14. lJohnii.7. chere bis. Matt. xxvi. 17. Mark xiv. 1,12. Luke xxii. 1, 
7. Acts xii. 3. xx.6only. Levit. ii. 4, &c, d Matt. xxvi. 2, &c.|j. 4 Kings xxiii. 22. 

.~e Mark xiy. 12. Luke xxii.7. Exod. xii. 21. f of Christ, here only. = Acts xiy. 13 reff. 3 


41'|Mk. Rom. ii. 28, 29. viii. 4 al. 
v. 9, w = John vii. 33 al. 


5, for roy ro.ovt., avtov F. rec aft «upiov ins inoov, with LN rel am(with tol al) 
Chr Thi Gc Orig-int, Aug,: imo. xpiorov D demid: nuwy ino. xp. AFP m 17 vss(nuwy 
and xp. syr-w-ast) Orig, Thdrt lat-ff: om B Orig, Orig-int, Tert, Hil, Aug, Pac,. (I¢ 
seems evident that kupiov alone was the origl, and the other varr are additions.) 

6. for (umor, 5oAo1 D1-gr Bas-ed Hesych(appy) : corrumpit vulg D-lat Iren Orig-int 
Lucif: txt ABCD?-grF LPR rel. 

7. rec aft exxa@apare ins ovy, with CLPN3 rel syr Thdrt Th] Orig-int : om ABDFN! 1 
vulg Syr Mcion-t Clem Bas Chr Gc Tert Cypr Lucif Ambrst. rec aft Tacx. nuwy 
add virep nuwv (a doctrinal gloss), with CL P(uu.) X88 rel syrr goth Hip Orig, Meth 
Thdrt Pseud-Ath Th] Ge: om ABCDFN! 17 latt copt eth Clem Orig..,.(mss varys) 


Mcion-e Archel Ath Chr, Cyr Cypr Tert Ambrst Jer Augyepe. 


ABDFLPX rel. (C is here illegible.) 


at 1 Tim. i. 20. The congregation itself 
could atpew é« péoov,—but it could not 
mapadotva: TG catavG eis dAcOpov Tijs 
capkés, without the authorized concur- 
rence of the Apostle’s mvevuatos, oby TH 
Suv. T. Kup. hu. Inood. What the dAc- 
Opos T. capxés was to be, does not appear : 
certainly more than the mere destruction of 
his pride and lust by repentance, as some 
(Estius, Beza, Grot., al.) suppose : rather, as 
Chrys., va paotitn abtoy EAKer movnpe 7} 
véow érépa. Hom. xv. p.127. Estius’s 
objection to this, that in 2 Cor. ii. and vii. 
we find no trace of such bodily chastise- 
ment, is not to the point,—because we have 
no proof that this rapdSoc1s was ever in- 
flicted,—nor does the Apostle command 
it, but only describes it as his own deter- 
mination, held as it were iz ferrorem over 
the offender. See note on ver. 13. 

Obs., gapkés, the offending element, not 
cépuaros. Paul could not say dAcGpoy rod 
oéuaros, seeing that the body is to partake 
of the salvation of the spirit ;—but not the 
odpé, see ch. xv. 50. 5. tva TO TV. THOH | 
The aim of the dAcOp. tT. cap.,—which he 
said 75 TG diaBdAw@ vduous Ti0els, kal ovK 
aiels adToy Tepatépw mpoBjvat, as Chrys. 
p. 128. Thus the proposed punishment, 
severe as it might seem, would be in reality 
a merciful: one, tending to the eternal hap- 
piness of the offender. A greater contrast 
to this can hardly be conceived, than the 
terrible forms of excommunication subse- 
quently devised, and even now in use in the 


t elz <Bu6y: txt 
ins o bef xpioros F. 


Romish church, under the fiction of dele- 
gated apostolic power. The delivering to 
Satan for the destruction of the spirit, can 
belong only to those who do the work of 
Satan. Stanley remarks, “For the popu- 
lar constitution of the early Corinthian 
church, see Clem. Rom. i. 44 (p. 297): 
where the rulers of that society are de- 
scribed as having been appointed cuvev- 
Soxnodons THs éxxAnolas dons.” 

6.] ‘ How inconsistent with your harbour- 
ing such an one, appear your high-flown 
conceits of yourselves ! ” KavXnLG, 
your matter of glorying. Are you 
not aware that a little leaven imparts a 
character to the whole lump? That this 
is the meaning, and not, ‘that a little 
leaven will, if not purged out, leaven the 
whole lump,’ is manifest from the point 
in hand, viz. the inconsistency of their 
boasting : which would not appear by their 
danger of corruption hereafter, but by 
their character being actually lost. One 
of them was a fornicator of a fearfully de- 
praved kind, tolerated and harboured : by 
this fact, the character of the whole was 
tainted. 7.] The madara vpn is not 
the man, but the crime attaching to their 
character as a church, which was a remnant 
of their unconverted state, their madaids 
&vOpwros. This theyare to purge out from 
among them. The éxxaGdp. alludes to the 
careful ‘ purging out’ from the houses of 
every thing leavened before the commence- 
ment of the feast of unleavened bread. 


508 


IIPOZ KOPIN@IOTS A. 


Wy 


g =e oh, 31. 28. 8 g OOSTE h EopTatwpev fn) i gp w foun b Tanata pede i ép 


xiv. 39. xv 


N rae ; 
" foun ik xaxias kat * 


Kpwelas Kal ” adnOeias. 


h here only. 
Exod. v. 1. 
Deut. xvi. 15. 

i = ch. iy. 21 
reff. j ch. xiv. 20 reff. 

i. 12. ii, 17 only +. (-v7S, Phil. i. 10.) 


8. coptaouey ADP d: txt BCFLX rel. 
Orig;. 


Schéttgen, Hor. Hebr., in loc., givesa full 
account of the extreme care with which 
this was done. See also Stanley’s note. 

That ye may be a new lump (opposed to 
the madads &vOpwios of old and dissolute 
days), as ye are (normally and by your 
Christian profession) unleavened (i. e. dead 
to sin and free from it). This indicating 
the state by profession, the zormal state, 
as a fact,and the grounding of exhortations 
on it, is common enough with our Apostle, 
—see Rom. vi. 3, 4: ch. iii. 16, al. freq., 
and involves no tautology here, any more 
than elsewhere. An unfortunate inter- 
pretation has been given to these words, 
—‘as ye are now celebrating the feast of 
unleavened bread ;? and has met with some 
recent defenders, e. g. Wieseler,—and Co- 
nybeare, Life and Epistles of St. Paul, edn. 
2, vol. ii. p. 40, note. But first, the words 
will not admit it; for &vwor cannot 
(as joined immediately with ev a ipuos, 
ver. 8) without much harshness be ap- 
plied in its literal sense to the celebrators 
of the feast, but must indicate the material 
which was unleavened, see reff.,—&ptov 
Cumithy, &Cvmov, Atheneus iii. 109, and 
Gen. xix. 3; Exod. xxix. 2. Secondly, the 
celebration of a Jewish feast would cer- 
tainly not be predicated without remark 
of a whole mixed congregation of Gentiles 
and Jews, even supposing that the Gentile 
converts did celebrate it with the Jews. 
It is no answer to this, to cite passages 
(see Conyb. and Howson, ubi supra), where 
he seems to treat mixed churches, e. g. 
Gal. iv. 8; Rom. vii. 1; xi. 18, as if they 
belonged wholly to one or other of their 
component elements. For this is not a 
* parallel case. He would here, as above, 
be distinctly predicating, as a fact, of the 
whole church, a practice which he himself 
would have been the first to deprecate. 
See Gal. iv. 10. Thirdly, it is not at all 
probable that the Apostle would either ad- 
dress the Corinthians as engaged in a feast 
which he, at Ephesus, was then celebrat- 
ing, seeing that it would probably be over 
before his letter could be delivered,—or 
would anticipate their being engaged in it 
when they received his letter, if it were 
yet to come. For be it remembered, that 
in the seuse required, they would only be 


k Rom. i. 29. 
n = John iii. 21. 


‘qrovnpias, AAN iév © abvpous ™ etdu- 


1 Acts iii. 26. m 2 Cor. 


markaas P. for unde, un B 


for movnpias, mopveas F. (G-lat has both.) 


&(vuor during seven days. Here again, I 
do not see how the example of “a birth-day 
letter to a friend in India,” adduced by 
Mr. Conybeare as an answer to my objec- 
tion, will apply. It seems to me that if 
strictly considered, in detail, it tells my 
way, not his. But, fourthly,—and even 
could all the other objections be answered, 
this would remain in its full force,—the 
reference is one wholly alien from the 
habit and spirit of our Apostle. The or- 
dinances of the old law are to him not 
points onwhose actual observance to ground 
spirituallessons, but things passed away in 
their literal acceptance, and become spiri- 
tual verities in Christ. He thus regards 
the Corinthian church as (normally) the 
unleavened lump at the Passover; he be- 
seeches them to put away the old leaven 
from among them, to correspond with this 
their normal state: for, he adds, it is high 
time for us to be &Cvuor in very deed (kat 
yap—so Xen. Anab. v. 8. 7, axotoare, 
€pn, kal yap &tvov. It introduces a power- 
ful reason, for [on other accounts andj 
also. See Hartung, Partikellehre, i. 137, 
8), seeing that our Passover was sacri- 
ficed (see reff.: and cf. Heb. ix. 26, 
28), even Christ (the days of unleavened 
bread began with the Passover-sacrifice) : 
therefore (reff.) let us keep the feast (not 
the actual Passover, but the continued 
Passover-feast of Christians on whose be- 
half Christ has died. ‘There is no change 
of metaphor: the Corinthians are the liv- 
ing &prou, as believers are the living stones 
of the spiritual temple) not in (as our ele- 
ment) the old leaven (general—our old 
unconverted state), nor (particular) in the 
leaven of vice and wickedness (the geni- 
tives are of apposition,—‘the leaven 
which is vice and wickedness ;? see Winer, 
edn. 6, § 59. 8. a), but in the unleavened- 
ness (ta & vua, unleavened things, see 
Exod. xii. 15, 18) of sincerity and truth. 
The view here maintained is that of Chrys., 
Kal ards S€ emmever TH meTapopa, avautm- 
vhokwv Tadaias avtovs ioroptas, kal raoxXa 
«al aGiuwyv, kal Tay evepyeci@y Tav TéTE 
kal T@v vov, kal TGV KOAdoEwY Kal TOY TI- 
bwpi@yv* éoptis tpa 6 mwapay Kaipds. Kar 
yap cimay éoptalwpev, ovk ered) maoxa 
maphv, ovde ered) 7) TevTnkooTH, EACyEV, 


. 


ABC] 
LPN: 
edfys 
klm 
017. 


8—l1. 


IIPOS KOPIN@OIOTS A. 


o09 


cia an fol 
9"Eypawa viv év Th éemictodH pa) ® cvvavaptyvucbar © (see rte) 


q / ‘ 10 > r / tal qst / rn , , 
mopvos: 19 ov 'travtws Tots % qopvois TOD KOTpoU TOU- 
Tou %) Tots “ TEoveKTaLs Kal Y dpTakw 1) *Y eidSwrAoAATpats, 


pare 
Rom, xvi. 22. 
2 Cor. vii. 8. 
Col. iv. 16. 
1 Thess. y, 27. 
2 Thess, iii. 


5) 2 may, ? a a a 
“eres YwpeldeTe Xdpa Ex TOV Koopou éFeAOeiv: 11 voy O€ , fre vis, 


14 only. Hos. vii. 8 A(ovpptyv., B) only. 
xii. 16. xiii. d4only +. Sir. xxiii. 16, 17 only. 
tas above (s). Rey. xxi. 8. xxii. 15, 
is. Matt. vii. 15. 
bis. ch. x. 7only+. (-Tpeta, ch. x. 14.) 


u as above (s). 
Luke xviii. 11. ch. yi. 10 only. 


2 Thess. iii. 
q as below (s,t). 1 Tim. i. 10. Heb. 
r see Rom. iii. 9 reff. sch. vi. 9, Eph. y. 5, 
here bis only +. Sir. xiv. 9 only. vy here 


Gen, xlix. 27 only. 
x ch, vii. 14 only. 


w as above (s, t). here 


y Rom. xv. 1 reff. 


10. rec ins ca: bef ov mavtws, with D'LPN? rel syr Orig-c Chr Thdrt Thl We: txt 


ABCD'!FN! 17 latt copt Orig Tert Lucif Ambrst Pel. 
rec (for kar) } (alteration to conform to the general context), with 
vss Orig Chr Thdrt Lucif: txt ABCD!FPN! m 17 eth. 


toutou bef Tr. coop. D. 
2- 3X3 rel 
rec opetAete (corrm 


from misunderstanding : see note), with B?P rel Chr Thdrt: txt AB!CDFLN ¢ n 17. 
47 latt syrr copt Damase Orig-intTert Lucif. 
11. rec yum, with CDN? rel Orig, Chr, Thl Me: txt ABFLPR’ dk n 17 Bas Chr, 


Thdrt Damase. 


GAAG Beixvds Ori was 6 xpdvos EopTHs eott 
kaipos Tots Xpiotiavots bia Thy UmepBoAhv 
Ttav d00evTwy ayabev. Hom. xv. p. 128. 

With regard to the chronological 
superstructure which has been built (by 
Wieseler and others) on this passage, that 
the Epistle was written shortly before 
Easter, we cannot of course say that 
the approach of the Passover may not 
have suggested to the Apostle this simili- 
tude: and we know from ch. xvi. 8 that 
he was looking forward to Pentecost. But 
further than this it would not be safe to 
assume: see Prolegg. to this Epistle, § vi. 
3, 4. 9—13.] Correction of their mis- 
understanding of a former command of 
his respecting keeping company with forni- 
cators. 9.] I wrote to you in the 
epistle (not this present epistle, which TH 
emiaToAn might mean, see reff.,—for there 
is nothing in the preceding part of this Epis- 
tle which can by any possibility be so inter- 
preted,—certainly not either ver. 2 or ver. 
6, which are commonly alleged by those 
who thus explain it—and éy TH émioroAH 
would be a superfluous and irrelevant addi- 
tion, if he meant the letter on which he 
was now engaged :—but, a former epistle, 
which has not come down to us :—ef. the 
similar expression, ref. 2 Cor. used with 
reference to this Hpistle,—and see note on 
2 Cor.i.15,16. So Ambrose, Calvin, Beza, 
Estius, Grot., Calov., Bengel, Wetst., Mosh., 
De Wette, Meyer : so also Lightfoot, under- 
standing however an Epistle committed to 
Timothy, see ch. iv. 17: which could not 
be, as Timothy was not coming to them till 
after they had received this Epistle, ch. xvi. 
10, and thus the words would be unintel- 
ligible to them:—on the other side are 
Chrys., Theodoret, Theophyl., Erasm., 
Corn.-a-lapide, Wolf, al. It has been sug- 
gested [see Stanley, in loc.] that the whole 
passage, ch. v.9—vi. 8, may have beena post- 


script or note inserted subsequently to the 
rest of the Epistle, and referring especially 
to ch. vi. 9—20) not to keep company 
with fornicators. 10.] ob mavtws 
limits the prohibition, which perhaps had 
been complained of owing to its strictness, 
and the impossibility of complying with it 
in so dissolute a place as Corinth, and ex- 
cepts the fornicators of this world, i. e. who 
are not professing Christians: not under 
all circumstances with the fornicators 
of this world: so Theophr. C. P. vi. 25, 
cited by Wetst. on Rom. iii. 9, wove? yap 
ov TayTwS, GAN édv OVA TIS } inékavotos. 

ov, not “uy, because not the whole 
context of the prohibition is negatived, but 
only one portion of it, and thus od mavtws 
7.7.7. Kéo. 7. stands together as one idea. 
So Thucyd. i. 51, brotomhoaytes am *AQn- 
vav eivat ovx boas Edpwy GAG TAclous. 
See more examples in Hartung, Partikel- 
lehre, ii. p. 125, 6. TOU KOop. 
tovtov, belonging to the number of un- 
believers,—Christians who were mépvot 
being expressly excluded. So Paul ever 
uses this expression, ch.iii.19; (2 Cor.iv.4;) 
Eph. ii. 2. meovéxtats and apa. 
are joined by kal, as belonging to the same 
class—that of covetous persons ;—AeovéK- 
7ys being an avaricious person, not a la- 
scivious one, as sometimes rendered (e.g. 
Conybeare, vol. ii. p. 41, edn. 2), nor does it 
seem to have any where merely this mean- 
ing; see Eph. iv. 19 and note. Compare 
on the other side Stanley’s note here, which 
however has not convinced me. The root 
of the two sins being the same, viz. lust or 
greed, they come often to be mentioned 
together and as if running into one an- 
other. See Trench, N. T. Syn. pp. 91, 2. 
On Gpmaiw, Stanley remarks, “It is 
difficult to see why it should be expressly 
introduced here, especially if mAeovextys 
has the meaning of sensuality.” Cer- 


510 IIPOS KOPINOIOTS A. V. 12,13 
3 
rchvildonly. Gypaa vuiy pn P cuvavapuiyvucbat, eav Tis adedpos 
-pet 3 as , x ? 
hs” dvowalopevos 7 %taropvos i) “ mdeovéextns i) *Y eidmdodd- 
-pta, 1 Tim. Ag 1 Ag soa? Aye ab , \ 
lt), TPNS 7) *AolWopos %) * eOvaos 7) * dpTrak, TH » ToodT@ mde 
: ~ , G / , \ a 
only. Prov. ¢ gyperOiew. 247i yap por *Tovs ° &Ew * Kpivew ; 
evi 9. A Lal ‘ 
Sinuix.l. OvXL § TOS Féow vpels ‘ Kpivete ; 13 © TOUS dé ° Ew Oo Beas 
xxvi. 8 only. f , h? , \ \ Bee e-:rs. 2 \ Sed SS 
vrer.5. FE xpiver. >’ KEdpate tov movnpov é€ buov ‘ adrav. 
siphaenl ii. 12 only. Gen. xliii.32. Ps. c. 5 only. d here only. (Mark y.7. 2 Kings xvi. 10. Matt. 


2 Cor. iv. 16.) = here bis. Col. 
f = John viii. 15. Rom. iii. 7. 
h here only. Devt. xvii. 7, 


viii. 29.) see Matt. xxvii. 4. John xxi. 22,23. 9 e (Acts xxvi. ll. 
iv. 5. 1 Thess.iv.12. Markiv. ll only. (cf. Tous exros, Sir. prol.) 
g = here only. see Rom. vil. 22, 2 Cor. iv. 16. Eph, iii. 16. 3 Kings vi. 15. 
12. xxiv, 7. isee ch, i. 24. 
Steph for 7, #, with (B? D-gr, perhaps) F-lat G-lat arm Augsepe : txt (not defined in 
the other uncials) vulg syrr copt goth #th Iren-int Tert Auguiic. mropy. n med. 
7 €td. 7 Aowd. n TA. 7 apt. C. elOwA. 4 TAEOV. M. for unde, un A119: unte 
I. (non aut nec G-lat.) 
12. for 71, ec F. 
(ec: om ABCFPR 17 latt Syr copt 2th Orig Chr-mss, Tert. 
kpweire N'(txt R-corr’). ; 
13. kpwetabdfghk1o copt eth arm lat-ff and Chr Thdrt Thl in their comm: 
txt L D-lat syrr. (kpive: B! sed antea et mox xpewv. Vere.) rec (for efapare) 
iat eEaperre (kat insd as above more than once, for connexion: but the abruptness is 
characteristic: -pete from LXX-A), with D*L rel (tollite autem Syr, et tollite syr &c) 
Chr(om «ar? and -pare ms, in Matthai) Thdrt Thi Ge: ka efapare 17: txt ABCD! FPN 


rec aft wor ins ka, with DL rel syr goth arm Chr Thdrt Thl 
vuas Cl 


d m latt ecopt goth arm Orig. 


tainly: but not, if +A. retains its proper 
meaning, as containing the key to mopveta 
on the one hand, and apray7 on the other. 

éret &p.| For in that case ye 
must go out of the world,—as Chrys. and 
Theophyl., érépav oikoumevny (nTioat. 
The past &peia., as Expny, al., because the 
necessity would long ago have occurred and 
the act have passed. 11. viv 8€ €ypapa. | 
But my meaning was. . . ;—‘ but, the 
case being so, that ye must needs consort 
with fornicators among theheathen, I wrote 
to you, not to consort, Ke.’ That this 
is the meaning and not ‘ But xow I write 
(the epistolary aorist), &c.,’ seems plain, 
from the use of éypava twice so close to- 
gether, and therefore probably in the same 
reference,—from the fact noticed by Meyer, 
thatif acontrast had been intended between 
év TH emotoAn and vor, év TH er. must 
have preceded @ypaja:—and from the 
usage of viv 5é, of which Hartung, Par- 
tikellehre, ii. 25, gives examples, e.g. Plut. 
Protag. p. 347, viv bt opddpa yap Kal mepl 
Trav peylotav Wevdduevos Soxeis adnOF 
Acyew, ia Tard oe eyo Yéeyw,—and Ly- 
curg. Leocr. p. 138, @BovAduny 8 by, & 
tvdpes.... viv Bt... See also Heb. 
xi. 16. Thus by the right rendering, we 
escape the awkward inference deducible 
from the ordinary interpretation,—that 
the Apostle had previously given a com- 
mand, and now retracted it. édv TLs | 
If one who is called a brother be, Xc. 
(Ecumenius, Augustine, Ambrose, Estius, 
al., join dvouaCduevos with wépyos, and 
understand it either as = dvouacrds, ‘be a 


notorious mépvos, ¥e., or ‘be named a 
mépvos, Fe. But dvouadu. or even dvo- 
paords, in the bad sense, is hardly ad- 
missible,—and in either case Paul would 
have written adeAdds tis, the stress on 
adeApds in that case requiring it to precede 
Tis, as it now precedes dvouaCduevos. 
eiSwAoAdtpys | One who from any motive 
makes a compromise with the habits of the 
heathen, and partakes in their sacrifices: 
Chrys. well remarks, mpoxataBddAerat Toy 
mep) TOY EidwADOUTwWY Adyoy dy mETa TAadTA 
méeAAEL yuuvalerOat. pébvcos was, 
in pure Greek, not used of a man, but of 
a woman only. So Phrynichus, p. 151 
(but see Lobeck’s note), pébveos avip 
oun epets, GAAG pebvoTtiKds’ yuvaika be 
épeis webvooy kK. webvonv : and Pollux, vi. 
25 (Wetst.), wé@vcos emt avdpav Mevdvdpw 
dcdb70w. Seeing that undé cuvvecOlew 
must imply a more complete separation 
than wh cvvavaulyvucPa, it cannot be 
applied to the a@ydmat (as Mosheim, al.), 
but must keep its general meaning,—not 
even to sit at table with such an one. 
This rule, as that in 2 Thess. iii. 14, re- 
gards only their private intercourse with 
the offending person: nothing is here said 
of public excommunication, though for some 
of these crimes it would be implied. 
12.) Ground of the above limitation, 
ti yap por... .] for what con- 
cern of mine isit ...% So lian, Var. 
Hi. vi. 11, robs 5& YAAous e@. Th ydp mot 
Kwpois K. avonros guuBovdevew Ta Avot- 
TedéoraTa; see other examples in Wetst. 
Tovs e&w] reff. It was among the 


wei ¥. IIPOS KOPINOIOTS A. 511 


Vas 


k a ¢ a 1 lal ] vy \ n \ — : . 
VI. 1 ¥Todpa tis tuadv 'rpayua | éywv ™ pos ™ Tov * Zz Acts». 13. 


SFL 
7 , AY a »O/ \ Co ga ae a 2 Cor, x. 12. 
: £™ érepov °xpiverOar ? eri TOV Iadix@v Kal ovyi Perl TeV baths vi, 
ere only, Xen. 
ou Mem. ii. 9. 1. m = Acts xxiv. 19 reff. n Rom. ii. 1 reff. o = Matt. v.40. Gen. 
47 xxvi. 21. Job ix. 3. p = Acts xxiii. 30 reff. q = here only. see Gal. ii, 15 reff, 


Cup. VI. 1. ins ef bef yzwy A al d m 17 syrr Chr, Thdrt. 


moayna exov DF Thdrt Cypr.—om roy B. 


Jews the usual term for the Gentiles. Cf. 
Schéttgen in loc. He means, ‘this might 
have been easily understood to be my 
meaning: for what concern have I with 
pronouncing sentence on the world with- 
out, or with giving rules of discipline 
for them? I could only have referred 
to persons among yourselves’ 
ovxl Tots €ow | “ Ex eo, quod in ecclesia 
fieri solet, interpretari debuistis monitum 
meum, ver.9. Cives judicatis, non alienos : 
quanto magis ego.” Bengel. But Iam not 
quite certain of this interpretation, which 
is also that of De Wette and Meyer, be- 
cause it would more naturally correspond to 
ovx) Tos ow kal duets Kplvere; A prefer- 
able way seems to be this; ‘My judgment 
was meant to lead your judgment. This 
being the case, what concern had I with 
those without? Is it not on those within, 
that your judgments are passed?’ The 
arrangement mentioned by Theophylact, 
and adopted by Knatchbull, Hammond, 
Michaelis, Rosenm., al., ody Tods ow Spwets 
kptvete, ‘No: those within do ye (imper.) 
judge, —is clearly wrong, for ovxé is no 
answer to tl, and would require aAAd after 
it,—even supposing wo: Ttobs iw xplivew 
and tovs ow vuets kpivere formed any 
intelligible logical contrast, which they do 
not. 13.] But those who are with- 
out Gop judgeth. The pres. xpivec both 
expresses better the attribute and office of 
God, and answers better to the other pre- 
sents than the future kpive?. I have there- 
fore retained it. The future perhaps came 
from Heb. xiii. 4. ‘To judge those without, 
is God’s matter’ These remarks about 
judging forma transition point to the sub- 
ject of the next chapter. But having now 
finished his explanation of the prohibition 
formerly given, and with it the subject of 
the fornicator among them, he gives, before 
passing on, a plain command in terms for 
the excommunication (but no more: not 
the punishment mentioned in vv. 3—5) of 
the offender. And this he does in the very 
words of Deut. xxiv. 7 (from which the 
reading kat éfapeire has come). Upev 
avTév is in Deut., but need not therefore 
lose its emphatic force: from among your 
own selves. 

Cuap. VI. 1—11.] Prontprrion to 
SETTLE THEIR DIFFERENCES IN THE LE- 


mpos T. eTep. bef 


GAL COURTS OF THE HEATHEN: RATHER 
SHOULD THESE BE ADJUDGED AMONG 
THEMSELVES (1—6): BUT FAR BETTER 
NOT TO QUARREL—RATHER TO SUFFER 
WRONG, WAITING FOR JUSTICE TO BE 
DONE AT THE COMING OF THE LorpD, 
WHEN ALL WHO DO WRONG SHALL BE 
EXCLUDED FROM HIS KINGDOM (6—11). 
1.] On roAuéd, Dares... , Bengel 
remarks, “Grandi verbo notatur lesa ma- 
jestas Christianorum.” Tls, no par- 
ticular zndividual, but any one: for he 
proceeds in the plur., vv. 4, 7. 
ampaypa | So ref.and Demosth. kara Step. 
a. p. 1120, Tr wey viel TH TobTov moAAGY 
TMpayudtav wvTwY ov TapeaTn maTOTE OVD 
eBondnoer ; kpiver@au, reff., to go to 
law. So Kur. Med. 609, &s od kpiwoducn 
Tavbe ool Ta mAelova,—and Anthol. ii. 
30, Suskdpy dUskwpos expivero, Kat moAd 
MGAov hv 6 KpiThs ToUTwY Tov dbo Kwpd- 
tepos. Wetst. on Matt. v. 40. ert 
(reff.), before, as judges. TOV GOdt- 
Kov | ov elev, em) TOY anicTwY, GAN emt 
TOV Gdikwv, Adi Oels, Hs udAioTa xpelav 
elxey eis Thy mpokemmevny brdbecw, SsTeE 
amorpépar Kk. amayayeiy. ered) yap mepr 
dikns avT@ 6 Adyos jv, of SiueaCduevor 5& 
ovdév obTws emi(nTovow, ws To moAAHY 
eivat mpdvorav Tod Sikalov mapa tots Sixd- 
(ove, évTed0ev abtods amorpémel, povoy- 
ovx) A€ywv To? hépy kal Tl worets, avOpwre, 
TovvavtTiov mdcxwv av emiOuuets, kal drép 
Tov Tav Sixalwy TuXEiv adikots emitpémwy 
avOpHmots ; Chrys. Hom. xvi. p. 187. 
The Rabbinical prohibitions against going 
to law before Gentiles may be seen in 
Wetst.: e.g. “Statutum est, ad quod 
omnes Israelite obligantur, eum qui litem 
cum alio habet, non debere eam tractare 
coram gentilibus.” Tanchuma, xcii. 2. 
kal odxt émt T. aylwv] The Apostle 
does not mean that the Christians had 
their courts of law, but that they should 
submit their differences to courts of arbi- 
tration among themselves. Such courts 
of arbitration were common among the 
Jews. In Jos. Antt. xiv. 10. 17, there 
is a decree by which the Jews of Sardis 
are allowed the use of a ovvodos idla 
..... kal témos tdi0s, ev & Ta TE TPay- 
para K. Tas mpds GAAHAOUS avTIAoylas 
Kplvouct. Theodoret shews, @s ov 
evaytla TadTa Tots mpds ‘Pwuatlous ypapel- 


512 


r == Actsix.13 Fr arylov ; 


reff, 


e151 Todaw; Kal eb Y ev tuiv “Kpivetat 6 Kocpos, * avakio 


t John iii. 17 
al. fr. 

u = Matt. xix. 
28. Luke xxii. 30. see DAN. vii. 22. 


ii. 6G only. Judg. y. 10 B. 


IIPO> KOPINOIOTS A. 


VI. 


w here 


x here bis. James 


2. rec om 4%, with D3L rel: ins ABCD!FPX a m 17 latt Syr syr-w-ast arm Clem Chr 


Damase Th] lat-ff. 


for e:, cay F: om D! k! Hil,. 


3, 4, 5, 6. om A (homeotel, -tctwv ending ver 2, and also ver 6). 


ow (Rom. xiii. 1 ff.) :—od yap avtirelvew 
KeAeveL TOIs UpxXovow, GAAG ToIs HdiKy- 
pévois vowobeTer mh KexphoOa Tots kp- 
xovet. See Stanley in loc., who thinks 
the existence of such courts is here im- 
plied. But his support of his view from 
the Ap. Constt. and the Clementines, cir. 
A.D. 150, would only go to shew that 
the Apostle’s injunction here had been 
obeyed, and that those courts were the 
result. 2.| ov« olSare (reff.) ap- 
peals to an axiomatic truth. ot 
Gy.o. t. k. Kptv.| that the saints shall 
judge the world ?—i.e. as assessors of 
Christ, at His coming: so Daniel vii. 22 
(Theod.), #AGev 56 madaids nucpav, Kal TO 
Kpipa edwxev Gylois inpiotov; see also 
Matt. xix. 28. So Calv., Beza, Grot., Est., 
Wolf, Olsh., Billroth, Riickert, Meyer, 
De Wette. All attempts to elude this plain 
meaning of the words are futile: whether of 
Chrys., Theophyl., Theodor.-Mops., Theo- 
doret, Erasm.,—xkpiwvodor. 5€ ovx) adrol 
KaOhuevot K. Aoyoy amaitovyTEs, GAAG 
kataxpivovcr (Matt. xii. 41, 42), Chrys.— 
for this would be no parallel to the case 
in hand ;—or of Lightf., Vitringa, Bengel 
(but only as a preludium futurorum), al., 
—‘ quod Christiani futuri sint magistratus 
et judices in mundo,’ —Lightf., which does 
not satisfy ver. 3, nor agree with the Apos- 
tle’s earnest persuasion (see 2 Cor. vy. al., 
and note on 2 Thess. ii. 2) that the coming 
of Christ was near at hand: or of Mosheim, 
Ernesti, Rosenm., ‘quod Christiani pro- 
fanos judicare possint, Rosenm., in the 
sense of ch. ii. 15, 16,——for no such mean- 
ing can be conveyed by the future, which is 
fixed here by the following icpivoduev. 
«at brings out an inconsequence or a con- 
tradiction between the members of the sen- 
tence, which it is the object of the question 
to remove: so Xen. Cyr. iv. 3. 11, add’ 
elmo. tv tis, Ott maides bvTes eudvOavoy. 
kal wérepa maides eciot ppovimatepa ste 
padety Ta ppaCdueva Kk. Seixvimeva 7) bv- 
dpes; see Hartung, Partikellehre, i. 147. 
évy tpiv| Chrys. attempts by this 
prepos. to defend his view (see above),— 
ov yap eclxev, bp’ tudv, GAN ev dpiv 
(‘exemplo vestro’). But in vain: nor as 


Grot., al., is év, by:—for kplvecOa ev is 
the expression for fo be judged before, as 
judges: the judges being the vehicle of 
judgment, its conditioning element, as in 
ref. Acts. So Aristides, Platon. ii. p. 214 
(Wetst.), ries Hin A€yovra Tav jpdwy 
ev @Qeois Sikacrats KpiOjva, and Polyb. 
v. 29. 6, TltoAcuatoy .... Kpivas ev 
Tois Maxkeddow améxtewe. See other 
examples in Wetst. Hence (Meyer) by 
this ‘coram vobis’ it appears plainly, 
though it might be otherwise inferred from 
the context, that the Saints are to be the 
judges, sitting in judgment. avagvot 
éote «pit. éXay.] are ye unworthy of 
(i. e. to hold or pronounce) the smallest 
judgments ? «pit7pia cannot be, as usually 
rendered, ‘ matters to be judged :’ it signi- 
fies either (1) criteria, lit. or metaphor., 
which sense is irrelevant here: (2) ¢i- 
bunals, courts of justice:—so Glossar. 
Kpithpiov, dikaoTHpiov, and Polyb. ix. 33. 
12, kowdy ek mavtwy Tay ‘EAAvev Kabloas 
kpithpiov,—or (3) judgments held in such 
courts, judicia,—as Lucian. bis accus. (§ 
25, p. 253, ed. Hagan. 1526); Hermes 
describes Pyrrhon as being not in court, 
dTt ovdeyv nyetrat KpitHpiov GAnbes elvar: 
to which Alkn replies, tovyapoty ephunv 
avTov Karadikdtwoav. The last meaning 
suits both this place and ver. 4. So 
Cicero speaks of ‘in privatis minimarum 
rerum judiciis.’ Here, they are éAdxiora 
in comparison with the weighty judgments 
which shall be held hereafter ; = Biwtikd, 
ver. 4. 8.] The same glorious office 
of Christians is again referred to, and even 
a more striking point of contrast brought 
out. ayyéAous] always, where not 
otherwise specified, good angels: and there- 
fore here; the Aecroupyicd tveduara of Heb. 
i. 14: but exactly how we shall judge them, 
is not revealed to us. Chrys., Theodoret, 
(Ecum., Theophyl., and most Commenta- 
tors interpret it of bad angels, or of bad 
and good together: and Chrys. as before, 
understands that the bad angels will be con- 
demned by comparison with us, dray yap 
al do@mara Suvduers avtal €AarTov Huey 
ebpebaow Exovta Tay sdpKka mepiBeBAn- 
Mevwv, XaAeT@rEpov SHoovaet Skyy. p. 135. 


OES ry ae! 18 &, ed IE oer tu 
af | OUK OLOATE OTL OL aytot TOV KOO [LOV Kpl- ABC. 
/ Pra 
Udef 


> x / > / PAG tg 59. 5 ca > , 
€OTE KPLTNPLOV ehayloTov , OVK OLOATE OTL ayyeXous 
v Luke xi. 15. Acts xvii. 31. see note. 
only. Jer. xv. 19 Ed-vat. F(not ABN!), Sir, xxy. 8 (not &) only. (-tws, ch. xi. 27.) 


kln 
017. 


2—5. 


IIPOS KOPIN@OIOTS A. 513 


u ; z a Zz Ny ane ,) : 
Kpwovpev, Yunte Yye *Biwtika; *% BiwtiKa * wey ody ¥ here onlyt 


x / SN ” \ b 3 0. , > aA > 
KpiTnpia é€ay eynte, Tods ” éEovOevnuwévous év TH exKAn- 
5 darpos © évtpotny viv réyo. 


aia, TovTous °Kabifere. 


b Rom. xiv. 3 reff. 
d = ch, vii. 35 reff. 


c trans., Acts ii. 30, 
ech. xy. 34 only. Ps. xxxiv. 26, 


Luke xxi. 
34 only +. 

a = ver. 7. ch. 
ix. 25. Phil. 
ii. 23. 

Eph. i. 20 only. 1 Kings xxx. 21. mid., Matt. xix. 28. 


3. for unre ye, moow waddoy F vulg F-lat G-lat wth Pel Bede. 


4. for wey ovy, your F. 


But see above on ver. 2. pyTL ye, 
to say nothing of, ‘wt omittam:’ so 
Demosth. p. 24. 23, od é 8 aitdy ap- 
yotvra ovde trois pldos émitdrtew brép 
avToU TL ToLetvy, wh TL ye BSH Tots Geors. 
See Hartung, Partikellehre, ii. 155. 
Biwrixd, matters relating to 6 Blos, a 
man’s livelihood: see ref. and Clem. Alex. 
Strom. vii. 12, p. 873 P., @AiBduevoy ém- 
KoupiCer mapauvOlas . .. , Tais Biwtikats 
Xpelais émixouvpav. It is a word of later 
Greek usage, see Lexx. In classic Greek it 
would beta Tod Blov. |The meaning here 
then will be civil causes, matters of meum 
and tuum, as De Wette. The sense is best 
with only a comma at Kpivoduev. 
&.]| Bwwrixd is emphatically repeated, as 
being the only sort of xpitjpia which were 
in question here. Meyer compares Herod. 
vii. 104, ra by exetvos dywyn’ dydye 
d¢ rHiTd del, and Aristoph. Ran. 287 f. 
pev ovv, ‘immo vero,’ reff. (see below). 
It corrects a foregoing misapprehension : 
so Soph. Cd. Col. 31, “7% Seipo mpos- 
otelxovta Kakopumuevoyv;” “Kal dh pev 
otv mapévra.” Hartung, Partikell. ii. 400. 
See also Moulton’s Winer, p. 556, note 2. 
KpiTypta, again, not matters to be 
judged, but judgments: the matters about 
which, are expressed in Biwtikd. The 
following words may be rendered in two 
ways: either, (a) ‘ Yea, rather (so far from 
remembering your high prospect, of judg- 
ing angels, your practice is), if ye have in 
hand judgments concerning civil matters, 
—those men who are of no account in the 
church (viz. the heathen), those you set 
up (place on the bench) as judges’ (i.e. 
by bringing your causes before them, you 
set them up as judges over you). Kai¢w 
occurs in this sense in Plato, Legg. ix. p. 
873, eav 5 thuxdy te Wuxis &vOpwrov 
oTEphon,... SikaoThy wev a’T@ Kabilerw 
Tov yeiTévwer Thy eyylTaTov 6 mposhKwy 
yéver,—and Polyb. ix. 33. 12, cited above 
on «pithpiov. Thus, making xaéi¢. in- 
dicative, Valla, Castal., Luther, Calov., 
Wolf, al., Schrader, Riickert, Olsh., De 
Wette, Meyer. But (8) Syr., Vulg., Chrys., 
Theodoret, Theophyl., Erasm., Beza, Calvin, 
Grot., Estius, Bengel, Wetst., al., take 
KadiCere as imperative, and rovs étovdev. 
ev T. ekKA. as ‘minimos de piorum plebe.’ 
Vou. II. 


So E. V.: set them to judge who are 
least esteemed in the church. And to 
this last interpretation I am_ inclined 
to accede, both from the context and 
from the arrangement of the words. The 
context is this: ‘Your office is to judge 
angels :? mere business causes of this 
world are almost beneath your notice. 
If such causes arise among you (he con- 
tinues in a lofty irony) set those to judge 
them who are of no account among you: 
—do not go out of your own number to 
others to have them judged: the meanest 
among you is capable of doing it. Let 
it be noticed that he is passing to ver. 7, 
where he insists on the impropriety of 
Biwrike xpit. between Christians at all, 
and is here depreciating them ironically. 

But the arrangement and construction of 
the words are even more strongly in favour 
of the imperative rendering. For (1) on the 
other, no account is given of the emphatic 
position of Biwrikd. (2) the ey ody is 
not so naturally rendered (see above) ‘ yea 
rather your course is,’ as ‘yea rather let 
your practice be :’ it expresses more natu- 
rally a subjective correction, in the mind 
of the speaker, than an objective one: see 
below, ver. 7. (3) if the sentence had re- 
ferred to their existing practice of going 
before heathen tribunals, it would have 
been expressed not Biwtikd& wey obv KpiT. 
eay éxnre, but B. m. ody Kp. €xovres, as in 
ver. 1. (4) of ekovOevnuévor ev TH xx. 
are much more naturally the despised in 
(within) the church, than those who in 
(the estimation of) the church are held of 
no account. Meyer argues against this 
that it would be in this case robs etové. 
Tous év TH exkA., but surely he can hardly 
be serious, or I do not understand him 
rightly. (5) xa@(¢ere applies much better 
to the appointing judges over a matter 
among themselves, than to going before 
judges already appointed. (6) as to the 
objection that on this rendering the word 
‘yather’ must be inserted, todrouvs paAAov 
kadi¢ere, it has no force, for no such sup- 
plement is required. The command is ab- 
solute, but given to shew them the absur- 
dity of their going to law about Biwrtixd at 
all, rather than bona fide. 5.] mwpos 
évtp. tp. Aéyw refers to the more com- 

L 


514 


IIPO> KOPINOIOT= A. 


Vi 


. tad ‘ / A , 
Matt. <ari f ofrag ove Seve ev piv ovdels codos, Os SuvnceTat 


18. John 


g Gal. iii. 25 
(3ce). Col. 
iii. ll. 
James i. 7 
only. see 


h = here only. 
Ezek. xxxiv. 
17, 20. 

i Matt. xiii. 25. 


cal j ; r fal fa) > \ > 

iz > Svaxptvar' avai pécov ToD adeAhod avTod; ° adda aoeA- 
“OR i nk \ a U 
hos * wera aderod * xpiverat, ™ Kai ™ TodTO! ETL” aTIOTOV. ».am- 
i ” °o \ i e q A ETA) > e r / 

non °pev ovv PbdAwS IHTTHUA UVuly eat OTL * KpiwaTa 

J * 3 a rn > Cal 
tukexidlt vere pe? Séautov. * dia Ti ovxi padrov " aducciabe 
t ua Ti ovYL wadXOV Y atroaTEpEtaOe ; 


> > n__ (an 
8 adda bets AOUKEITE G). 


. \ > lal \ lal > 4 Xx > bls 

Mark vii. 31. ab Y aTrooTepEtte, ™ Kal ™ TOUTO adeAgovs. 9 7)” ovK oldaTeE Pxa' 
ev. . . 

only. Exod. 

xi. 7. Isa. lvii. 5. constr., here only. k constr., Job ix. 3 A. 1 ver. 1. 
xiii. 1] reff. n = ch. vil. 12, &c. x. 27. xiv. 22, &c. 2 Cor. vi. 14,15. 1 Tim. v. 8. 

p ch. v. 1 reff. q Rom. xi. 12 only. Isa. xxxi. 8 only. r=here only, Exod. xviii. 22. s = Eph. 

iv. 32. Col. iii. 13 (see note there). t Matt. ix. 14. Rom. ix. 32 (reff.) al. Num. xi. 11. u = here 


only. mid., cf. doywartgeaGe, Col. ii. 20. 
lil. 5. Ww vy. 2,3. 


5. for Aeyw, Aadw B (C doubtful.) 


BCLPR® rel Orig Chr Thdrt Damase Th] Ce. 


v Mark x. 19. ch. vii. 5. 


1 Tim. vi.5. James yv.4only. Mal. 


rec (for ev) eorw, with DF m Ath: txt 
rec coos ovde ets (Rom iii. 10), 


with D’L rel vulg syr (Chr) Thdrt Thl ce: om ovders D! wth Orig Ath: txt BCR 17 


copt Damasc; ovde ets cop. FP a m Aug. 
6. for rovro, tavta CD! syr-mg Thdrt. 
kat ov em aryiwy F. (ov sic F and G.) 


aft os ins ov L. avaxpiwat &' n Orig. 
for em, wera D}. at end ins 


7. om ovy D'81 a 17 latt copt arm Orig-int lat-ff, marked with an asterisk in syr. 


om oAws A Syr Orig. 


rec ins ev bef vu, with vulg F-lat Orig-int, Thl 
Cypr: om ABCDLPX rel syrr copt Orig, Bas Chr Thdrt Ge Antch. 


Kpiysa &. 


transp adiceroOe and aroarepeabe L. 


8. transp adic. and amoor. D. 


rec (for tovro) tavta (probably because two 


things, adic. and amroor., are mentd), with L rel syr arm Chr Thdrt: txt ABCDPS 17 


latt copt Orig, Antch Cypr. 


mand in ver. 4—I say this to put you to 
shame. ovtws| Is there so com- 
pletely a lack of all wise men among 
you.... He now suggests the more 
Christian way of settling their differences, 
viz. by arbitration: and asks, ‘Are you 
come to this, that you are obliged ka@i¢ew 
any dicaords at all,—have you no wise 
man among you (the rec., ovdé cis, would 
be ‘ quod est vehementius, cum sitis tam 
multi.’ Erasm.) who shall be able (in such 
event) to decide (as arbitrator) between 
his brother (i.e. his brethren)? This last 
is a harsh method of expression, and ap- 
parently only to be accounted for by the 
singular form of ovdels copdés having 
attracted the other into the singular like- 
wise, so that instead of gogo) o2 duvfqaov- 
Tat diakp. ava mécov TOV AdeAPaY av’Tar, 
we have cobs ds duvqcerat Siakp. ava mu. 
Tov ad. avTov. But it is not without use: 
it prevents the apparent inference, which 
might be made if trav adeApav aitov were 
used, that one wise man was to be appointed 
universal arbitrator,—and confines the ap- 
pointment of the arbitrator to each possi- 
bly arising case respectively. 6.] (Zé 
seems not to be so): nay, &e., as implied 
in ver. 1. aA after a question passes 
rapidly on to the other alternative, the 
particle negativing the question being sup- 
pressed. So Xen. Mem, i. 2. 2, was ody 
abtos dy towvTos &AAous tv GocBeis ... 
emolnoev; "AAN Emavoe ev TOUTwY TOA- 


Aovs, apetis worhoas emiOunety. See Har- 
tung, Partikellehre, ii. 37. 7.] He 
gives his own censure of their going to 
law at all. ev ovv as above, ver. 4. 
ddos, altogether, without the aggrava- 
tion of ém amicrwy. AtTHpe, 2 
falling short, viz. of your inheritance of 
the kingdom of God—a hindrance in the 
way of your salvation: see ver. 9 :—not as 
ordinarily understood (see especially Estius 
in loc.) a moral delinquency (cf.the usage in 
reff.), nor an 777Tac0a TH opyn, as cum. 
Kpipara, matters of dispute, lead- 
ing toxpivec@a:; not = cploeis,—eO” Eav- 
tov, With one another (reff.), as being 
brethren in Christ. adixetobe and 
a&mrootepeiabe not passives, but middle (ef. 
Bernhardy, Syntax, chap. viii. § 4, p. 346: 
Menander frag.: otros xpdtiotés éo7? 
avnp, @ Topyla, dstis adicetoOa mAcior? 
émlatara: Bporav: Hesiod. épy. 347, eb weév 
HeTpeicOa mapa yeitovos, €v8 amodoiva) 
—allow yourselves to be wronged and 
defrauded. See Matt. v. 39 ff. 8. | 
cannot be, as Meyer, a continuation of the 
question, on account of the emphatic dueis, 
which would thus be without meaning. 
The account of this emphatic dues is to be 
found in an ellipsis after a@moorepeiabe to 
the effect, ‘as our Lord commanded us His 
disciples,’ or ‘as it behoves the followers of 
Christ.’ Then suezs comes in contrast: 
you on the contrary (dAAd, see above 
ver. 6) do wrong, and defraud, and that 


° 
j ov F 


m Rom, k1lm 
o ver.4. 9 17, 


6—12. IIPO> KOPINOIOTS A. 515 
dte adixot Beod * Bacideliav ob *Y KXnpovouncovow ; * Mn * = Mattsxv- 
50. Gal. v. 


cal “4 
*Travacbe. ovTe * rdpvos ovTE  cidSwNOAATPAL OTE ° poL- 
\ Ud \ n 
xot ovte “waraxol ovte * apoevoxotras 19 obre f KAéTTAL 


21. see James 


ii. 5. 
y = Matt. v. 5. 


z ch. xv. 33. 

” , on el ral. vi. 7. 
oure Ymdcovéxtas, ov % uéBucot, ov ® NolSopor, OvY ? dip-  Sameri-is. 
a Isa. xli, 10. 

maryes, * Bacielav Geod * kXypovoyyjcovow. 11 Kal ach.¥.9,10, 


11 reff. 
b b ch. v. 10, 11. 
(reff.). 
ec Luke xviii. 


fal / . fa 
TavTa TivEes TE’ GANA i atredovaace, adra * HrytaaOnTe, 
> \ an fol , a 
adra ™ eSixaidOnte ™év TO OvomaTs Tod Kupiov “Incod 


11. Heb. xiii. 

a , & BcoG tne ae 
Vv TO TTVEULATL TOU VEOU NOV. d = here (Matt. 

9 , oY, > > > , , xi. 8 bis. 

2n]lavta pos ™ éeotw, AX od TavTAa P cupPepel. Like vii.25) 
only $. (Prov, 
xxv. 15. xxvi. 22 only.) e 1 Tim. i. 10 only +. see Levit. xviii. 22. f Matt. vi. 
19al. Obad. 5. g ch. v. 11 (reff.). see John xv.17. 3 John 4. i Acts 
xxii. 16 only. Jobix.30 only. see Rey. i. 5, Rom. xy, 16 reff. 1 = Rom. iii. 
20, 30. v. 1 al. m Acts xiii. 39 reff. n constr., Mark ii. 24. ch. x. 23 bis. o Acts 

xxi. 37 reff. p constr., ch. x. 23. 2Cor. viii, 10. Prov. xix. 10. Sir. xxxvii. 28. 


9. There is an erasure of two letters [o:?] bef adicot in A. ree BactAeray bef 
Qeov (as below in ver 10), with L rel latt Polye Clem Chr Thrdrt Iren-int Tert Cypr: 
txt ABCDPX m17. om ov B'(ins B-corr!) o!. ovde (throughout vv. 9, 10) D. 

10. mAcovertat ovre kAewTax DL be def gh1lno 47 syrr Clem Chr Thdrt Damase 
Thl: om ovte mAcoverta k 3. 35. 42. 238 Clem, Orig. rec (for 1st ov) ove, 
with BD8L rel Ath, Thl ic: ovde D1(as above): txt ACN a 17 Clem, Ath, Julian(in 
Epiph) Chr Thdrt. transp. “e@. and Aa. P. Geov bef Bac. D'. 
rec ins ov bef KAnpovouncovow (prob from writing the ov of Qcov twice over: the 
mistake being perpetuated, or even the readg occasioned, by the ov kdnp. of ver 9. 
This seems a more likely account than that a variation betw the two vv should have 
been sanctioned by perpetuating an accidental omn of the ov), with LP rel Ign(but 
readg varies. Coteler has kAnpovounoa duvaytat, omg ov) Ath, Ps-Ath Cyr-jer Chr- 
ms, Thdrt Thl: om ABCDN 1' 17 Polye Orig Meth Ath, Chr Thdrt, Damase (Me (Polyc). 

11. [adda (3ce), so AB(D)N: C has ada’ all three times; D!, the Ist time; L m, the 
2nd and 3rd times. | aft xvptov ins nuwy B C(appy) P m 17. 47 vulg Syr syr- 
w-ast copt eth arm Ath, Did, Epiph Iren-int, Orig-int Cypr: om ADLX® rel. 


aft oou ins xpiorov B C(appy) D!PN 1 m 17 &e (as precedg): om AD3L Thi Ec. 


(your), brethren. 9.] «Ye commit 
wrong: this looks as if you had forgotten 
the rigid exclusion from the kingdom of 
God of all wrong-doers of every kind 
(included here under @:xo1); see Gal. 
v. 21. Pp?) twAavacGe| This caution 
would be most salutary and needful in 
a dissolute place like Corinth. It is 
similarly used, and with an express refer- 
ence to duirla Kakal, ch. xv. 33. 

amopvo. refers back to ch. v., and is 
taken up again, vv. 12 ff. padakol = 
maOtrot (see in Wetst.). peGucor, see 
on ch. v. 11. 11.] ‘ These things were 
the former state of some among you: but 
ye are now in a far different state.’ These 
things (I cannot think with Meyer that 
vadTa is used with an implication of 
contempt, such a horde, or rabble: it is 
rather ‘of such a kind, see Winer, Gr. 
§ 23. 5) were some of you (vives limits 
the duets which is the suppressed subject of 
qre): but ye washed them off (viz. at your 
baptism, The 1 aor. mid. cannot by any 
possibility be passive in signification, as it 
is generally, for doctrinal reasons, here 
rendered. On the other hand the middle 
sense has no doctrinal import, regarding 


merely the fact of their having submitted 
themselves to Christian baptism. See ref. 
Acts), but (there is in the repetition of 
&AAGd, the triumph of one who was under 
God the instrument of this mighty change) 
ye were sanctified (not in the dogmatic 
sense of progressive sanctification, but so 
that whereas before you were unholy, by the 
reception of the Holy Ghost you became 
dedicated to God and holy), but ye were 
justified (by faith in Christ, you received 
the dixaoodvy Ocov, Rom. i. 17), in the 
Name of the Lord Jesus, and in the 
(working of the) Spirit of our God. These 
two last clauses must not be fancifully 
(as Meyer, al.) assigned amongst the pre- 
ceding. They belong to all, as De Wette 
rightly maintains. The spiritual washing 
in baptism, the sanctification of the chil- 
dren of God, the justification of the be- 
liever, are all wrought in the Name of the 
Lord Jesus, and are each and all the work 
of the Spirit of our God. By the juav 
again, he binds the Corinthians and him- 
self together in the glorious blessings of 
the gospel-state, and mingles the oil of joy 
with the mourning which by his reproof 
he is reluctantly creating. 


LLi2 


516 


q play on 
words, ch. 
iii. 17 al. 

r Luke xxii. 
25. ch. vii. 4 
bis only. 
Eccl. ix. 17. 

s plur., Matt. 
xiv. 15|| L. 
Mark vii. 19. 
Luke iii. 11. 
1 Tim. iv. 3. 
Heb. ix. 10. xiii. 9 only. 

xxi. 15, 18, 19, 


TLVOS. 


ynoel. 


Job vi. 5. 
u see ch, vii. 7. 


12. om 2nd po C! Orig Tert,. 


12—20.] CoRRECTION OF AN ABUSE OF 
THE DOCTRINE OF CHRISTIAN FREEDOM 
WHICH SOME AMONG THEM HAD MADE, 
THAT, AS MEATS WERE INDIFFERENT, SO 
WAS FORNICATION (vv. 12—17). STRONG 
PROHIBITION OF, AND DISSUASIVE FROM 
THIS SIN (vv. 18—20). 12.]| State- 
ment of the true doctrine of Christian free- 
dom. mayvra pot efeotiy are the bona 
fide words of the Apostle himself, not, as 
some have understood them, the saying of 
an opponent cited by him. For (1) the 
sentiment is a true Christian axiom: mavta 
being of course understood, as it evidently 
was even by the abusers of the doctrine, of 
things (supposed by them) ad:dgopa. (2) 
It is not introduced by any clause indica- 
tive of its being the saying of another, 
which is Paul’s habit in such cases, see 
Rom. xi. 19. (3) The Apostle does not 
either deny or qualify the éeorw, but 
takes up the matter from another point 
of view, viz. the ouupéper. The por is 
spoken in the person of Christians gene- 
rally. ‘ Seepe Paulus prima persona sin- 
gulari eloquitur que vim habent gnomes: 
in hae preesertim epistola, ver. 15, ch. vii. 7, 
vill. 18, x. 23, 29, 30, xiv. 11.” Bengel. 

ovpdéper| are advantageous—in 
the most general sense: distinguished from 
oikodouel, ch. x. 23, where the words again 
occur. Meyer cites from Theodor. Mops., 
—eéreid)) yap ov mayTa ocuudéper, dHAov 
&s ov mao xpnoTéov, GAAG Tots @peEAOUVGL 
pévo.s. GAN otk éyd ef.) Meyer 
thinks that the éy# here has an emphasis, 
as meaning the real I, my moral per- 
sonality. But this can hardly be so: the 
real emphasis is on ov«, and ey corre- 
sponds to yo, expressed more to bring out 
the first person as the sample of Christians 
in general, than for any such formal dis- 
tinction. eEovoracOyjcopar| I will 
not be deprived of my freedom by any 
practice;—i.e. indulge in any practice 
which shall mar this liberty and render it 
no real freedom, making me to be one 
under éfoveta, instead of one exercising it. 
The play on @eor: and efovela cannot 
be given in English. 13,14.) “a 
cibis ad venerem non valet consequentia.” 


IIPO> KOPINOIOTS A. 


\ \ lal > 

TO S€ Gua ov TH 
\ e 7 n , J 14 e be @ \ \ \ / 

Kal 6 KUpLoOS TO THpaTL 6 S€ Beds Kai Tov KUpLoY 


t = Matt. xv. 17. 
vy Rom. iii. 3 reff. 


VE 


> 
"qravta mot” éEecTiv, GAN ovK eyw V €EovctacOncopar bd 
17a * Bpopata 7H ‘KolNa, Kal 7 ‘KotNla Tois 
s 4 (4 be fal XN \ u 7 \ u fal Vv 
Bpdépacw: 6 b& beds Kal “tabTny Kat “ TadTa ¥ KaTap- 


fol 


x / > \ fal / 
Topvela, ANAA TM Kuplo, 


Rey. x. 9,10. 2 Kings xx.10. 2 Chron. 
x ch. v. 1 reff. 


Bengel. The argument is,—meats (of which 
he doubtless had often impressed on them 
that they were adidpopa, whence the abuse) 
are expressly created for the belly, and the 
belly for them, by its organization being 
fitted to assimilate them ; and both these 
are of a transitory nature: in the change to 
the more perfect state, God will do away 
with both. Therefore meats are adidpopa. 
But neither is the body created for forni- 
cation, nor can this transitoriness be predi- 
cated of it : the body is for the Lord, and 
the Lord (in his mediatorial work) for the 
body: and God raised up the Lord, and 
will raise up us (i. e. our bodies): so that 
the body is not perishable, and (resumed 
ver. 18) he that fornicates, sins against his 
own body. 'THEREFORE, fornication is not 
an ad.iapopor. It is very remarkable 
how these verses contain the germ of three 
weighty sections of the Epistle about to 
follow, and doubtless in the Apostle’s mind 
when he wrote them, (1) the relation be- 
tween the sexes: (2) the question of meats 
offered to idols: (3) the doctrine of the 
Resurrection of the Body. See Neander, 
Pfl. u. Leit. p. 401, note 21. 13.] rq 
xowX., scil. éoriv. The belly is their ap- 
pointed receptacle—they, its appointed 
pabulum. Of course even this part of the 
argument must be understood within the 
limits of od mavra ouudépet. 6 82 
Katapy. | viz. at the appearing of 
the Lord: when, ch. xv. 51, 52, we shall 
be changed from a cua Wuxikdy, to be a 
cana mvevmatixdy : not, at death. 
TY Topv.| The body was not made for the 
practice of fornication. The reciprocal sub- 
serviency of the belly and meats is shewn 
by their coextensiveness in duration, and 
perishing together: but when zopvela (and 
even that lawful use which is physically the 
same, but which is not eve contemplated) 
shall have for ever passed away, the body 
shall be subserving ifs real use—that of 
being an instrument for the Lord’s work. 
k. 6 kUp. TO owp.| not, only for 
the body: but for the body; to sanctify 
our bodies by His Spirit, and finally to 
glorify them for Himself, see Rom. viii. 11. 
This final reference must not be ewcluded 


K kat 
TAUTA cee 
ABCDK 
LPw a b 
cdefg 
hklm 
nol7. 
47 


13—16. IIPOS KOPINOIOTS A. 517 


YHyerpev, Kal nuas *% éFeyepet Sia THS Suvdwews AVTOD. ¥ = Matt.x.8. 
> 9 f Pp liad xiv. 


2. xyi. 


? / 4 , a , mn 3 ; 2 

a) 15 aod oldate 6Tt TA CHpaTa ULoV ” WérAN YpLOTOD EoTW 3 FN 19." 
oe oy 5 \ b Va a nd / 3 , z = here only 
a apas OVVY Ta pEAN TOV XPlLFTOVU TOLNTW TOPVHS ie feel 

ase only. g 

' , \ , X 7 c / aig = 
SCD b wédm 3 fun yévorto. 18%) ove oldaTe OTL O ® KOAN@- jun Tie 
def A 6 Id a la] £ 3 . "RK / h Theod. 
Pal MEVOS TT) TOPV) eV TWA EOTLY ; oovTat yap pnow : pags aa 
ino 4, 5 (vi. 13 reff.). c = Matt. xxi. 21. Johnii. 16. xi. 39. xx.1. Eph. iv, 31. d = Matt. 
7.47 iv.19. John vi. 15 al. Gen. xlv. 9. e Matt. xxi. 31,32. Luke xv. 30al. Gen. xxxiv. 31. 


f Rom. iii. 4 reff. 


Rom. iv. 3. ix. 17. 1 Tim. vy. 18.) 


14, elz vuas (error? 


g Acts v. 13 reff. see Matt. xix. 5. 


h ellips., Heb. viii. 5. ch. xv. 27. (see 


Mey thinks, perhaps from Rom viii. 11), with arm: txt 
ABCDKLPN rel vss Polye Iren-int gr-lat-ff. 


efeyerper AD!: efeyerped P m: 


etnyetpev B 672: suscitavit am harl(but qu, for -bié ?) : txt (see note) CD3 K(esil) LX rel 
vulg-ed syrr copt eth Meth Ath-mss Chr Thdrt Iren-int Archel Tert,, cuveteyepe: 47. 


15. ins 7 bef ove F Meth. 
P 472, n apa F Orig Meth Tert. 


neov AX? 238. 
ucdn bef wopyns DF latt Iren-int Cypr Lucif. 


om cot F. for apas, apa 


16. om 7 DKL rel syr Mcion-e Dial Thdrt-ms Damase Thl Tert: ins ABCFPR al h 


m 17 vss Clem Orig Meth Chr (Ee Cypr Lucif. 


om gynow A Epiph Cypr Andr 


(Tert): ins BCDFKLNX rel-latt Dial Mcion-e Chr Thdrt Lucif. (P ?) 


here, though it is not the principal thought: 
—rather, the redemption of the body from 
sin, and making it into a member of Him- 
self by the Spirit. 14.] So far from 
the case of the Lord and the body answer- 
ing to the other, God raised up the Lord 
(Rom. viii. 11, al. fr.), and will raise up 
us too by His power. I cannot adopt 
here the reading (étfyerpev), or the view, 
of Meyer. He holds, that all reference to 
the resurrection, as a thing future, is out 
of place: that the Apostle refers to the 
virtual and proleptic resurrection which 
has already taken place in the case of 
the believer, as Eph. ii. 6; Col. ii. 12,— 
and thinks that the reading efeyepe? has 
arisen from not seeing this. But how 
unnatural will the construction thus be— 
6 de Beds Kal Toy KUpioy Fryepev, Kal Nuas 
efnyetpev, Sia T. Suv. avTov! I can con- 
ceive no account of such a sentence, except 
that some emphasis is meant to be laid on 
the distinction between jyeipev and e&jyer- 
pev, which idea (maintained by Bengel, al.) 
Meyer himself very properly repudiates : 
see below. The future corresponds to 
katapynoe, and is used with 7uas,—con- 
trary to the usual practice of Paul, who 
expected to be alive at the mapovala,— 
as the expression, in the first person, of 
the truth of the future resurrection, not 
destruction of the body. wyespev, viz. éx 
vexpav, Acts iii. 15; Rom. iv. 24, and 
passim: éfeyepet, viz. ée vexpav. So that 
there is no real difference between the two 
words. 15.] Resumption of 7d cdua 
7G kuplo x. 6 Kipios TS THuatt. The two 
are so intimately connected, that the Lord 
is a mystical Body, of which our bodies, 
parts of ourselves in our perfect organiza- 
tion, are members. This Christian axiom 
is introduced as before (reff.) by od« ofdaTe 


br. Having then (ody, ‘ concesso,’ that 
my body is a member = my members are 
members of Christ) alienated (&pas is not 
merely pleonastic, ‘Shall I take .... and 
make them....,’ a8 E. V. Thisis shewn 
by its position first in the sentence) the 
members of Christ (i.e. my own members) 
shall I make them an harlot’s members? 
The expression mépyns méAn is put as 
coarsely and startlingly as possible, with 
the emphasis on wépv7s. Tojow may 
also be the aor. subj., ‘must I, have I 
any right to, make them?’ But py yé- 
vo.ro answers better to the future. 

16.] Explanation and justification of the 
expression wépyns “éAn. 7, as De Wette 
well, “ Do you think the expression rorqow 
mépv. “éAn too strong ?” KOAA. 
“iblider Ausdruc fir Gefdledtsverein= 
igung.” De Wette. TH Topvq | with 
a harlot, generic: or which in fact amounts 
to the same, with ‘ the harlot,’ presupposed 
in the hypothesis. ev copa, viz. ‘with 
her” ‘The full construction would be ér: 
6 KOAA. TH Wop. Kad 4 Wop. ev a. ciow, but 
he is here bringing out the criminality of 


‘the fornicator, and leaves the other out of 


view. The citation is spoken of mar- 
riage; but here as above (see on ver. 13) 
he is treating merely of the physical act, 
which is the same in both cases. odyotv, 
viz. Gop, Who is the speaker in the Scrip- 
tures: so in citing the same words, our 
Lord gives them to 6 roiqoas (aitovs) 
am apxis, Matt. xix. 5. They were spoken 
by the mouth of Adam, but prophetically, 
divino affiatu. To render pnow imper- 
sonal, ‘it says,’ ‘heift e6,’ though justi- 
fied by classical usage, see Winer, edn. 6, 
§ 58. 9, would, as Meyer remarks, be alto- 
gether without precedent in the citations 
of Paul. The words ot Svo are not in the 


518 IIPOS KOPINOIOTS A. VI. 17—20. 
id \ 

iGrr.iit of dbo leis cdpka pilav’ 17 o dé 8 KoAA@pevos TO J KUpi@ ABCDE 
= Luke iii, 5. Sy hres “ P es pe n KLPR: 

Guns, €y mvedpa é€otw. 18 * hevyere thv ‘opvetayv. Tay dede: 

j—=(Rom- xu. 54 KLIN / a0 D2 toe a , ghkl 
9) Deut.x. ™a@wapTnua 0 é€av “rroimon avOpwrros, °éxTOS TOU ToMa- mno 
rick etal P. > 5 c BY: p / q > \ 18 a q c 17. 47 

AKingsxui Tog got: 6 O€ Paropvevwy eis TO iO1ov copa “apap- 

x Fpaut ont. rdver. 19% *ovK oldate OTL TO TOua Kuav *vaos TOU 
Clune Leys aise ah ws. ron el 3 gt she 2--§ coo, Ra 
} Tim. vi év vp aylov mvevpatos éotw, Sov eyeTe amo Oeod, Kat 
Sir. xxi. 2. rn a / 

Leh v tre ovK €oTe ‘éavTav , 7 Upyopac@nte yap ‘Tysts. ~ doka- 

m ark iii. 28, ‘ Q in a F 5 
32. Rom gate * 61) TOV Oeov ev TH TWOpaTL UAV. 


lyiii. 1. 


n = 2Cor. xi. 7 reff. o = 2 Cor. xii. 2(3v.r.J$. (Acts xxvi. 22. ch. xv. 27 al. 3 Kings iv. 23.) 


pch. x. 8 bis only in Epp. Rev. ii. 14, 20. xvii. 2. xviii. 3,9 only. Ps. Ixxii. 27. q Matt. xviii. 15. Luke 
xy. 18, 21. ch. vill. 12. Gen. xx. 6,9. Xen. Hell. i.7. 20. r ch. iii. 16 reff. s attr., Acts 
i. 1 reff. t gen., ch. i. 12. iii. 23. Rom. xiv. 8. : u=ch, vii. 23. 2 Pet. ii.1. Rey. 
v. 9. xiv. 3, 4. v Acts xix. 19 reff. w Rom. i, 21 reff. x = Luke ii. 15. Acts 


xiii. 2, xv. 36. Gen. xviii. 4. 


18. for devy., puyere F. for cay, av D1 17. 106. 

19. for to cwua, Ta cwpata (corrn to suit vuwy) A-corr! Ledfgmn17 syr copt 
arm Orig, Meth Did Jer Ambrst Aug Vig: membra vestra vulg Ambr Pel Fulg Bede: 
txt Al(appy) BCDFKPRX rel Syr Chr (e Orig-int Tert. mvevpatos bef ayiov B 
vulg lat-ff. ins Tov bef @eov PR?. for eavt., avtwy XN}. 

20. [for dofacare dn, glorificate et portate vulg G-lat Cypr; gl. et tollite spec Tert, 
dotacate 5n apa Chr-txt(Sav and Matth’s ms,), dofacare dy apare Chr-txt(Montf and 
Matth’s ms,), dof. 7. 0. Tourestw apate 7. 0. Chr-txt(ms,)—see Griesb, who adds 
“Ceterum in comm istud gpare non attingit, preter hom. 4. in 1 Tim. hee habet 
Botdcwuev By Toy Oedy, Upwuev Thy Oedy ev TE Gwmart” Ke.—om fy N1(ins N-corr?). | 

ree at end adds kat ev Tw MvEevmaTL vMwY aTiva eat. TOV Deov (insd appy with 
a view to make the exhortation complete. An ecclesiastical portion began at Soéacare), 
with C3D2-3KLP rel syrr Chr Thdrt, Thl @e: om ABC!D!IFN 17 latt copt wth Orig 


Meth(in Epiph) Did Cyr Max Damase Iren-int Tert Cypr Lucif. 


Heb., but in the LXX and the Samaritan 
Pentateuch, and are found in the Rabbi- 
nical citations of the passage. See note on 
Matt. xix. 5. 17.| Union to God, 
His service, and His ways, is often ex- 
pressed by this word («oAA.) in the LXX 
(reff.): but here that inner union with 
Christ in spirit is meant, which is the nor- 
mal state of every believer, and of which 
it may be said that he & mv. éorw with 
Christ. See John xvii. 21, and the parable 
of John xy.1—7. Meyer rightly remarks, 
that the mystical marriage between Christ 
and His Church must not (as Olsh. from 
Eph. v. 23 ff.) be pressed here, as the 
relations of the compared are not corre= 
spondent. Still, however, the inner verity 
of that mystical relation is the ground of 
both passages. 18—20.| Direct pro- 
hibition of fornication, and its grounds. 

18.| devyete might be followed by 
ovv, but is more forcible in this discon- 
nected form. mav apapt.| The asser- 
tion, which has surprised many of the 
Commentators, is nevertheless strictly 
true. Drunkenness and gluttony, e. g. are 
sins done im and by the body, and are 
sins by abuse of the body,—but they 
are still éxtds tod cduaros—introduced 
from without, sinful not in their act, 
but in their effect, which effect it is each 


man’s duty to foresee and avoid. But 
fornication is the alienating that body 
which is the Lord’s, and making it a 
harlot’s body—it is sin against a man’s 
own body, in its very nature,—against the 
verity and nature of his body; not an 
effect on the body from participation of 
things without, but a contradiction of the 
truth of the body, wrought within itself. 
When man and wife are one in the Lord, 
—united by His ordinance,—no such 
alienation of the body takes place, and con- 
sequently no sin. 19.| Justification 
of the eis 7d 16. g@u. auapr. above,—and 
this by an amplification of the above céua 
T®@ kuplw, and ev mvedud éorw. Your body 
(i.e. the body of each man among you, 
but put singular, to keep, as in ch. iii. 16, 
the unity of the idea of God’s temple, 
or perhaps because the body in its attri- 
butes is in question here) is the temple 
of (possessed by, as His residence: the 
temple, not a temple, see note on ch. iii. 
16) the Holy Spirit who is in you (re- 
miniscence of the reality of His indwell- 
ing), whom ye have from God (reminis- 
cence, whose Spirit He is, and so prepara- 
tion for the following inference), and are 
not your own (so that ye have no right to 
alienate your body, not being yours). 

20.] Proof, that ye are not your own. 


Wid, I. 


IIPOS KOPINOIOTS A. 519 


VII. |! Ilept dé Yoav éypdwate, * Kadov * avOparr@ ¥xttr. Rom. 


z= Rom. xiv. 21 reff. vy. 8, 26. 


xy. 18 reff, 
a = Matt. xix. 5 (from Gen. ii. 24), 10. 


Cua. VIL. 1. rec aft eypaware ins wo, with ADF KLP rel syrr copt Orig Meth Chr 
Thdrt Jer Ambrst, Aug: om BCX 17 am fuld' Tert,. 


The possession of your body as His temple, 
by the Holy Ghost, is a presumptive proof 
that ye are not; but there is also a proof 
in matter of fact: For ye were bought 
(not, as E. V. are bought, which destroys 
the historic reference) with a price (viz. 
the blood of Christ, see 1 Pet. i. 18, 19; 
Matt. xx. 28; Gal. iii. 18,—not as Vulg. 
pretio magno: tiujs merely recalls the 
fact here, that a price was paid and so the 
purchase completed). This buying is here 
mentioned mainly with reference to the 
right of possession, which Christ has 
thereby acquired in us. In other places it 
is alleged as a freeing from other services : 
e.g. that of sin (Rom. vi. 17, 18), of the 
law and its curse (Gal, iii.), of Satan (Col. 
i. 13). Sofac. 5). . . .| Glorify 
then (5%, not exactly an inference from the 
foregoing, but = ‘eja,’ ‘agedum,’ tending 
to enforce and intensify the command: 
“as a cheering or hortatory expression,” 
Stanley. So Od. v. 17, rérAabhi 5h, 
Kpadin; see Hartung, Partikellehre, i. 
284 f.) God (i.e. not praise God, but 
glorify Him by your acts) in your body 
(not, by means of your body, but im 
your body, as the temple of God; see 
John xiii. 32). 

Cuap. VII. 1—40.] Repity To THEIR 
ENQUIRIES RESPECTING MARRIAGE; BY 
WHICH OCCASION IS GIVEN FOR VARIOUS 
COLLATERAL INSTRUCTIONS AND COM- 
MANDS. Inorder to the right understand- 
ing of this chapter, it will be well to re- 
member, that the enquiries in the letter of 
the Corinthians appear to have been made 
in disparagement of marriage, and to have 
brought into doubt whether it were not 
better to avoid it where uncontracted, and 
break it off where contracted, or this last 
at all events where one of the parties was 
an unbeliever. These questions he an- 
swers, vv. 1—16: and puts on their true 
grounds, vv. 17—24. They appear also to 
have asked respecting virgins, what was 
their duty and that of their parents, as to 
their contracting marriage. This he dis- 
cusses in its various aspects of duty and 
Christian expediency, vv. 25—38. Then 
he concludes with an answer and advice, 
respecting the liberty of a woman to marry 
after the death of her husband. The 
whole is written under the strong impres- 
sion (see on this, notes, Acts ii. 20; Rom. 
xiii. 11, and 2 Cor. v.: and Prolegg. to 
Vol. III. ch. v. § iv. 5—10) of the near 


approach of the end of this state of things 
(vy. 29—31), and as advising them under 
circumstances in which persecution, and 
family division for the Gospel’s sake, might 
at any time break up the relations of life. 
The precepts therefore and recommenda- 
tions contained in the chapter are to be 
weighed, as those in ch. viii. al., with re- 
ference to change of circumstances; and 
the meaning of God’s Spirit in them with 
respect to the subsequent ages of the 
Church, to be sought by careful com- 
parison and inference, not rashly assumed 
and misapplied. I may also premise, 
that in hardly any portion of the Epistles 
has the hand of correctors and interpo- 
lators of the text been busier, than here. 
The absence of all ascetic tendency from 
the Apostle’s advice, on the point where as- 
ceticism was busiest and most mischievous, 
was too strong a testimony against it, to 
be left in its original clearness. In conse- 
quence, the textual critic finds himself in 
this chapter sometimes much perplexed be- 
tween different readings, and in danger of 
on the one hand adopting, on overwhelm- 
ing manuscript authority, corrections of 
the early ascetics,—and on the other ex- 
cluding, from a too cautious retention of 
the rec. text, the genuine but less strongly 
attested simplicity of the original. 
1, 2.] Concession of the expediency (where 
possible) of celibacy, but assertion of the 
practical necessity of marriage, as a re- 
medy against fornication. Le ROE; 
transitional, passing on to another subject. 
kahov ....]| not, morally good: 
for in ver. 28 expressly not sin, but inex- 
pediency, is the reason for not marrying: 
nor good in the sense of bmepéxov, as 
Jerome, adv. Jovin. i. 7, vol. ii. p. 246, 
‘si bonum est mulierem non tangere, 
malum ergo est tangere:’ but expedient, 
generally: ‘more for a man’s best inte- 
rests under present circumstances :’ Ang}. 
‘it is the best way,’ in the colloquial 
sense: so also throughout the chapter: 
see the word qualified ver. 26, kadbv . . 
Sia Thy éveaotaocav avayKny. av- 
Opome | though of necessity by what fol- 
lows, the man only is intended, yet 
avOpémqw does not here or in reff. = avdpl, 
but as Meyer remarks, regards the man 
not merely in his serval but in his human 
capacity. Thus in its deeper reference, 1t 
would embrace the other sex also. 
darreo Oat | so in reff. ; and in Latin tangere, 


520 IIPO> KOPINOIOTS A. VI 


b=Gen.xx.6. yuvaikos pn > amrrecOar 2 Sia Sé Tas ° ropvelas ExacTos 


Prov. vi. 29. 


ABCI 
KLPs 


cchv-lref py €auTOD yuvaika eYéT@, Kal ExaoTH TOV loLloy avopa eds 
abstr. plur., x a e g hk 
2 Cor. xii. 20. 9 oP 3 a \ © Peas \ a2 \ e2 / 
Gavia, €xeT@. 8 7H yuvarxt 6 avnp Thy “ operday amrodioT@, ™M) 
Ta ee c / \ \ ¢ n / ¢ \ aA 9) 
Winer,ein. fOuolms £6€ fxal 4 yuri) TH avdpi. *% Yyuvn Tod tdlov 
fat. ‘xviii , © / 
oma, §=«a@watos ovK § eEovcraber, AANA 6 avyp: fopolws dé f Kat 


xiii. 7 only t. 


c Biot a Sa , > g > / > \ 2 , 

(mua, Bom. 6 GYNP TOV LOlov TwLATOS OUK eEovaraler, GAAa 7) YyuVN). 
1vV. 4.) coe A . Fy g & 

e Rom. xii, 5 wn 2 aqroatepette AAANNOUS, ' ef un i Te av * €x! cumpw@vov 

reff.) m \ m t A n , a Oo A Y , 

fhere bis. Matt. ™ 7pOS ™ KaLpOV, Wa ™ aYOAGONTE TH ° Tposevyh Kal TadLW 


7. (xii. 17 
xxvii. 41 

(|| Mk. v.r.). Luke v.10. x.32. James ii. 25 only. see Rom. i. 27. 
reff.) Exod. xxi. 10. i Luke ix. 13. 2 Cor. xiii. 5 only. k = John iii. 34. 2 Cor. viii. 13. ix. 7. 

lhere only. Eccl. vii. 14 AN(-vws B, -vety C) only. (-vety, Acts v. 9. -vnoes. 2 Cor. vi. 15.) m Luke 

viii. 13 (1 Thess. ii. 17) only. Wisd, iv. 4. n Matt. xii. 44 (|| L. v. r.) only. Exod. vy. 8,17 bis. Ps. xly. 10 

o absol., Rom, xii. 12. ‘ 


g ch. vi. 12 reff. h = here only. (ch. vi.7,8 


only. 


2. re C. tT Hv mopveav F yulg syrr Orig-int Tert Cypr. 
7. td. avd. ex. (homeotel) F 48. 114-77 Tert. 

3. om 6 F(not G). rec (for ope:Anv) opetAomerny evvo.ay (see note), with KL rel 
syrr Thdrt Thl Ee: txt ABCDFPN! 17 latt copt 2th arm Clem, Orig, Meth Chr, Tert 
Cypr. amobdideTw A. om Se A 55 Syr copt arm Orig, Chr-mss Cypr Jer,. 

4, [addAa(twice), so ABCR (2nd, D! 17). ] 

5. om ay B Orig. rec cxoAatnre, with KL rel Meth Chr, Thdrt : txt ABCDFPX 
Orig, Dion Chratiq- rec ins Tn vnorera Kat bef rn mposevxn (see note), with KLX3 


See examplesin «k. exérw éxdotn T. 15. avop. With 


om Kal €kaoT. 


attingere, virgo intacta. 


Wetst. This expression is obviously here 
used in the widest sense, without pre- 
sent regard to the difference between the 
lawful and unlawful use of the woman. 
The idea that the assertion applies to ab- 
stinence from intercourse in the already 
married (see again below), is altogether a 
mistake. 2.| The former course is 
expedient—would avoid much trouble ‘in 
the flesh: but as a general rule it may 
not be, seeing that for a more weighty 
reason the contrary course is to be recom- 
mended. But on account of fornications 
(the many instances of fornication current. 
The plur. of an abstract noun implies repe- 
tition, or varieties of the occurrence: so 
Herod. vii. 158, duty peydAa wpeAla Te 
k. emaupéoes yeydvact: iii. 40, euol de 
ai cal peydAa evtvxlat ovK apéoKovot, 
see reff., and Kiihner, Gramm. ii. 28 
[§ 408, y]) let each man possess his 
own wife, and let each woman possess 
her own husband. The éxérw is (1) not 
concessive, but imperative; not ‘habere 
liceat, but ‘habeto” So the other ex- 
pressions, yauynodtwoay ver. 9, meveTw 
ver. 11, &e. (2) not here in the sense 
of ‘utatur, eique commisceatur, as Estius, 
al., which does not come into considera- 
tion till the next verse. (3) not emphatic, 
let each retain, according to the mistaken 
idea mentioned on ver. 1, that he is speak- 
ing to the married, who though they are 
not to cohabit are yet to remain together. 

Had either of the two latter senses 
been meant, the sentence would rather 
have stood éxérw &k. 7. Eavt. yuvaika, 


regard to the assertion of Riickert, that 
the Apostle here gives a very low estimate 
of marriage, as solely a remedy against 
fornication, the true answer is, that Paul 
does not either here, or in this chapter at 
all, give any estémate of marriage in the 
abstract. His estimate, when he does, is 
to be found Eph. v. 25—32. 

3, 4.| The duty of cohabitation incumbent 
on the married. This point was in all pro- 
bability raised in the letter of the Corin- 
thians. The Apostle’s command is a legiti- 
mate following out of 6:4 ras mopvelas 
above. 3. thy ddedyy]| ‘debitum 
tori. The rec. was perhaps an euphemism 
(we have also the varieties, ope:Aouevny 
tiuyv, Chrysostom once: 6. timhy kal 
evvoiay in the ms. 40) for the same thing. 
Meyer will not concede this, but thinks it 
arose from a mistaken interpretation of 
open as meaning merely ‘ benevolentia : 
thinking that not etvora, but ¢:Adrns would 
be the word in the other case. But some 
of the later examples in Wetst. seem to 
bear out this meaning of efvoia. 

4.) The axiom is introduced without a ydp, 
as frequently. Tov idiov .... ovK é&- 
ovoraler | ‘sui,cum potestatem non habet, 
elegans facit paradoxon.’ Bengel. The 
ground of this being another's while they 
remain their own, is to be found in the 
oneness of body, in which the marriage 
state places them. 5.] amrootepeite 
is applied by Meyer to trys e&ovclas,— 
by Billroth, al., to rs épe:Ajs ; De Wette 
suggests Tov owuaros, but prefers, and 
rightly, leaving its reference indefinite, 


2—7. 


IIPOS KOPINOIOTS A. 


521 


lal ¢ la] \ +s 
Pd él TO avTO? ATE, Wa pi) * Teipaty buds 0 caTtavas § doa P Actsii- 1, 4. 


Thy takpaciay Umar. 
, 
ov Kat ‘ émitayny. 


a ¢ \ > a A ¢ oe x ef 
Geod, 0 pev * oUTwS, 0 5é * ob Tw. 


t Matt. xxiii. 25 only+. Jos. Antt. viii. 7.5. Xen. Mem. iv. 5,6. ( T™S; 2 Tim. iii. 3. 
i vy Rom. xvi. 26 reff. y 


only. Sir. iii. 13 only. 
x see ch. vi. 13. 


q Luke xvii. 
35. Acts i. 


6 a Se rd Nu , 35. 
TOUTO O€ Aéyw KATA YOUYYVO"MNV, 15. ii.47. ch. 
f \ 4 ? / s oe 
7 OéXo S€ mavtas avOpe7rovs eivar , 2 
(3 \ > , J AS iva 16 v w / 3 
@s Kal éwavTor' adda ExaaTos idvoy exer “ ydpiopa éK 


xi. 20. xiv. 


De 
r Matt. iv. 1, 3. 
h. x. 13. 
James i, 13. 
3 Kings x, 1. 
s = Rom. xiv. 
15 reff. 
u here 


v = here only. (Rom, i. 11 reff.) 


rel syrr goth Chr Thdrt Cyr,;: om ABCDFPN! 17 latt copt 2th arm Clem Orig, Dion 


Meth Cypr. 


rec (for nTe) suvepxeabe (gloss: see note), with ac h Meth Chr 


Thdrt, Thl: cuvepxnoGe KLP rel Thdrt,: yiweobe Tat Clem: revertimini vulg lat-ff : 


txt ABCDFN 17 xth Orig Dion Cyr Damasc Aug(estotesepe). 


(in Clem) Meth. 


om vuwy B Tat 


7. rec yap (gloss, substituted for de, as more appropriate), with BD?3K LPN3 rel syrr 
Chr Thdrt, Thl Ge: txt ACD!FN! d 17 am(with demid fuld) copt goth Orig Chr, Cyr 


Damasc lat-ff. 


[aAAa, so BCD! 17. | 


rec xapioua bef exer, with KL rel 


syrr goth arm Ephr Chr Thdrt lat-ff: txt ABDFX m 17 am(with demid tol) Clem 


Orig Cyr Cypr Jer, C(appy) has exe: bef exaoros. 


ins tov bef @cov DF c Thdrt,. 


rec és (twice), with KLN% rel Orig Chr Thdrt: txt ABCDFPN! 17 Clem Cyr. 


to be supplied in the reader’s mind. 
el py tt, unless perchance (reff.). 
av| “The verb is sometimes omitted after 
this particle, but always so that it can be 
supplied from a foregoing clause. So Eur. 
Alcest. 181, c& 3 &AAN yuvh KexThoera, 
céppwv mev ovK by wadAdAov, ebtuxhs F 
tows.” Hartung, Partikellehre, ii. 330. 
éx, according to: the mutual agreement 
being the ground, and the measure, of the 
act. tva ox.] in order that ye may 
have undisturbed leisure for prayer. The 
pres. sxoAd(nre of the rec. would refer to 
the general habit, and would thus make 
Th Tpos., ‘your ordinary prayers, —being 
thus inconsistent with the direction given 
mpos kaipdv: the aorist expresses this tem- 
porary purpose, and shews that the prayer 
meant is not ordinary but extraordinary, 
—seasons of urgent supplication. 
Both the alteration to the present and the 
addition of 77 vnorela Kai, shew how such 
passages as this have been tampered with 
by the ascetics: see also Mark ix. 29. 
Are,—not ocvvépxnode as it has been 
amended (nor -eo@e as it has been re- 
amended), because elva: ém) 7d aid in 
this sense is the normal state of the 
married. For the expression see reff. 
The subjune. still depends on tva—the 
aim of the temporary separation is not that 
you may keep apart, but for a certain end, 
and then that you may be united again. 
iva py twetp.| Purpose of the re-union 
stated, by that which might happen did it 
not take place. meipd(m now is present, 
not aor., as betokening the danger of a 
state of abstinence if continued. 
axpacia here, not that from &K«paros 
(~~ ),—which signifies a bad mixture, as 
uixp. aépos, ‘insalubrity. of the air: but 
that from axparhs (“~~~ ),—incontinence ; 


see reff. Sia 7. ap. dp., on account 
of your incontinence,—but hardly, as 
Meyer seems to think, with allusion tio the 
proverbial fault of the Corinthians in this 
particular, which would be more definitely 
expressed, were it intended. The Sudv is 
necessary to carry out the form of the sen- 
tence, corresponding to buas above. 

6.] But this I say by way of allowance 
(for you), not by way of command. 

tovrto refers, not to ver. 2, as Beza, Grot., 
and De Wette, because the precept there 
given depends on a reason also given, 
dia Tas wopvelas, from the nature of which 
reason it must be kar’ émitayhv: nor to the 
whole since ver. 2, as Billroth, Riickert, 
al.,—because the precept in ver. 3 de- 
pends on the general truth in ver. 4, and 
is also a command: nor to mpds kapdr, 
as Theophyl. :—nor as the ascetics, Orig., 
Tert., Jerome, Estius (also Calvin), to 
éml rd avtd Are, because both these are 
but subordinate members of the preceding 
sentence :—still less to what follows, as 
Rosenm., al.:—but, as the context (ver. 
7) shews, to the whole recommendation 
given in ver. 5. This recommendation 
all depended on the possibility of their 
being tempted by incontinence: he gives 
it not then as a command in all cases, 
but as an allowance for those to whom 
he was writing, whom he knew, and as- 
sumes, to be thus tempted. ‘The mean- 
ing ‘by permission,’ KE. V., is ambiguous, 
appearing as if it meant by permission 
of the Lord (to say it): that given by 
Hammond, al., xara thy éuhy yvduny, is 
philologically inadmissible. 7.) I 
rather (5¢) wish that all men were as 
I myself also am (kai comparandi, so 
Xen. Anab. ii. 1. 22, cal qutv tavTa Sonet 
dep kal BaciAe?. See Hartung, Partikell. 


522 


y vv. ll, 32, 
34 only tT. 

z Luke iv. 25. 
Acts ix. 39 
al. 2 Kings 
xiv. 5. 

a = ver. 1. 

b Matt. xxvi. 
42. Rom. 
Vili. 9.” 

ce ch. ix. 25 
only. Gen. 


© qupova bat. 


2 Pet. ii. 21. (ver. 38. ch. xi. 17. 
2 Pet. iii. 12. Rey. i. 15. iii. 18) only. 
Judg. iy. 11. 


iu. 17. 
vi. 16. 
g Mart. xix. 6. 


8. ins ott bef kadoy A. 


IIPO> KOPINOIOTS A. 


VIL 


d = Phil. i. 23. 1 Pet. 
e = here (2 Cor. xi. 29. Eph. 


Ps. xi. 6.) f Acts xvi. 18 reff. 


rec aft avtos ins ect, with D?3K(om avr.) L rel 


syr goth Thdrt Thl @c: om ABCD!FPN 17 Syr copt Orig Meth Cyr Epiph Chr 


Damase. for cay, av B. 
kat eyw DF Meth: eywa. 
9. for ovk eykp., ov kparevovta F, 
am 17. 
Orig Damasc. 
10. [ adda, so AB C(appy) D'X. | 
BCKLPX rel Clem Chr Thdrt Thi Cc. 


i. 126)—viz., ev éyxparela, which Chrys. 
seems to have read in the text; see below 
on ver. 8. GAG ekactos ... said 
in the most general way, as a milder ex- 
pression of ‘all have not the gift of con- 
tinence.’ oUtTws.... ovTws| both 
are said generally, not one in the way in 
which I have it (of continence), another 7a 
the way of marrying (i.e. though he have 
not this, and be therefore better married, 
yet has some other), which should be éxei- 
yws,—but, one thus, and another thus,— 
i.e. ‘one in one way, another in another.’ 
8, 9.| Advice to the unmarried, 
that it is best so to. remain, but better to 
marry than be inflamed with lust. 
8. A€yw S€] taking up the former Aéya, 
ver. 6, and bringing this advice under the 
same category as ver. 7, viz. his own wish 
that all were as himself. The stress is on 
Aéyw, not on Tots ay. K. Tats x., which 
would in that case be placed first, as rots 
yeyaunkdow below. Tos aydapots, 
the unmarried, of both sexes: not as 
usually interpreted, widowers, or unmar- 
vied males alone: this is shewn by the 
contrasted term yeyaunkéoww, which em- 
braces (see vv. 10, 11) both sexes. Kal 
Tats xypats may be added as singling out 
widows especially ;—or more probably, 
because Tots a@yauo1s would naturally be 
taken as those who never were married, 
and thus widows would not be understood 
to be included. Kaldy, see on ver. 1, 
it is good for them, i. e. ‘their best way.’ 
@s Kayo| i.e. Uyauos. This 
brings the Apostle’s own circumstances 
more clearly before us than ver. 7, which 
might be misunderstood: and there can be 
little doubt from this, that he never was 
married. Grot. says, “ex h. 1. non im- 
probabiliter colligitur, Paulo fuisse uxorem, 
guod et Clemens Alex. putat, sed cum hae 


vyouertwoay F Chr-ed,. 
om eat D!F ¢ Syr copt Orig Meth. 


ins ouvtws bef wewwo C latt Meth Aug; bef ws m. 


kperttov BDN 
vyomwew AC1N! 17 Clem, 


xwpileoba: ADF Orig Epiph Bas Cas: txt 


secriberentur, mortuam.’ But this rests 
on the mistaken interpretation of ayduois 
noticed above. The passage of Clem. Alex. 
(Strom. iii. 53, p. 535 P., alluded to in 
Euseb. iii. 30) is grounded on Paul’s having 
in a certain epistle addressed thy avrov 
ciuyov, hv ov meprexdurce, 5a Td Tijs 
imnpecias evotadés. But the words ovv- 
(vye yujore, Phil. iv. 3, certainly have no 
reference to a wife: see note there. 

9.] but if they are incontinent .. . ovd« 
must be joined not with e, which would 
require uy, but with the verb. So reff. 
and Soph. Aj. 1131, ei rods Oavdvtas ovK 
eGs Odrrew mapwy, ‘vetas. See other 
examples in Hartung, Partikellehre, ii. 
122 f. eykparevw is said by Lobeck, ad 
Phryn. p. 44, not to be found except in 
the LXXand N.T. But both Phrynichus 
and Thom. Mag. say axparevecOat mn- 
daud@s cimns, GAAG ovK eyKpatevecOa. See 
in Wetst. yapnodt.| Lobeck, in 
Phrynichus, p. 742, says, “ post €ynua (ut 
éynpa) eyduncoa invaluit quod non solum 
in N. T. libris, ut quidam putaverunt, sed 
etiam in ipsa Grecia reperitur, auctore, 
ut videtur, Menandro: éydunoev hy eBov- 
Aduny eyo, nihil impediente pedum mo- 
dulatione quominus usitato uteretur aoris- 
to.” amrupovaGat| “ melius nuberent 
quam urerentur, id est, quam occulta flam- 
ma concupiscentiz in ipsa conscientia vas- 
tarentur.” Aug. de sancta Virginitate, 34, 
vol. vi. p. 415. 10, 11.] Prohibition of 
separation after marriage ; or in case of 
separation, of another marriage. These 
yeyapnkétes, as the &yauo. and yxipa 
above, are all Christians. The case of 
mixed marriages he treats ver. 12 ff. 
They are those already married. 

10. oik éyo, GAA 6 KUptos| Ordinarily, 
the Apostle (¢y#) writes, commands, gives 
his advice, under conscious inspiration of 


8 Aéyw S€ tots Ydydpou Kat rais * yipais, * Kadov ABC 
avtois é€ay pelvwow ws Kayd. 9 et & »ovdK © éyKpaTtev- Pe 
ovTal, YaunoaTwoav. “Kpéiccoy yap eoTW YyauhoaL 
10 rois 8€ yeyaunxoow ‘trapayyéAXw ovK 
eyo, GNAA O KUpLOS, yUVaiKa aro avdpos pur) ® ywpisOjvar. 
xliii.31. 1 Kings xiii.12 only. (-mjs, Tit.i.8. ~reva, Acts xxiv. 25.) 


Heb. i. 4 all2.) Prov. iii. 14. 
(2 Mace. iv. 38. 


mn 
1723 


8—13, 


IIPOS KOPINOIOTS A. 


523 


vl X \ a 
U €av dé Kab & ywpicO}, pevérw » wyapos 7H TH avdpr PX, 10 


A Po ~ reff. 

‘kataddaynto Kal avdpa yuvaica pr * adrévar, © Toi k ~ here sce 
\ a , Sher F > ¢ / ” 2 ‘ re dt, ~7 

d€ Routois NEyo Eyw, OVX O KUpLOS, Eb Tis adEAhos {REX ™ 


Jos. 


h. vi. 6 reff. 


na lj Yi a a 1 
yuvaica exer \atiotov, ™ Kal “attn ° cvvevdokel © oiKeiy m= 2 ioun 2. 


> a 
Ipet avtov, wn *adiéto avtyy: 13 Kal yuri *Hris exer ,2 


Luke xvii. 


n Acts ix. 20 


ov @ lal Lal ff. 
av0pa \amictov, ™ Kai ™obtos ° cuvevdoxel 4 oiKeiv 4 pet’ oan 


bis (Luke xi. 48. 
p Rom. vii. 17 reff. 
x. 41 reff. 


Acts viii. 1. xxii. 20. 
q = here bis only f. 


11. pevew ayamov, and katadAaynvar F latt goth lat-ff. 


Rom. i. 32) only +. 
(Gen. xxvii. 44.) Soph. Cid. Tyr. 990. 


constr., here 
2 Macc. xi. 24, 35 only.) 
T= Acts 


(1 Mace. i. 57. 


ins 161 bef avdpi P. 


12. rec eyw bef Acyw, with DFKL rel latt syr goth Orig, Chr Thdrt Iren-int Ambr 
Aug: txt ABCPN m 17 Syr copt «th Clem Orig,. 


13. for nT1s, ec tts D!FPX b! h k latt Chr(mot ms,) Thdrt, Thl-mss, lat-ff. 


rec 


(for ovros) avtos, with D°KUL rel syrr arm Chr Thdrt Thl Gc: txt ABCD!FPX m latt 


copt goth Chr, Cyr Aug. (17 def.) 


the Holy Spirit of God. See ver. 40. He 
claims expressly, ch. xiv. 37, that the things 
& ypadw suiv should be recognized as 
kuptov [é€vtoA7 |]. But here he is about to 
give them a command resting, not merely 
on inspired apostolic authority, great and 
undoubted as that was, but on that of THE 
Lord HIMSELF. So that all supposed dis- 
tinction between the Apostle’s own writing 
of himself and of the Lord, is quite irre- 
levant. He xever wrote of himself, being 
a vessel of the Holy Ghost, who ever spoke 
by him to the church. The distinction 
between that which is imperative, and that 
which is optional, that which is more and 
that which is less weighty in his writings, 
is to be made by the cautious and believing 
Christian, from a wise appreciation of the 
subject-matter, and of the circumstances 
under which it was written. ALL is the 
outpouring of the Spirit, but not all for 
ali time, nor all on the primary truths of 
the faith. Not I, but the Lord, viz. in 
ref. Matt. See also Mark x. 12, where the 
woman’s part is brought out. That z¢ oc- 
cupies the principal place here, is perhaps 
because the Christian women at Corinth 
may have been the most ready to make the 
separation : or perhaps, because the woman, 
from her place in the matrimonial union, 
may be more properly said ard avdpds 
xwpic9iva: than the man amd yuvaikds 
xwpirbjvat. xwpic8., be separated, 
whether by formal divorce or otherwise ; 
the katadAayijtw below, is like this, an 
absolute passive ; undefined whether by her 
own or her husband’s doing. 11. | édy 
to kataAAay7tw is parenthetical. It sup- 
poses a case of actual separation, contrary 
of course to Christ’s command: if such 
have really taken place (kal, veritably : 
see note on 2 Cor. v. 3, and Hartung, 
Partikell. i. 132), the additional sin of a 
new marriage (Matt. v. 32) must not be 


for cuvevd., evdoxe: B. 


committed, but the breach healed as soon 
as possible. tataAX.] see above on 
xwpicb7. k. GvSp. yuv. py ad.] The 
Apostle does not add the qualification zap- 
extds Adyou mopveias Matt. v. 32 (xix. 9), 
not found in Mark x. 11 or Luke xvi. 18. 
But we cannot hence infer that he was not 
aware of it. The rule, not the exception, 
here was in his mind: and after what 
had been before said on the subject of for- 
nication, the latter would be understood 
as a matter of course. 12—16. | 
Directions for such Christians as were 
already married to Heathens. Such a 
circumstance must not be a ground per 
se of separation,—and why: but if the 
unbelieving party wished to break off the 
union, let it be so. 12.] tots Aor- 
mots, the rest, perhaps in respect of 
their letter of enquiry,—the only ones not 
yet dealt with. At all events, the meaning 
is plain, being those who are involved in 
mixed marriages with unbelievers. 

éy, ovx 6 Kvp.| I, i.e. I Paul, in my 
apostolic office, under the authority of the 
Holy Spirit (see above on ver. 10), not 
the Lord, i.e. not Christ by any direct 
command spoken by Him: it was a ques- 
tion with which Hr did not deal, in His 
recorded discourses. In the right arrange- 
ment of the words (txt) the stress is not on 
éy#, but on Aéyw: But to the rest I say 
(I, not the Lord). guvevdoKe? presup- 
poses his own wish to continue united. 
atrn, not avr, and obtos, not aids, below, 
—see reff. 13.] The change of con- 
struction kal yuvy jris ... Kal obtos .., is 
found frequently with af: so Il. a. 78, 7 
yap dtouat avdpa xoAwoeuev, ds weya Tav- 
Tov | *Apyelwy kparée: Kal of melovrat 
*Axaiol. See reff., and Kiihner, ii. 526 
(§ 799). Meyer remarks, that the 
Apostle uses the voa media adiéva here, 
of both parties, the husband and wife, not 


524 IITPO> KOPIN@IOTS A. VII. 


fr \ 
avThs, py Xadéro tov avdpa. '§* iylactar yap 6 avnp 
c Yi na 
0 Samitos téy TH yuvaiki, Kal *HylacTaL H YyuYn 7 


r = Acts xx. 
32, xxvi. 18. 
Exod. xxix. 
37. 

s ver. 12. 


7 lal fal hag 
iS'chogv.22 Teo TOS ‘év T@ adekp@ “érel “apa Ta TEKVA ULOV 
ref be ev gor > , PEO a = 
sae Yaxa0apta éotw, viv dé ayia éotw. | ef b€ 6S dmricTos 
CwSorat, 
Soph Aj. 519. uch. y. 10 only. vy = Acts x. 14 reff. 


rec (for tov avdpa) avtov (corrn to conform to avtnv above, ver 12), with KLP rel syr 
Chr Thdrt Tert: avrny (ol 2?) 106: txt ABCDF m 17 vulg Syr copt goth «th arm Cyr 
Jer Ambrst Aug Pel Bede: autoy avipa &, but av erased by &! or 3, 

14. om yap P. aft yuvaiucn ins rn mieTn DF latt Syr Mart-Clem Tert. (om Aug- 
mss and expr.) [oros of 2nd amozos is supplied in smaller letters by X-corr?. | 
rec (for adeApw) avdp (explanatory gloss, substituted as more appropriate: but adeApw 
has peculiar force here), with D§KLN3 rel vulg syrr goth «2th arm Iren Chr Thdrt 
Th! Ge lat-ff (but add tw morw vulg Syr Iren-int Tert): txt ABCD!FPR! 17 copt 


Augexpr Jer}. yuve D!F Chr. 


amodvew (as Matt. v. 31, &e.), which would 
apply only to the husband. In the E. V. 
this identity of terms is unfortunately neg- 
lected. The same word, part from, would 
well have expressed &préerw in both cases. 

By the Greek as well as Roman cus- 
toms the wife had the power of effecting 
a divorce. At Athens,—when the divorce 
originated with the wife, she was said azro- 
Aelrew the house of her husband: when 
with the husband, damomeumwécOa. At 
Rome, the only exception to the wife’s 
liberty of effecting a divorce appears to 
have been in the case of a freedwoman 
who had married her patronus. See 
Smith’s Dict. of Gr. and Rom. Antt. artt. 
Divortium, and amoAciWews Sixn. Olsh. 
thinks that Paul puts both alternatives, 
because he regards the Christian party 
as the superior one in the marriage. But, 
as Meyer remarks, this would be incon- 
sistent with the fundamental law of mar- 
riage, Gen. iii. 16, and with the Apostle’s 
own view of it, ch. xi. 3, xiv. 34; Eph. v. 
22, 23; 1 Tim. 1. 11, 12. 14.| Ground 
of the above precept. nytaortar | The 
meaning will best be apprehended by re- 
membering (1) that holiness, under the 
Gospel, answers to dedication to God under 
the law ; (2) that the jy:aopévor under the 
Gospel are the body of Christian men, de- 
dicated to God, and thus become His in a 
peculiar manner: (3) that this being so, 
things belonging to, relatives inseparably 
connected with, the people of God are said 
to be hallowed by their ay:orns : so Theo- 
phylact, obx 811 G&yios ylverar 5 “EAAny. 
ov yap elmev bt Gyids éotiv’ GAD’, Hyl- 
GQoTaL’ TOUTEOTL, TH ayibTNTL TOU TMiaTOU 
veviknra. Chrysostom well shews the 
distinction between this case and that in 
ch. vi. 15, that being a connexion Kara Thy 
aoéBerov,—in and under the condition of 
the very state, in which the other party is 
impure: whereas this is a connexion ac- 
cording to a pure and holy ordinance, by 


virtue of which, although the physical 
unity in both cases is the same, the purity 
overbears the impurity. év TH Y-, év 
T® adeX.] in, i.e. his or her ayid77s is 
situated in, rests in, the other (see reff. : 
and note, ch. vi. 2). érret Gpa | as ref., 
but here elliptically: since in that case 
(i. e. as understood, the other alternative, 
—the non-hallowing). éotiv, not 
ay ef, nor jy, but pres.: because the 
supposed case is assumed, and the ind. 
pres. used of what kas place on its as- 
sumption. Gyta | as jylacra above: 
holy to the Lord. On this fact, Chris- 
tian children being holy, the argument is 
built. This being so,—they being hal- 
lowed, because the children of Christians, — 
it follows that that union out of which they 
sprung, must as such have the same hal- 
lowed character; i.e. that the znsanctity 
of the one parent is in it overborne by the 
sanctity of the other. The fact of the 
children of Christians, God’s spiritual 
people, being holy, is tacitly assumed as a 
matter of course, from the precedent of 
God’s ancient covenant people. With 
regard to the bearing of this verse on the 
subject of Infant Baptism,—it seems to 
me to have none, further than this: that 
it establishes the analogy, so far, between 
Christian and Jewish children, as to shew, 
that if the initiatory rite of the old cove- 
nant was administered to the one,—that 
of the new covenant, in so far as it was 
regarded as corresponding to circumcision, 
would probably as a matter of course be 
administered to the other. Those, as 
Meyer, who deny any such inference, forget, 
as it seems to me, that it is not personal 
holiness which is here predicated of the 
children, any more than of the unbelieving 
husband or wife, but holiness of dedication, 
by strict dependence on one dedicated. 
Notwithstanding this ayidrns, the Chris- 
tian child is individually born in sin and a 
child of wrath; and individually needs the 


14—16. 
W yeopiverat, Y ywpilécOw. 


% aderdy ev Y Tois TovovTos, “ev Sé elpivyn * KEKANKEV ver. 


I1PO> KOPINOIOT® A. 


525 


ov * SeSovAwTar oO adEAHOS 4) ¥ X10 


x Acts vii. 6 
reff. see 


n , ‘ yu x 
nuas 6 Geos. 147i yap * oidas, yivat, ef Tov avdpa i. 3: 


28. ch. xvi. 16,18. Acts xxii. 22 reff. 
only ¥. 
ec Acts xix. 2 (b) reff. 


15. om 7 FPR! m Chr-ms,. 


z= Gal. i. 6. 
b John ix. 25. 2 Kings xii. 22. Eccl. iii. 21 Bletde Ed-vat.] &- Joel ii. 14. Jonah iii. 9. 


masc., ver. 


Eph. iv. 4. 1 Thess. iv. 7. a here 


vuas ACK?! copt(sic Treg) Damasc Thl Pel 


Sedul Bede: txt BDFLN? rel latt syrr goth eth arm Nys Chr Thdrt Phot ic Ambrst. 


(P def.) 


washing of regeneration and the renewing 
of the Holy Ghost, just as much as the 
Jewish child needed the typical purifying 
of circumcision, and the sacrificial atone- 
ments of the law. So thatin this ayidrns 
of the Christian child there is nothing in- 
consistent with the idea, nor with the 
practice, of Infant Baptism. On viv 8é, 
see note, ch. v. 11. 15.| But if the 
wish for separation (implied by the pre- 
sent xwpiCerat,—is for being separated, 
see Winer, edn. 6, § 40. 2. a, and compare 
John x. 32, xiii. 6, 27) proceed from the 
side of the UNBELIEVER (emphasis on 6 
amoros), let him (or her) depart (be sepa- 
rated off). ov SeSovA.] obdk exer 
avdyny 6 moros }  muoTh ey Tots aric- 
Tots TowavTyy, ola avT@ emikertar em) ToY 
mioT@v. eKel Mey yap TayTl Tpdr@, Xwpls 
Adyw Topvelas, odK ekeotiv am aAATAwY 
Tos cuvapbéytas xwpicbivar évraiba 5é, 
dy pev ovvevdonh Td amiorovy pépos TH 
mite guvoikety, Set wh AvVew Td TuVOLKE- 
ciov. by d€ ctacid(y Kal Thy Advow exeivos 
Tot, ov SedovAwTa 6 moTds Eis TH UH XW- 
pio@jva. Photius, in (cumenius. év 
Tots ToLovToLs may be taken as masc., 77 
the case of such persons,—as above by 
Phot.:—but the év seems harsh; it is better 
therefore to render it, in such cases. 
év 8 eip.] Not = eis eiphyny, but signify- 
ing the moral element 72 which we are 
called to be: see reff. and ver. 22 below. 
The meaning is, ‘let the unbeliever 
depart, rather than by attempting to retain 
the union, endanger that peace of house- 
hold and peace of spirit, which is part of 
the calling of a Christian.’ Observe, 
(1) that there is no contradiction, in this 
licence of breaking off such a marriage, to 
the command of our Lord in Matt. v. 32,— 
because the Apostle expressly asserts, ver. 
12, that owr Lord’s words do not apply to 
such marriages as are here contemplated. 
They were spoken to those within the cove- 
nant, and as such apply immediately to the 
wedlock of Christians (ver. 10), but not to 
mixed marriages. De Wette denies this, 
and holds that Paul is speaking only of the 
Christian’s duty in cases where the mar- 
riage is already virtually broken off,—and 
by his remarks on Matt. v. 32, seems to 


take mopveta in a wide sense, and to regard 
it as a justifiable cause of divorce because 
it is such a breaking off. This however 
appears hardly consistent with ver. 12; for, 
if it were so, there would be a command 
of the Lord regarding this case. At all 
events, we may safely assume that where 
the Apostle is distinctly referring to our 
Lord’s command, and supplying what it 
did not contain, there can be no real in- 
consistency : if such appear to be, it must 
be in our apprehension, not in his words. 
(2) That the question of re-marrying after 
such a separation, is here left open: on 
this, see note on Matt. v. 32. (3) That 
not a word here said can be so strained as 
to imply any licence to contract marriages 
with unbelievers. Only those aiready 
contracted are dealt with: the érepo(uyetv 
amtoro.s is expressly forbidden, 2 Cor. vi. 
14, and by implication below, ver. 39. 
16.] This verse is generally understood as 
a ground for remaining united, as ver. 13, 
in hope that conversion of the unbelieving 
party may follow. Thus ver. 15 is regarded 
as altogether parenthetical. But (1) this 
interpretation is harsh as regards the con- 
text, for ver. 15 is evidently not paren- 
thetical,—and (2) it is hardly gram- 
matically admissible (see below), for it 
makes ef = ef w4#,—* What knowest thou 
. . whether thou shalt not save.... 1 
Lyra seems first to have proposed the true 
rendering, which was afterwards adopted 
hesitatingly by Estius, and of late decidedly 
by Meyer, De Wette, and Bisping: viz. 
that the verse is no¢ a ground for remain- 
ing united, in hope, &c.,—but a ground for 
consummating a separation, and not mar- 
ring the Christian’s peace for so uncertain 
a prospect as that of converting the un- 
believing party. tt ot8as ei thus preserves 
its strict sense, What knowest thou (about 
the question) whether ....% and the verse 
coheres with the words immediately pre- 
ceding, ev eiphyn Keka. Huas 6 0. [may 
observe in addition to Meyer and De W.’s 
remarks, that the position of the words 
further establishes this rendering. If the 
point of the argument had been the im- 
portance, or the prospect, of saving (= con- 
verting) the unbelieving party, the ar- 


526 


c = Rom. xi. 
14 reff. 

d = appy here 
only. see Gal. 
1.7. 2 Cor. 
ili. 1 rec. 

> constr., ch. 
iii. 5. Rom. 


A eetreee e f 
1) EKACTM @S 


e fa] / oe h 
Kev O Geos, OUTWS 


xii. 3. 

f = Mark vi. 
41. Luke 
xii. 3. 2 
x. 13. Heb. vii. 2. 

xvi. 16 reff. 
vii. 22. Gen. xvii. 10 al. 

o Rom. iii. 30 reff. 


Josh. xiii. 7. 
= ch. xvi. 1 reff. 


16. yyy and avyp F. 
17. peucpixey BR?. 


IPOS KOPINOIOTS A. 


g = ver. 15 reff. 


m hypothet. indic., ver. 27. 


VEL. 


c , Xa Ja 10. ” > \ a c , 17 a? 
cocEs; 7° TL oldas, AveEp, EL THY yUVAaiKa ° THCELS ; el 
€uépisev 0 KUptos, ° EKacTov ws ® KEKNN- 
TepiTateltm Kal ovTws év Tals 
ieee / , k Py / 

EKKANTLALS ~TAaTALS laTac coma. 


18 1 Tlepuretpmnpévos 


a exh yn 2 4 se aA ! L ee 
,, TH &™ ExAHON, pr)” eTriaTradOw: év ° axpoBvaTia © KéxdjTal 


h = ch. iii. 3 reff. 
1 Luke i. 59. Acts vii. 8. 
James y. 13. 


i plur., Rom. 
Gal. ii. 3 al. L.P., exc. John 
n here only}. Isa. y. 18. 


for n Tt, ec Te A. 
rec transp «upios and Geos, with KL rel Syr Chr Thdrt: 


Geos (twice) 32-3. 63. 93 goth: o xs and o ks o @s G: txt A B(sic: see table) CDFX m 
17 latt Syr copt arm lat-ff. — o xs bef ewepioey A: 0 Os euepicey and o Ks KekAnnev k. 


ins kat bef exaoroyv ws F. 


(P def.) 


macats bef rats exkAnotas & 17. 47 vulg. 


for Siataccouat, didacKw (see ch iv. 17) D1F, doceo latt lat-ff. 


18. exAnén bef Ist mrs D!3F goth. 


rec (for kexAnta: Tis) Tis EKANON (con- 


formation to former), with D'KL rel Chr Thdrt: txt ABP a m17 copt goth arm, tis 


KkekA DIF. 


rangement would probably have been et 
céces Tw wvdpa, and ef céces TV 
yuvaika, whereas now the verb holds in 
both clauses a subordinate place, rather 
subjective to the person addressed, than 
the main object in the mind of the writer. 

Those who take ei for ei wh, attempt 
to justify it by reff. 2 Kings, Joel, Jonah, 
where the LXX have for the Heb. pin, 
tls oidev ei, to express hope: but (1) in 
every one of those passages the verb stands 
in the emphatic position, and (2) the LXX 
use this very expression to signify un- 
certainty, e.g. ref. Eccles., tis eide[oidev 
ABN: add 76 AN3] mvetua vidy Tov av- 
Opérov, ci avaBatver adtd [add cis ABCN] 
iva ; The rendering then of the verse 
will be as follows: (Let the unbeliever 
depart: hazard not for an uncertainty 
the peace in which you ought to be 
living as Christians): for what assurance 
hast thou, 0 wife, whether thou shalt be 
the means of thy husband’s conversion ? 
Or what assurance hast thou, 0 husband, 
whether thou shalt be the means of thy 
wife’s conversion? “This interpretation 
is the only one compatible with the obvious 
sense of ver. 15, and of the expression (not 
rt oldas «i wh, but) rl oidas ci cdces ; 
and is also in exact harmony with the 
general tenor of the Apostle’s argument, 
which is not to urge a union, but to 
tolerate a separation.” Stanley; the rest 
of whose note is deeply interesting as to 
the historical influence of the verse as 
commonly misunderstood. 17.] ei py 
takes an exception, by way of caution, 
to the foregoing motive for not remaining 
together (ver. 16). The Christian partner 
might carry that motive foo far, and be 
tempted by it to break the connexion on 
his own part; a course already prohibited 
(vv. 12—14). Therefore the Apostle adds, 


But (q.d. only be careful not to make this 
a ground for yourselves causing the sepa- 
ration) as to each (éxdsT. ws = ws ExaoT., 
reff.) the Lord distributed [his lot], as (i.e. 
7) KAnoet, ver. 20) God has called each, so 
(in that state, without change) let him walk 
(veff.). The et py has raised considerable 
difficulties. (1) some cursives, with syr- 
marg and Sevrn.,read eit)y yuvaika céoes, 
4) wh ;—and Knatehbull, al., join et uf simi- 
larly to the foregoing; ef... . t@oets,—ei 
uh. But as De W. remarks, this would be, 
as Matt. xxii. 17, 4 ov: and then we should 
have the strictly parallel clauses of ver. 16 
rendered unequal, by an appendage being 
attached to the second, which the first has 
not: besides that ver. 17 would be disjoined 
altogether. (2) Pott would supply xwpl(e- 
7a1,—Mosheim, Vater, and Riickert, cdoeis, 
after ei uj. But so, to say nothing of the 
irrelevancy of the idea thus introduced, 
ei d€ wh, or ei 5€ kad uy (as Meyer), would 
be required. (8) Theodoret, al., join all 
as far as xvpios to the foregoing: ‘ What 
knowest thou, &c., except in so far as the 
Lord has apportioned to each?’ But 
thus the evidently parallel members, éxaor. 
@s eu. 6 KUp., and éxdor. @s KEKA. 6 O., 
would be separated, and a_ repetition 
occasioned which, except in the case of 
intended parallelism, would be alien from 
St. Paul’s habit of writing. ovTwS 


.... Stat.] todo elwev, va re Exew kar » 


&ddAous Kowwvods mpobuudrepor mepl thy 
brakonyv Siare8@or. Theophyl. 

18—24.] Examples of the precept just 
given. celta cvvfbws ard Tov mpoKetméevou 
eis €repa petaBalver, mao vouobeTay Ta 
kaTdAAnAa.  ‘Theodoret. 18—20. | 
First example : CrRCUMCISION. ; 
18. ékAyOm | Was any one called in cir- 
cumcision,—i.e. circumcised at the time 
of his conversion. émoraciw| By 


17—22. IIPOS KOPINOIOTS A. 527 
Tis, py ‘meperemvécOw. 19 a) P arepTomn Iovdév éoruy, ? Parl onty, 
Kal 9 °axpoBuatia 4 ovdév éotiv, aX\drNa ™ THpHoLs * évTO- ets vi 8 


Nav * Geod. 


a , eo , 
20 Exaotos ev TH" KAHoEL 7H ® ExANON, Ev Ta’TH 


Gen. xvii. 13. 


Exod. iy. 26. 
, 9 an ’ , / , nay) Geet | \. Jer. xi. 16 
pevérw. 21 Sodrog § €xAHOnS, fo TOL Y MENETW* GAN El Kab ony. 
= Matt. 
, eZ L a Ww a 2 § erg: xxi 16, 16: 
dvvacat éevOepos yevéoOar, waddov “ xpHoat. 0 yap xxiii. 16, 
64. ch. xiii. 2. 2 Cor. xii. 11. r = here (Acts iv. 2. v.18) only+. Wisd. vi. 18 al. ellipt. 
constr., see ch. iii. 7. s Sir. xxxv. (xxxii.) 23. t Matt. xv. 3 ||. Rev. xii. 17. xiv. 
12 only. Ezra x. 3. u = Rom. xi. 29 (reff.). y ch. ix. 9 reff. w Acts 
xxvii. 17. ver. 31. ch. ix. 12,15. 1 Tim. i. 8. v.23. Prov. x. 26. 


19. om Ist 7 F. 
20. toutw A. 
21. adAAa D!. 


a surgical operation; see Theophyl., 
Wetst.,— Winer, Realwoérterbuch, art. Be- 
schneidung,—Jos. Antt. xii. 5.1; 1 Mace. 
i. 15; Celsus de Re Medica, vii. 25 (in 
Wetst.). The practice usually was adopted 
by those who wished to appear like the 
Gentiles, and to cast off their ancient faith 
and habits. Among the Christians a strong 
anti-Judaistic feeling might lead to it. 
mepiTenverdw | See Gal. v. 2, al. 19.] 
See Gal. v. 6, where our thpynois evToA@y 
@cod is expressed by mlotis 80 ayamrns 
evepyouneyn; and Gal. vi. 15, where it is 
given by kaw} xtlows. Cf. an interesting 
note in Stanley, on the relation of these 
three descriptions. After @e0¥, supply 7 
mavra éeorty: see ch. iii. 7. 20. | 
Formal repetition of the general precept, 
as again ver. 24. KAjots is not the 
calling in life, for it never has that mean- 
ing either in classical or Hellenistic Greek 
(in the example which Wetst. gives from 
Dion. Hal. Antt. iv. 20, eAjoers is used to 
express the Latin ‘classes, —&s kadotow 
*Popator KAfoers, and so is not a Greek 
word at all); but strictly calling (‘vo- 
catio’) by God, as in ref. The xaAjois of 
a circumcised person would be a calling 
in circumcision,—and by this he was to 
abide. ev TH... €v TavTY| See ch. 
vi. 4: emphatic. 21—24.| Second 
example: Suavery. Wert thou called 
(converted), a slave, let it not be a 
trouble to thee: but if thou art even 
able to become free, use it (i.e. remain 
in slavery) rather. This rendering, which 
is that of Chrys., Theodoret, Theophyl., 
(cum., Phot., Camerar., Estius, Wolf, 
Bengel, Meyer, De Wette, al., is re- 
quired by the usage of the particles, 
ei kal,—by which, see Hartung, Partikel- 
lehre, i. 139, the kal, ‘also,’ or ‘even,’ 
does not belong to the «i, as in ka) ef, but 
is spread over the whole contents of the 
concessive clause: so Soph. Cid. Tyr. 302, 
mOA meV, €L KaL i) BA€mrels, ppovets & 
duws, ola vdow tiveotw. Plato, Rep. p. 


om from eorw to cot F. 


om kat F some-mss-of-vulg copt. 


337, et S ody Kat wh eoriy buoior, palverat 
d€ 7TH epwrndevte TowtTwy. Aristoph. 
Lysistr. 254, xoéper, Apdins, fryod Bddnv, 
el Kal Toy Guoy Gayeis. Thucyd. ii. 64, 
mente eue OC dpyns éxere... €t Kad ered- 
OdvTes ot evaytiot edpacay, dmep cikds Fv 
BY CcAnodyrwy buay brakovew. See more 
examples in Hartung. It is also required 
by the context: for the burden of the 
whole passage is, ‘Let each man remain 
in the state in which he was called,’ 
It is given in the Syr.: which has 


raQSQZ9 yo Gal “choose for 


thyself that thou mayest serve,” or simply, 
“ prefer servitude :” not as Meyer from the 
erroneous Latin of Tremelius, “elige tibi 
potius quam ut servias” [I am indebted 
for this correction of some of my earlier 
editions to the kindness of the Rev. 
Henry Craik, of Bristol]. The other 
interpretation, — mentioned by Chrys., 
and given by Erasm., Luther (Stanley 
is mistaken in quoting him as favour- 
able to the other interpretation: his 
words are, “Sift du ein Knecht berufen, 
forge dev nidt: dod, fannft du_ fret 
werden, fo braude def viel Lieber”), 
Beza, Calvin, Grot., and almost all the 
moderns,— understands rT éAcvOepia after 
xpijou: ‘but if thou art able to become 
Sree, take advantage of it rather’ The 
objections to this are, (1) the position of 
kat, which in this case must have been 
after dvvaca,—ei Sivaca Kal edAcdOepos 
yevéoOa, or have been absent altogether. 
(2) The clause would hardly have begun 
with &AAa ei, but with ef 8é—so the alter- 
native suppositions in vv.9, 11, 15, 28, 36. 
The adda brings out a strong opposition to 
the pedérw, and implies a climax which 
would ill suit a merely parenthetic clause, 
but must convey the point of the sentence. 
(3) The absence of a demonstrative pro- 
noun after xpijoa:, by which we are thrown 
back, not on the secondary subject of the 
sentence, €Aevdepia, but on the primary, 
dovAcia. (4) Its utter inconsistency with 


528 


x here only t. 


Jos. Antt. vii 
11. 2. Ign. ad 
Rom. ¢ 4, p. 
689. (-pouy, 
Lev. xix. 20.) 


y ch. vi. 20 
(reff.). 

z Acts xvii. 23 
al. 


a = here 
only (?). see 
Luke xviii. 27. 


A nr 
“rapa eo. 
c 
John viii. 38. 


IIPO> KOPIN@OIOTS A. 


Vil. 


_év Kupi@ ®& KAnOels Sodros * atreXedOepos Kupiov éoriv: 
oumolws 0 édevOepos £ KANOEis SODAS EoTLW yYpLOTOD. 
23Y runs YhyopacOnte pun yivecbe Sovro. avOpwTrwr. 
24 Exactos év *@ © €xdHOn, aderXpoi, ev * TOUT@ pmEVETH 


22. rec aft ouoiws ins ka (as being usual aft ouows: so also S€ Kat), with KL rel 
syr-w-ast copt «th arm Chr Damase Thl Ce Orig-int Ambr,: d¢ ca: DF | m(Treg) : 


om ABP 17 vulg Syr goth Chr-ms, Thdrt Ambr, Ambrst Pel Bede. 


bef cori FR! ¢ copt. 


Xpiotov 


24. adeAgor bef cv w exAnOn D(-Onte D!) F Ambrst: om adeAgo: al 39. 120 Chr Thdrt. 
rec ins tw bef @ew, with A e k @e: om BDFKLPR rel Thdrt Damase Thl. 


the general context. The Apostle would 
thus be giving two examples of the pre- 
cept exactos ev @ eKdAnOn ev To’Tw pE- 
vérw, one of which would convey a re- 
commendation of the contrary course. 
See this followed out in Chrysostom. (5) 
Its entire contradiction to ver. 22: see 
below. (6) It would be quite inconsis- 
tent with the teaching of the Apostle, 
—that in Christ (Gal. iii. 28) freeman and 
slave are all one,—and with his remarks 
on the urgency and shortness of the time 
in this chapter (ver. 29 ff.),—to turn out 
of his way to give. a precept merely of 
worldly wisdom, that a slave should be- 
come free if he could. (7) The import of 
xpdouat in such a connexion, which suits 
better the remaining in, enduring, labour- 
ing under, giving one’s self up to, an 
already-existing state, than the adopting 
or taking advantage of a new one; cf. 
such expressions as TowotTw dpe expn- 
gato 6 mats, Herod. i. 117: cuppopa, 
ouvtuxia, <vtTuxla, xpjobat, often in He- 
rod.: &mua8ta xpjoGa, and the like. The 
instance quoted by Bloomfield for ‘become 
free,’ Exdv yap ovdels SovAlw xpita Wye, 
Esch. Agam. 953, tells just the other 
way. ‘There xyp7raris used not of entering, 
but of submitting to, the yoke of slavery, 
as here. 22.] Ground of the above 
precept. For the slave who was called 
in the Lord (not, as E. V. and De Wette, 
‘He who is called in the Lord, being a 
slave, which would be dovAos KAnéels, 
see above, dodAos exA7Ons : év xuplo, 
as the element in which what is about to 
be stated takes place) is the Lord’s freed- 
man (“‘dmeAevGepos with genit.is not here 
in the ordinary sense of ‘libertus alicujus,’ 
‘any one’s manumitted slave: for the 
Sormer master was sin or the devil, see on 
ch. vi. 20 ;—but only @ freedman belong- 
ing to Christ, viz. freed by Christ from the 
service of another. This the reader would 
understand as a matter of course.” Meyer): 
similarly he that was called being free 
(not here, KAnGels eActPepos, see above) is 


the slave of Christ. Christ’s service is 
perfect freedom, and the Christian’s free- 
dom is the service of Christ. But here the 
Apostle takes, in each éase, one member 
of this double antithesis from the oufer 
world, one from the spiritual. The 
(actual) slave is (spiritually) free: the 
(actually) free is a (spiritual) slave. So 
that the two are so mingled, in the Lord, 
that the slave need not trouble himself 
about his slavery, nor seek for this world’s 
freedom, seeing he has a more glorious 
freedom in Christ, and seeing also that his 
brethren who seem to be free in this world 
are in fact Christ’s servants, as he is a 
servant. It will be plain that the reason 
given in this verse is quite inconsistent with 
the prevalent modern rendering of ver. 21. 
23.] Following out of d00Ads eorw 
xpiarov, by reminding them of the PRICE 
PAID whereby Christ PURCHASED them for 
His (ch. vi. 20): and precept thereupon, 
BECOME NOT SLAVES OF MEN: i.e. ‘do 
not allow your relations to human society, 
whether of freedom or slavery, to bring 
you into bondage so as to cause you 
anxiety to change the one or increase the 
other.’ Chrys., al., think the precept 
directed against dpP@admodovaeia, and ge- 
neral regard to men’s opinion. But it is 
better to restrict it (however it may legiti- 
mately be applied generally) to the case in 
hand. Hammond, Knatchbull, Michaelis, 
al., understand it as addressed to the free, 
and meaning that they are not to sell 
themselves into slavery: but this is evi- 
dently wrong: as may be seen by the 
change to the second person plur. as ad- 
dressing all his readers: besides that a 
new example would have been marked as 
in vv. 18, 21. See Stanley’s note. 
24.| The rule is again repeated, but with 
the addition wapa @e¢, reminding them 
of the relations of Christ’s freedman 
and Christ’s slave, and of the price paid, 
just mentioned:—of that relation to 
God in which they stood by means of 
their Christian calling. ‘‘The usual ren- 


23—27. ITPOS KOPINOIOTS A. 529 
\ a 
*9 epi 8€ tév » rapOéver © éritayny Kupiov ovdK EX, » Paul, here | 
, cc. ! imes) 

teyvauny d€ °diSwur as !Hnrenwévos UTO Kuplov & TLaTOS 3AP OUT 
os: lol i i, 23 (fi 
civat. 6 youifo odv todTo “Karov itmapyew Sia TI I. visi) 
k al. 


> lol ‘\ 
eveat@oav avaykny, ott »Kadov avOpoTw TO ™ odTas° 


Rom. xvi. 26 
reff. 


> 
ElVal. 


= ch. i. 10 


vy / d 
27 Sédecar yuvarkl, pry °SnTes PAVow IéAVEAL * Ceft). 


e 2 Cor. viii. 10. 


f pass., Rom. xi. 30, 31 reff. g = ch. iv. 2 al. fr. h = ver. 1. i Acts 
vill. 16 reff. k Rom. vii. 38. ch. iii, 22. Gal. i.4. 2 Thess. ii. 2. 2 Tim. iii, 1. Heb. ix. 9 
only. 1 Mace. xii. 44. (see note.) 1= Luke xxi. 23. 2 Cor. vi. 4. xii. 10. 1 Thess. iii. 
7. 1 Kings xxii. 2. m = ver. 40. n = Rom. vii. 2. ver. 39. o = Matt. 
vi. 33. Col. iii. 1, 1 Pet. iii. 11. 1 Macc. ii. 29. p here only. Eccl. vii. 30 (viii. 1). Wisd. 
viii. 8 only. q = Acts xxii. 30. Ps. cxlv. 7. 


26. aft or: kaAov ins eotiv D'F yss. 


dering, Deo inspectante (Grot.), i. e. ‘ per- 
petuo memores, vos in ejus conspectu ver- 
sari’ (Beza), does not so well suit the local 
word pevérw.” Meyer. 25—38.] Ad- 
vice (with some digressions connected with 
the subject) concerning the MARRIAGE OF 
VIRGINS. 25.| mwap8évev is not, as 
Theodor-mops., Bengel, Olsh., al., wmar- 
ried persons of both sexes, a meaning 
which, though apparently found in Rev. 
xiv. 4 (see note there), is perfectly un- 
necessary here, and appears to have been 
introduced from a mistaken view of vv. 
26—28. The emphasis is on émitayhy 
—command of the Lord have I none, i.e. 
no expressed precept: so that, as before, 
there is no marked comparison between 
6 kupios and eye. TuoTos elvat | to 
be faithful, as in ref.,—as a steward and 
dispenser of the hidden things of God, 
and, among them, of such dire¢tions as 
you cannot make for yourselves, but re- 
quire cne so entrusted to impart to you. 
This sense, which has occurred in the esti- 
mate given of himself in this very Epistle, 
is better than the more general ones of 
true (Billroth, Riickert) or believing (Olsh., 
Meyer, De Wette). 
tion of the marriage of virgins is one 
involving the expediency of contracting 
marriage in general: this he deals with 
now, on grounds connected with the then 
pressing necessity. ovv, then, fol- 
lows on yvéu. dlSwur, and introduces 
the yveun. Tovto indicates what is 
coming, viz. Td oftws elvat. Kkahdy, 
see note on ver. 1: the best way. 

Thy éveotao. avayK.| the instant neces- 
sity: viz. that prophesied by the Lord, 
Matt. xxiv. 8, 21, &e.: which shall precede 
His coming: see especially ver. 19 there: 
not, the cares of marriage, as Theophyl., 
dit Tas ev atte SuskoAlas, k. TA TOD 
yduou 6xAnpa: nor persecutions, as Pho- 
tius in @cum., al., which are only a part 
of the apprehended troubles. These the 
Apostle regards as instant, already begun: 

Vou. II. 


26.| The ques- — 


om to F Meth. 


for this is the meaning of éveot@oar, not 
imminent, shortly to come: see reff. and 
Jos. Antt. xvi. 6. 2, 7d vos tay "Iov- 
dalwy evxdpictov edpeOn, ov udvoy ev TE 
éveoT@Tt Kapa, GAAG Kal ev TH Tpo- 
yeyernueve,—where all time future is 
evidently excluded. See note on 2 Thess. 
ii. 2, where this distinction is very im- 
portant. Ott kad. Gv0...... ] De 
Wette takes 87: as because, understanding 
tovto above= 7d tapbévoy civa, ‘ that 
this (virginity) is best on account of the 
instant necessity, because it is (generally) 
best for a man so to be (i. e. unmarried).’ 
But this seems constrained, and tauto- 
logical, and the only rescue of it from the 
charge of tautology is found in the word 
‘generally,’ which is not in the text. Far 
better, with Meyer and most interpreters, 
to view the sentence as an anacoluthon, 
begun with one construction, TodTo Kkaddv 
brdpxew, and finished, without regard to 
this, when on account of the intervening 
words it became necessary to restate the 
kaddy, with another construction, 671, &e. 
Thus we shall have it, literally rendered : 
I think then this to be the best way on 
account of the instant necessity, that it is 
the best way for a man thus to be. 
oUTws = as Kaye as ver. 8? or perhaps 
@s eotiv, which seems better on account 
of the following context, ver. 27. This, in 
the case of the wnmarried, would amount 
to the other: and the case of virgins is 
now that especially under consideration. 
avOpeé7@, not as in ver. 1 (which 
in its outward form will not bear the wider 
meaning), but here purposely general, in- 
cluding those treated of, young females. 
27.) 7d ottws eivar restated and 
illustrated : neither the married nor the 
unmarried are to seek for a change. The 
general recommendation here is referable 
alike to all cases of marriage, and does not 
touch on the prohibition of ver. 10,— only 
dissuading from a spirit of ehange, in 
consideration of the peoneae avaykn. 
M 


530 IIPO> KOPINOIOTS A. Vid, 


> ‘ Li So / al 28 XN be \ / 
aTO YUVALKOS, 1) &yrew yuvaika. €av 0€ Kal YauNnoNS, 


r yauew, of 
the woman 


ver. 34 eae L éav 'ynun [|  wapOévos, ovy waptev 

\'tim.v.11, OVX NMAPTES, KaL EaV — YK) |) P » OVX NMAaP 
only. of a a c a ens ey A 

bot wen 3s SONuw dé 7H toapKt § €Eovowy “ot TovobdToL, éyw dé tbwav 


only. of the 


Mache avai 29 W wop Low 2 hus 5 Sa 
man, Matt-¥. V e(Somat. TouTo O€ “ dnt, adeddoi, 6 Kaipos * cur 
(2 Mace. xiv. L 5] \ \ y ey , WA \ €. 7. a 
25 bis only.) ECTAAMEVOS E€OTLY TO OLTTOV, LYVA KAb OL EX OVTES YVUVALKas 
; a Rio. Si li. 3. t dat., 2 Cor. xii. 7. u ver. 15. v Rom. xi. 21 reff. 
w = ch. xv. 50. see ch. i. 12. x = here (Acts v. 6) only +. Sir. iv. 31. see Tobit xii. 13. y = Matt. 
xxvi. 45. Heb. x.13. (Eph. vi. 10 reff.) 


28. rec for yaunons, ynuns (to conform to the follg), with K1. rel Orig Chr Thdrt ; 
AaBns yuvaka DF: acceperis uxorem latt lat-¥: duxeris Tert: txt A(-on) BX m 17 
Bas Damasce.(P ?) for ynun, youn D'P. om 7 BF: ins ADKLPN rel. 
ins ev bef 7m cape DIF (Me-txt. 

29. elz ins ort bef o kaipos (supplementary: see ch. xv .50, where there is no 
var readg), with DF deh 1 (syrr) copt Orig Thl Tert: om ABKLPR rel vulg Eus 
Meth Bas (Chr) Thdrt lat-ff. guvveotadpevov(sic) &. rec To Aowroy 
bef ecru, with D3KL rel Thdrt Thi: eori- Aowroy ecotw F 67? latt Tert Jer: txt 
AB D1!-2(om to D1) PX al m 17 (Syr?) syr copt arm Eus-ins Bas Cyr. There is great 
var in the punctn:—rec has ouy. ro A. eotw, with L &e syrr copt Thdrt Thl Ge; 
cuveor.’ To Aotwov ectiy wa DF 672-8. 71 latt lat-ff(Aug,: To Aovroy twicealig) ; cuvETT. 


eotiv’ To Aowr. B2: cuveor. ext To AolTOY" M. 


It seems better to take the verse thus, 
than with Meyer and De Wette, to regard 
it as inserted to guard against misunder- 
standing of the preceding yvaéun of the 
Apostle. Ae€Aveat does not imply 
previous marriage, but as Phot., obx) mpds 
Tovs ouvapevtas, eita SiadvbevTas,... 
GAN GmrdGs mpos Tovs ph auvedOdyTas 
bAws els ‘yds«ov Kowwvlay, GAAG A€dv- 
pévous byTas Tov TowovTov Secpov,—and 
Estius, “ intelligit liberum a conjugio, sive 
uxorem aliquando habuerit, sive non.” 

28. | Not sin, but outward trouble, 
will be incurred by contracting marriage, 
whether in the case of the unmarried man 
or of the virgin; and it is to spare them 
this, that he gives his advice. But if also 
(kal, of the other alternative : see ver. 21) 
thou shalt have married, thou didst not 
sin (viz. when thou marriedst); and if a 
virgin (if the art. is to stand, it is generic) 
shall have married, she sinned not; but 
such persons (viz. of yjuavtes) shall 
have tribulation in the flesh (it is doubt- 
ful, as Meyer remarks, whether the dative 
belongs to the substantive,— trouble for 
the flesh,—or to the verb,—shall have in 
the flesh trouble): but I (emphatic—my 
motive is) am sparing you (endeavouring 
to spare you this 6Atw 77 oapkl, by ad- 
vising you to keep single). 29—31.] 
He enforces the foregoing advice by so- 
lemnly reminding them of the shortness 
of the time, and the consequent duty of 
sitting loose to all worldly ties and em- 
ployments. 29.) tovto 8é gypr... 
q.d. ‘What I just now said, of marrying 
being no sin, might dispose you to look 
on the whole matter as indifferent: my 


(The varr have appy arisen from a 


motive, the sparing you outward afflic- 
tion, may be underrated in the importance 
of its bearing: but I will add this solemn 
consideration.’ 6 Kaip. ouveoT. ear. 
7 otrdv| The time that remains is 
short: lit., ‘the time is shortened hence- 
forth :’—i.e. the interval between now and 
the coming of the Lord has arrived at an 
extremely contracted period. These words 
have been variously misunderstood. (1) 6 
katpds has been by some (Calvin, Estius, 
al.) interpreted ‘the space of man’s life 
on earth? which, however true it may be, 
and however legitimate this application 
of the Apostle’s words, certainly was not 
in his mind, nor is it consistent with his 
usage of 6 kaipds: see Rom. xiii.11; Eph. v. 
16,—or with that in the great prophecy of 
our Lord which is the key to this chapter, 
Luke xxi. 8; Mark xiii. 33. (2) cuve- 
otaApévos has been understood as mean- 
ing calamitosus (so Rosenm., Riickert, 
Olshausen, al.). But it never has this sig- 
nification. In such passages as 1 Macc. iii. 
6,v.3; 2 Mace. vi. 12, tapakaaA@.... wh 
gvoTéAAcoOa did Tas TUudopas: 3 Mace. 
v. 33, TH dpdoet.... cuveotaddAn,—it has 
the meaning of humbling, depressing, 
which would be obviously inappiicable to 
kapés. The proper meaning of ovaréA- 
Aeo@at, to be contracted, is found in Diod. 
Sic. i, 41, 61d wal roy Ne?Aov edAdyws 
Kata Tov XElava puiKpdy elvat Kal ov- 
otéd\Aeo Oar. It is, as Schrader well ren- 
ders it, ‘in Kirgzem ftiirgt die alte Welt gus 
fammen. ovaréAAcoOa and cuvaToAh are 
the regular grammatical words used of the 
shortening of a syllable in prosody. (3) 
7 Aordy has been by some (Tertull. ad 


ABDI 
LPR: 
cde: 
hkl 
nol 
47 


28—31. 


e No 9 380 \ e e ‘ / 
@S fn EyovTes wat, °9 Kal ot KrXaloVTES MS 7 KAaloVTES, 
Kat ol YaipovTes ws pr) Yaipovtes, Kal of * ayopdbovTes 


@ \ a / 81 \ e 
S pn * KaTEexOVTES, Kal Obl 


@s pr) °KaTaxpopevor “rrapayer yap TO °oyhwa Tob 


only +. 


Ep. Jer. 28 only. 
ii. $, 17). 


Ps. exliii. 4. 


desire to fix the connexion of To orrov more definitely.) 


30. for kAaovres (twice), KAcbovTes F. 


IIPOS KOPINOIOTS A. 


w. acc., 3 Mace. v. 22. 
e Phil. ii. 8 only. 


531 


z ch. vi. 20 
reff. 

a = 2 Cor. vi. 
10. Josh. 
= ; & F - indls = 

ver. 21 reff. 
XP@MEVOL TOV KOTMOV, ° voo., Wisa. 
a vii. 14 BN}, 
see note. 
ce ch. ix. 18 
d intrans., Matt. ix. 9 (and always, exc. 1 John 
Isa. iii. 17 only. ; 


om wow F arm. 


81. rec (for tov koopuov) Tw KoTuw TovTw (gramml corrn, and supplementary addn), 
with D?3KLPN§ rel (vulg syrr) Thdrt Thl: tov koopoy rovtoy DIF: ra/(sic, appy) 


koomov Tovtoy 17 : txt ABN! coptt. 
121 latt lat-ff (not Tert). 


Uxorem i. 5 [vol. i. p. 1283], Jer. de perp. 
virg. B. V. M. adv. Helv. 20 [vol. ii. p. 
227], on Hzek. vii. 13 [lib. ii., vol. v. p. 
69], on Keel. iii. [vol. iii. p. 410],— 
Vulg., Erasm., Luther, Calvin, Estius; 
also E. V. and Lachm.) joined to what 
Jollows : ‘it remains that both they,’ &e. 
But thus (a) the sense of iva will not be 
satisfied—see below: (8) the usage of 7d 
Aordy is against it, which would require 
it to stand alone, and the sense not to be 
carried on as it is in ‘ superest ut,’ Td Aot- 
mov, va....,—see reff. and Phil. iii. 1, 
iv, 8; [1 Thess. iv. 1;] 2 Thess. iii. 1. 
(y) The continuity of the passage would 
be very harshly broken: whereas by the 
other rendering all proceeds naturally. 
We have exactly parallel usages of 7d 
Aourdy in reff. ta Kat...] The 
end for which the time has been (by God) 
thus gathered up into a short compass: 
in order that both they, &ec.: i.e. in 
order that Christians, those who wait for 
and shall inherit the coming kingdom, 
may keep themselves loosed in heart from 
worldly relationships and employments: 
that, as Meyer, “the married may not 
fetter his interests to his wedlock, nor the 
mourner to his misfortunes, nor the joyous 
to his prosperity, nor the man of com- 
merce to his gain, nor the user of the 
world to his use of the world.” This 
is the only legitimate meaning of fva with 
the subj. The renderings which make 
it = dre, ‘tempus .... futurum cum ei 
qui uxores habent pares futuri sint non 
habentibus,’ Grot., or ‘ubi’ (local), are 
inadmissible. We may notice that ac- 
cording to this only right view of fva, the 
clauses following are not precepts of the 
Apostle, but the objects as regards us, 
of the divine counsel in shortening the 
time. 30. as ph Katéxovtes | as not 
POSSESSING (their gains). So in the line 
of Lucretius (iii. 984), “ Vitaque mancupio 
nulli datur, omnibus usu.” 31. xpd- 
pevot kataxpopevor] The kara, as 
in katéxovtes, appears here to imply that 

M 


for kataxp., mapaxp. L Bas Thdrt,; xpamevor 


intense and greedy use which turns the 
legitimate use intoa fault. This meaning 
is better than ‘ abuse,’ which is allowable 
philologically, and is adopted by Theo- 
doret, Theophyl., @e., Luther, Olsh., al., 
but destroys the parallel. I would render 
them, and they who use the world, as 
not using it in full. So, or merely ‘as 
not using it,’ regarding kataxp. = xp.,— 
Vulg., Calv., Grot., Estius, al., and Meyer 
and De Wette. xpic@a with an ace. 
is found only here: never in classical 
Greek, and very rarely in Hellenistic. 
Almost the only undoubted instance (in 
ref. Wisd., A reads krnoduevor, and is 
supported by &%4. In Xen. Ages. xii. 
11, we have 7d peyaddppov .. . éxpiro, 
but most edd. read 7G weyarAdppovr) seems 
to be in a Cretan inscription, Boeckh, 
Corp. Inser. ii. 400, ral rd &AAa wdvTa xph- 
fevol, ev O€ TE 6D@ Tas ~Eevikads Oolvas. See 
Bornemann, note on Acts xxvii. 17, where 
Bonéctas is a var. read. in some mss. 

mapayer yap....] gives a reason for 6 
kalp. OuveoTQALM. €oT. TO AoiT., the clauses 
which have intervened being subordinate 
to those words: see above. Emphasis on 
mapayet: for the fashion (present ex- 
ternal form, cf. Herodian i. 9, avhp pido- 
adpou pépwv oxijua, and other examples 
in Wetst.) of this world is passing away 
(is in the act of being changed, as a passing 
scene in a play: cf. mdpaye mrépuyas, 
Eur. Ion, 165). This shews that the time 
is short :—the form of this world is already 
beginning to pass away. Grot., al., ac- 
cording to the mistaken view of ver. 20, 
—‘non manebunt, que nunc sunt, res 
tranquillz, sed mutabuntur in turbidas.’ 
Theophyl. and many Commentators un- 
derstand the saying of worldly affairs in 
general—ixpis beds cit TX TOD TapdyToOS 
Kéomov, Kal émiméAcia:—but this is in- 
consistent with the right interpretation of 
ver. 29: see there. Stanley compares a 
remarkable parallel, 2 Esdr. xvi. 40—44, 
probably copied from this passage. 

32—34.| Application of what has been 

M 2 


532 IIPOS KOPINOIOTS A. VII. 
ese cal b / > 
mee’ Koomou tovtov. * Oérw dé twas £ awepipvous etvat. 

Wisd. vi. 15. a ie a / a L a 

vizonly. O ©@yapwos ™peptuva ‘ta Tod Kupiov, Tas *apéon TO 

ver. 5. 

sicjiah: Le. OG iS , h Se es eee ae “ 
‘gag? Upitp 0 6€ yapnoas " wepiyuva ita TOD KOoHOV, Fas 
uil. ii, 20. ie ed n , \ , 

iv. only, Kapéon TH yuvaikt. ** Kal | wewépiotar Kal 1) YuYN Kal 7 
_ Exod. y. 9 (a). : Aug \ a / ¢7/ ~ 
iRom lt MaranGevos. 1 © ayauos » wepysva 'ta TOU Kuplov, Wa 7 
kR . viii. 8 rn a c \ / 
ref. a ayia Kal TO ™ c@pate Kal TO ™ TvevpaTu 7 SE °yaunoaca 
see ch. i. 1 

reff. : m Vy. 25, 28. n 1 Thess. y. 23. see ch. v. 3 reff. o of the woman, see 

ver. 28 reff. 


82. om de F o 61 fuld D-lat Meth: yap 38 Clem. 

33. ree (for apeon vv 32-3-4) apere:, with KLP 17(ver 33) rel Clem Orig Meth Ath 
Epiph, Cyr Ephr Thdrt Damase Thl @e: txt ABDFR 17 Eus. for Kupiw, bew F 
vulg Orig Cypr. 

84. rec om Ist ka, with D3FKL 47(Treg) rel Chr Thdrt,: ins ABD! PX 617. 31. 71-3 
vulg syrr copt Eus Meth Bas Cyr Epiph Pel Jer Aug Fulg Primas Bede. 
rec om 2nd xa, with D! demid(and fuld) copt Cyr Epiph Ephr Aug Jer Tert: ins 
ABDSFKLPN 6. 31. 71-3 rel vulg syr Eus Meth Bas Chr Thdrt Damase Pel Fulg Primas 
Bede.—eu. de 30, wen. Se kar Syr. aft n yuvn ins 7 ayamos (retaining it also after 
mapevos) ANF? 17 zxth Damasc; so (but omg the 2nd) BP 6. 31. 71-3 vulg Eus Ps-Ath 
Pel Jer, Aug,. om ka [bef tw cwpari] A D(sic, Treg) P m 17 vulg-ed(with some 
mss, but agst am demid al) Syr copt arm Orig, Ath Did Tert. rec om tw [bef 
own. and bef mvevu.}, with DFKL rel Orig, Meth, Did Thdrt Thl Gc: ins ABPX a m 


just said to the question of marriage. 

32. Oé\w Se...) But (i.e. since 
this is so—since the time is so short, and 
that, in order that we Christians may sit 
loose to the world) I wish you to be with- 
out worldly cares (undistracted). Then 
he explains how this touches on the sub- 
ject. TOs apéon—how he may 
please: mas apéoei—‘ how he shall please.’ 
The variety being not in reality a various 
reading, but only an itacism, I retain the 
form found in the most ancient Mss. 

34.] See var. readd.: I treat here 
only of the ¢ext. Divided also is the 
(married) woman and the virgin (i.e. 
divided in interest (i.e, in cares and pur- 
suits] from one another: od thy abthy 
éxovot ppovrTida, GAAa meuepiomeva eiol 
tais omovdats, Theophyl.: not merely, 
different from one another, as E. V., 
Chrys., Luth., Grot., al. Divisa est mulier 
et virgo D-lat G-lat Tert). It may be 
well to remark as to the reading, on 
which see Digest,—that Jerome testifies 
to this having been the reading of the 
old Latin copies, and himself sometimes 
quotes the passage in this form; but, 
when speaking of it critically, he states 
that it is not in the “apostolica veritas,” 
i. e., it would seem, the Greek as under- 
stood by him. “ Nune illud breviter 
admoneo in Latinis codicibus hune locum 
ita legi: ‘Divisa est virgo et mulier;’ quod 
quamquam habent suum sensum, et a me 
quoque pro qualitate loci sic edissertum 
sit, tamen, non est apostolice veritatis. 
Siquidem Apostolus ita seripsit, ut supra 
transtulimus; ‘Sollicitus est que sunt 


mundi, quomodo placeat uxori, et divisus 
est. Et hac sententia definita transgre- 
ditur ad virgines et continentes et ait: 
‘ Mulier innupta et virgo cogitat que sunt 
Domini ut sit sancta corpore et spiritu.’ 
Non omnis innupta, et virgo est. Que 
autem virgo utique et innupta est. Quam- 
quam ob elegantiam dictionis potuerit id 
ipsum altero verbo repetere, ‘mulier in- 
nupta et virgo:’ vel certe definire voluisse 
quid esset innupta, id est virgo: ne mere- 
trices putemus innuptas, nulli certo matri- 
monio copulatas” (Jer. contra Jovin. i. 
13, vol. ii. p. 260). The sing. verb seems 
to be used, as standing first in this sen- 
tence, and because 7 yur?) k. 7 map@. em- 
braces the female sex as one idea: so e. g. 
Plato, Lys. p. 207, piAc? ce 6 mathp Kal 7 
Bitnp: Herod. v. 21, efreto yap 5 ogi x. 
oxhmata K. Oepdrovtes Kal 7 Taga TOAAH 
mapackeuy : q.d. * There loves thee father 
and mother,’—‘ there followed them,’ &e. 
See more examples in Kiihner, ii. p. 58 
(§ 433, exception 1) :—Reiche thinks that 
one and the same woman is intended at 
different periods: but 7 3€ yauhoaca is 
against this: it would be yauhoaca dé 
(Meyer). The judgment of marriage 
here pronounced by the Apostle must be 
taken, as the rest of the chapter, with its 
accompanying conditions. He is speaking 
of a pressing and quickly shortening period 
which he regards as yet remaining before 
that day and hour of which neither he, nor 
any man, knew. He wishes his Corinthians, 
during that short time, to be as far as pos- 
sible totally undistracted. He mentions 
as an objection to marriage, that which is 


ede 


32—36. 


h Ai \ fol , fal k 22 Aes bY , 
Mepiuva ira Tod Koopov, Tas * dpéon TH avdpl. 
5€ Parpos TO tuav avtav Iavudopov Réyo, ody wa 
p yh pov Aéyw, ovx 

, nr / > ‘\ ‘ ” \ 

* Bpoxov tpiv * ériuBddw, adda P pos TO tevayNuov Kal 
“euTrapedpov TH Kuplm Y aTreplaTrdoTas. 
Yaoxnmovely * él tHv Y tapOévov avTod *vopife, éav 7 

a / 

* brrépaxuos, Kal oTws ? odeirer yiveoOat, 6 Oéreu TroveiTw* 
u here only +. (mapedpeveur, ch. ix. 13.) 


t Acts xiii. 50 reff. 


20.llal. (-o7os, Wisd. xvi. 11. meptomac@a, Luke x. 40. 
only. Deut. xxv,3. Ezek. xvi.8. (-Mwyv, ch. xii. 23. -s“oovvn, Rom. i. 27.) 
: y = Eur. Iph. in Aul. 714, éxeto” amaker onv euryv te mapOevor ; 
Soph. id. Tyr. 1462, raty d0Avaty olxtpaiv Te mapOévow éuaty. 
see Sir. xlii. 9. 


24\|J. James y. 14. 


viii. 20 reff. 
ii. 17. v. 3. 


17 Clem Orig, Ath,. 


a here only t+. 


IIPOS KOPIN@IOTS A. 


533 


35 TOTO p =ch. vi.5. 
x. ll. xii. 
7 al. 


: F, Symm. 

S6 et: 08), TIS eae 
vil. 21, xxii. 
25 only. 

s and constr., 
Mark xi. 7. 
Proy. xx. 26. 

v here only +. Polyb. ii. 

w ch. xiii. 5 

x Mark xv. 


Sir. xli. 2.) 


zand constr., Acts 
b = ch. v.10. ix.10. Heb, 


om Ta Tov koouou B. 


35. rec cuudepor, with D3FK LPN? m(sic, Treg) rel Meth Eus Chr Thdrt: txt ABD} 


17 Hesych. 

5.6: txt ABDFPX m 17 Clem Eus Bas. 
36. acxnuove: (for acxnmovev) F. 

€. T. 7. av. D}, 


an undoubted fact of human experience : 
—which is necessarily bound up with that 
relation: and without which the duties of 
the relation could not be fulfilled. Since 
he wrote, the unfolding of God’s providence 
has taught us more of the interval before 
the coming of the Lord than it was given 
even to an inspired Apostle to see. And as 
it would be perfectly reasonable and proper 
to urge on an apparently dying man the 
duty of abstaining from contracting new 
worldly obligations,—but both unreason- 
able and improper, should the same person 
recover his health, to insist on this absti- 
nence any longer: so now, when God has 
manifested His will that nations should 
rise up and live and decay, and long cen- 
turies elapse before the day of the coming 
of Christ, it would be manifestly unreason- 
able to urge,—except in so far as every 
man’s kaipds is cuvectaApevos, and similar 
arguments are applicable,—the considera- 
tions here enforced. Meanwhile they stand 
here on the sacred page as a lesson to us 
how to regard, though in circumstances 
somewhat changed, our worldly relations ; 
and to teach us, as the coming of the Lord 
may be as near now, as the Apostle then 
believed it to be, to act at least in the 
spirit of his advice, and be, as far as God’s 
manifest will that we should enter into 
the relations and affairs of life allows, 
Guéepiuvor. The duty of ver. 35 fin. is in- 
cumbent on all Christians, at all periods. 
35.] Caution against mistaking what 
has been said for an winperative order, 
whereas it was only a@ suggestion for their 
best interest. Tovto | vv. 32—34. 
mpds TO tp. adt. cvp.| For your own 
(emph.) profit,—i. e. not for my own pur- 
poses—not to exercise my apostolie au- 


for ovtws, Tovto A. 


rec evmposedpoy, with K rel Chr (ic: mposedpov Li: evmposextoy 


€avtou P. om vource. F: ins bef 
yeverOar F a Meth. 


thority: not that I may cast a snare 
(lit. ‘a noose; the metaphor is from 
throwing the noose in hunting, or in war ; 
so Herod. vii. 85, 7 5€ puaxn tolTewy 
Tov avipay Hde. emeay cuuploywou Tois 
moAeutots, BaAAovot Tas ceipas em BKpw 
Bpdxous €xovoas, dtev S dy Tdxn jvTe 
trou Hvte-avOpdmov, em Ewttdy EAKeEt’ of 
dé ev Epkeoi Cumaracodmevor SiapbelpovTat. 
See other examples in Wetst.) over you (i.e. 
entangle and encumber you with difficult 
precepts), but with a view to seemliness 
(cf. Rom. xiii. 13) and waiting upon the 
Lord without distraction. De W. re- 
marks, that mpds Td mapedpevew TG k. Grrep. 
would be the easier construction. Stanley 
draws out the parallel to the story in ref. 
Luke. 36 — 38.] For seemliness’ sake: 
and consequently, if there be danger, by a 
father withholding his consent to his 
daughter’s marriage, of wnseemly treat- 
ment of her, let an exception be made in 
that case: but otherwise, if there be no 
such danger, it is better not to give her in 
marriage. But (introduces an inconsis- 
tency with evoxnuov) if any one (any 
father) thinks that he is behaving un- 
seemly towards his virgin daughter (viz. 
in setting before her a temptation to sin 
with her lover, or at least, bringing on her 
the imputation of it, by withholding his 
consent to her marriage. Or the reference 
may be to the supposed disgrace of having 
an unmarried daughter in his house), if 
she be of full age (for before that the 
imputation and the danger consequent on 
preventing the marriage would not be such 
as to bring in the adoxnpoodvn. The 
&xuh of woman is defined by Plato, Rep. v. 
p- 460, to be twenty years, that_of man, 
thirty. See Stanley’s note), and thus it 


534 IIPOS KOPINOIOTS A. VII. 37—40. 


c see ver. 28 
reff. 

d ch. xy. 58. 
Col. i. 23 


ovxX auapTaver, © yapelTwoar. 
yA > 4 d ES al x e x e > / fg > / 
Kapdia avtod “édpaios, wi °eywv © avayxnv, © éEovotay 


only +t. Ps. 
vi. 8S j . £¥ \ nA OOF h , \ a oe 
_messymm. §€ féyer Sarepl Tov tdiov » OedXjmatos, Kal TOUTO * KEKpLKEV n 
18, (xxi. b] a yA bu k tal \ cf a y bé l r 
17.) Heb. €V TT) t la Kap la TH PELV TV E€AVTOV Tap e€vorV, KaXWS 
vii. 27 Jude , Rate \ ec , 
3. Jos. Antt. 38 4 mf2 df a 2 
3. Jos, Antt. TTOLNG EL. waste kai o ™ [éx | yauifwr [tHv éavtod trapbé 
f Matt. vii. fal fa \ c \ 5) / a 
wie  vov] lKad@s Trovel, Kal o pn ™ [éx|yauilwy ™ Kpetooor 
Luke xii. 5. , 
ix. 17. 
epic ise er On 
Rom. ix. 21. 2 Thess. iii. 9. 1 Macc. x. 35. g here only. h of man, Luke xxiii. 25. John 
i. 13. ch. xvi. 12. Eph. ii.3. 2 Pet.i.21. 3 Kings v. 8. i= Acts xv. 19 reff. k = 1 Thess. 
vy. 23. see John xii. 7. 1 Pet. i. 4. 1= Acts x. 33, Phil. iv. 14. James ii. 8,19, 2 Pet.i.19. 3 Kings 
viii. 18. m [here bis.] Matt. (xxii. 30 || L. rec.) xxiv. 38 only t. (yau.t¢., Mark xii. 25. Luke 
XVii. 27 +.) n ver. 9 reff. 


for yauertwoar, yauertw D'F vss Epiph Aug: si nubat vulg(including P-lat) D-lat lat-4f. 

37. rec edpaios bef ev Tn kapdia, with KLN% rel Thdrt, Thl: om edpaios F D-lat arm 
txt AB D-gr PR! adm 17 vulg syr coptt Bas Thdrt, lat-ff. (Zhe transposn seems to 
have been made for perspicuity, to bring earnkev and edpaios together.) rec om 
avrov, with KL rel syr Thdrt, Damase Th! We: ins ABDFPR d m 17 vss Bas Thdrt. 


om de A. 


rec (for 1d1a Kapdia) kapdia avtov, with DF KL rel Thdrt Damase : 
Sia Kapdia avrov m: Kapdia (alone) 677: txt ABPN a. 
with DFKL rel Damase (Ee: om ABP cd 17. 


rec ins tov bef rnpew, 
rec (for moincet) Toret, with DFKL 


rel syrr 2th Bas Thdrt Damase Thl Gc: txt ABPN 6. 17. 67? coptt. 


38. om wste to mover (homeeotel) F bi d. 


rel Thl Ge: yauidwy ABD F(once) 8! 17 Clem Meth Bas. 


rec exyauCwy (twice), with KLPX3(2nd) 


rec om Tnyv eau. Tapé., 


with KL rel Thdrt Damase Augaliq: ins AN m 17 Meth Bas: ryv map6. eav. BD vulg 


Syr syr-w-ob coptt Clem Aug. 
17 rel. 


must be (i.e. and there is no help for 
it,—they are bent on it beyond the power 
of dissuasion :— depends not on édy, as the 
indic. shews, but on «i. ovttws, viz. that 
they must marry. Theophyl. takes the 
words for the beginning of the consequent 
sentence = o¥tws Kal yevécOw. But, as 
Meyer remarks, the words would thus be 
altogether superfluous, and after opeiAci, 
ovxX Guaptave. would be inapplicable), 
what he will (as his determination on this 
voutcew), let him do (7d doxody mpatTéTe, 
Theodoret), he sinneth not (auaprias 
yap 6 yduos éActOepos, Theodoret); let 
them (his daughter and her lover) marry. 
Some (Syr., Grot., al.) take aoxnuovety 
passively,—‘thinks that he is (likely to 
be) brought into disgrace as regards his 
daughter, viz. by her seduction, or by her 
being despised as unmarried. But this 
would require (1) the future 4doxnuovfjceiy. 
—(2) émi with a dative, the acc. shewing 
that the verb is one of action : Meyer com- 
pares aoxnmovety ets tia, Dion. Hal. ii. 
26. And (3) the active sense of the verb 
is found in this Epistle (ref.), the only 
other place where it oceurs in the N. T. 

37.] But he who stands firm in 
his heart (= purpose,—having no such 
misgiving that he is behaving unseemly), 
not involved in any necessity (no dpelAc 
yevéoOat as in the other case; no deter- 


for move, tornoet B m 6. 672: txt ADKLPR 
rec (for kat 6) 6 de (corrn for contrast), with KLPN% rel syr eth Thdrt ‘Thl 
(Ec: txt ABDFN! m 17 latt Syr coptt arm Clem Meth Bas Chr. 
toinoet) moret, With DEKLP rel latt Thdrt: 


rec (for 
txt ABN m 6. 17. 672. 


mination to marry on the part of his 
daughter, nor attachment formed), but 
has (change of construction :—the clause 
is opposed to €xwv avdryr.) liberty of action 
respecting his personal wish (to keep his 
daughter unmarried), and has determined 
this in hisown (expressed, as itisamatter of 
private determination only) heart (rovto, 
not stated what, but understood by the 
reader to mean, the keeping his daughter 
unmarried :—but this would not be in ap- 
position with nor explained by Tod rnp. r- 
éavT. map6., see below), to keep (in her 
present state) his own virgin daughter 
(the rec., tod tnp., would express the 
purpose of the determination expressed in 
Kéxptxey: not [as commonly given] the 
explanation of rodro0, which would require 
7) Tnpeiv or Thpetv. It shews that the 
motive of the xéxpucey is the feeling of a 
father, desirous of retaining in her present 
state his own virgin daughter. So Meyer, 
and I think rightly: see note on Acts 
xxvii. 1. De Wette, on the other hand, 
regards the words tod rnp... . , as merely 
a peripbrasis for not giving her in mar- 
riage. Our present text merely explains 
the rotro), shall do well. 88.| The 
latter «ai has been altered to 5é because a 
contrast seemed to be required between 
KaA@s and kpeiocov. One account might 
be (as M, and De W.) that Paul had in- 


37 a be ve a lol 

oS € €OTNKEV EV T7) ABDFK 
LPNab 
cdefg 
hkim 


017. 
47 


VIII. 1. 


IIPO> KOPINOIOTS A. 


535 


39 Tuvn ° déderar rep P 6ooy P Xpovoy oF 6 ap aUTHs: ° = Rom. vii 


€av O€ ‘ai 0 aviip, TédevOépa eotiy © Oédeu yer 
40 t waxapiwtépa Sé éotiv, eay *- 


Ojvat, ovov * év Kupla. 


u cf / N \ > \ Vv , w6 n By: > \ 
OUTS MEN, KATA THY Env Y yv@_nV" OKWM O€ KAY@® xy 


* qvedpa Oeod * Eyer. 


VIII. 1 Ilept dé trav YeidmrA0OTwr, 


2,8, 11 al. 
i. 10 reff. 
19. Acts xy. 29. xxi. 25. 


w ch, iii. 18 reff, 


t compar., here only +. see Acts xx. 35. 


Rey. ii. 14, 20 only +. 


Peo vii. 1 


Cys erat XXVil. 
Acts vii. 
60. xiii. 36. 
ch, xi. 30. 
6, &e. 
1 Thess. iv. 
13, 14. Isa. 
xiv. 8. 
r w. inf. here 
only. 
s = Rom. xvi. 
v=ch. 
y vv. 4, 7,10. ch. x. 


v (4 
7 oldamev 7 OTL 
u ver, 26. 
x Rom. viii. 9. Jude 19. 
z= ch. vi. 2 al. fr. 


39. rec aft deSera ins vouw (from Rom vii. 2), with D?3FLPN3 rel vulg-ed(with fuld 
F-lat) Syr syr-w-ob Orig! Chrsepe Thdrt Damasc, Ambrst,: om ABD!N} Coisl-oct-marg 


17 am(with demid tol harl2) coptt eth arm Clem Orig, 'Oyr lat-ff. 
ins kat bef comundm D3FL a befhlosyr Thdrt He: 
for koiunOn, ano0avn A '73 syr-mg basm Clem Orig Bas Tert. 


(not G) 
vss Clem Orig. 


om Ist 6 F 
om ABD'KPNR rel 


rec aft 2nd o avnp ins avtns, with DEL a m 17. 47 vss(syr-w-ast) Orig, Damase 


Th] lat-ff: om ABKPN Orig, Bas Cyr Thdrt, Ge Vig. 


F latt lat-ff: yaunoa L}(appy) 


for yaunOnvat, yaunOn 


40. for 2nd de, yap B m 4. 17.672. 71-3. 116 tol syr(S_ in marg) basm «th Orig Ambr 


Ambrst Vig Sedul (not Tert, Aug Jer). 


tended to write kaA@s zo. twice, but 
currente calamo, intensified the expres- 
sion to kpetocoy mornoet. Perhaps a better 
one would be found by referring the ca! — 
kal to that which kadés and kpetocov 
have in common: ‘both he who gives in 
marriage does well, and he who gives not 
in marriage shall do well, even in a higher 
degree. { need hardly remind the tiro 
that ‘both—and’ here does not, as Bloomf. 
objects, represent te kai,—each subject 
being accompanied by its own predicate. 
Observe the worhoet—moret—mrorhoer ; the 
pres., of the mere act itself, the fut., of its 
enduring results. 39, 40.] Concern- 
ing second marriages of women. 
39. SéSerar| viz. TH avdpi, or perhaps 
absolutely, is bound, in her marriage state. 
yapnPayvat| yaunOjva and yaujoa 
are later forms, reprobated by the gram- 
marians : yaueO7jvar and yauéoa being the 
corresponding ones in good Greek. See 
Lobeck on Phrynichus, p. 742. Meyer 
cites Schol. on Eur. Med. 593, yawe? pev 


yap 6 avhp, yauetrar d€ h yurn. But 
not invariably, see ver. 28. p-6vov 


év kupiw| only in the Lord, i. e. within 
the limits of Christian connexion—in the 
element in which all Christians live and 
walk ;—‘ let her marry a Christian.’ So 
Tertull., Cypr., Ambrose, Jerome, Grot., 
Est., Bengel, Rosenm., Olsh., Meyer, De 
W. But Chrys. explains it weTa cwdpo- 
civns, weTa KoTuLdTHTOS :-—and so (but in 
some cases including in this the marrying 
of a Christian) Theodoret (rouréotiv éuo- 
mlot@, evoeBet, cwhpdvws, evvduws), Theo- 
phyl., Calv., Beza, Calov., al. This how- 
ever seems flat, and the other much to be 
preferred ; also as making a better limita- 
tion of @ @éAc. 40. pakapiwrépa | 


exo F Tert, Ambrst Aug. 


happier, partly by freedom from the at- 
tendant trials of the évecréoa avaynn,— 
but principally for the reason mentioned 
verse 34. ‘To higher blessedness in 
heaven, which became attached to celibacy 
afterwards in the views of its defenders 
(Ambrose, Corn.-a-Lap., al.), there is no 
allusion here.” Meyer. Soka Se kayo | 
This is modestly said, implying more than 
is expressed by it,—not as if there were 
any uncertainty in his mind. It gives us 
the true meaning of the saying that he is 
giving his opinion, as ver. 25: viz. not that 
he is speaking without inspiration, but that 
in the consciousness of inspiration he is 
giving that counsel which should determine 
the question. The rationalizing Grotius 
explains mvevua Oeov, ‘non revelationem, 
sed sincerum affectum Deo et piis ser- 
viendi,’ referring to ch. iv. 21, where (1) 
the meaning is not this (see note); and 
(2) the expression is not mvevua Qeod. 

Kaye | ‘as well as other teachers.’ 
Whether said with a general or particular 
reference, we cannot tell, from not being 
sufficiently acquainted with the circum- 
stances. 

VIII. 1—XI.1.] On THE PARTAKING 
OF MEATS OFFERED TO IDOLS, AND AS- 
SISTING AT FEASTS HELD IN HONOUR OF 
IDOLS. 

Cuap. VIII. 1—13.] Though (vv. 1—6) 
Jor those who are strong in the faith, an 
idol having no existence, the question has 
no importance, this is not so with all (ver. 
7)3 and the infirmities of the weak must 
in such a matter be regarded in our con- 
duct (vv. 8—13). 1.] 8é, transitional, 
as in ch. vii. 1, al. fr. As regards the 
construction, we may observe, that meph é. 
Tov €id., is again taken up ver. 4, wept THs 


536 


a= vv. 7, 10, 
ll. Hos. iv. 
6. see 1 Tim. 
vi. 20. 


© ofKodomel. 
b ch. iv 6 reff. 


c = Acts ix. 31 reff. 


IIPOS KOPINOIOTS A. 


mavres *yvaow Exouev’ 1) *yva@ous » huccot, 
an / y 
2 ef tis “Ooxed eyvwxévar Ti, oUTM EyVo 


Vill. 


Crap. VIII. 2. rec aft e: ins Se, with DFKL rel vulg syr-w-ast (eth) Chr Thdrt Thl 
(Be Jer: on ABPR m 17 am(with fuld harl'{appy] tol) coptt arm Clem Nys Melet 


Damase Orig-int Tert Cypr Ambrst. 


rec (for eyvwkevat) evdevat, with KL rel Chr 


Thdrt Thl Ce, scire vulg: txt ABDFPN m 17 coptt Clem Orig Nys, Thdrt, Damase, 


cognovisse D-lat. (G-lat has both cognoscere and scire.) 
rel Nys Chr Thdrt, Damase Thl Gc: om m: txt ABPR 17 Clem Orig Melet. 


rec ovderw, with DF KL 
rece 


aft ov| de jaw ins ovdery, with DKL rel syrr Chr Thdrt, Damasc Thl Ge: om ABD!FPN 


17 latt coptt Clem Orig Nys Melet Thdrt,. 


ree eyvwkev, with D3KL rel Chr 


Thdrt, Thl Ge: txt ABD'FPN am Clem Orig Nys Melet Thdrt, Damase.—for ov7w 


eyyw Kabws der yvwvat, ovdev ede: (= Hdet) Kadws eder 17. 


Bodo. ovv tay «id., after a parenthesis. 
We may also observe that in the latter 
case ofdauer 81 is restated, bearing there- 
fore, it is reasonable to suppose, the same 
meaning as before, viz. we know, that. 
This to my mind is decisive against begin- 
ning the parenthesis with 87:, and render- 
ing 87: ‘for, as Luther, Bengel, Valckn., 
al.:—‘we know (for we all have know- 
ledge),’ §e. Are we then to begin it with 
mdyres, leaving wep)... olSamev Ort broken 
off, corresponding to the words resumed in 
ver. 4? We should thus leave within the 
parenthesis a very broken and harsh sen- 
tence: mdytes yraow exomev (what yva- 
ois ? if yv. about the eidwAo8.,it should be 
joined with the preceding; if-yv.in general, 
it should be thy yv@ou, see ch. xiii. 2, 
which would be absurd; if some yv. on 
some subjects, as ov mlotw exes, James ii. 
18, it would here be irrelevant), 7 yv. 
gvowt, 4 5€ ay. «.7.A. The first logical 
break in the sense is where the concrete 
yvaots, that wepi tev €id., is forsaken, 
and the abstract 7 yva@o.s treated of. 
Here therefore, with Chrys., &e., Beza, 
Grot., Calv., Est.,al., De Wette, and Meyer, 
I begin the parenthesis, —. .. we are aware 
that we all (see below) have knowledge; 
knowledge, &c.; not however placing it 
in brackets, for it is already provided for 
in the construction by the resumption of 
mepl .. obv below; and is not a grammati- 
cal but only a logical parenthesis. The 
elSwAd0uta were those portions of the ani- 
mals offered in sacrifice which were not laid 
on the altar, and which belonged partly to 
the priests, partly to those who had offered 
them. These remnants were sometimes 
eaten at feasts holden in the temples (see 
ver. 10), or in private houses (ch. x. 27, f.), 
sometimes sold in the markets, by the 
priests, or by the poor, or by the niggardly. 
Theophrastus, Charact. Xviil., describes it as 
characteristic of the aveAcv@epos,—exdidobs 
abtod Ouyatépa, Tod mey tepelov, mAHY TaY 
iepav, Ta Kpéa GrodiSoc0u. They were 


sometimes also reserved for future use: 
Theophr. mentions it as belonging to the 
avalaxuvtos,—Ovcas Tois Beois aitds pev 
deimvety map EtTEéEpw, Ta SE Kpea GmoTiPevat 
GAol maoas. Christians were thus in con- 
tinual danger of meeting with such rem- 
nants. Partaking of them was an abomi- 
nation among the Jews: see Num. xxv. 
2; Ps. evi. 28; Rev. 11. 14; Tobit i. 10. — 
12; and was forbidden by the Apostles and 
elders assembled at Jerusalem, Acts xv. 29 ; 
xxi, 25. That Paul in the whole of this 
passage makes no allusion to that decree, 
but deals with the question on its own 
merits, probably is to be traced to his wish 
to establish his position as an independent 
Apostle, endowed with God’s Holy Spirit 
sufficiently himself to regulate such mat- 
ters. But it also shews, how little such 
decisions were at that time regarded as 
lastingly binding on the whole church: 
and how fully competent it was, even 
during the lifetime of the Apostles, to 
Christians to open and question, on its own 
merits, a matter which ¢hey had, for a 
special purpose, once already decided. 
There should be a comma at eldwAobiTwr, 
as the resumed sentence (ver. 4) shews. 
mavTes yvGouw exonev| Who are 
mavres? Meyer says, Paul himself and 
the enlightened among the Corinthians : 
Estius, al., these latter alone; and some 
think it said ironically, some concessively, 
of them: Grot., “ pars maxima nostrum, 
ut Rom. iii. 12.” But it is manifest from 
vv. 4—6, which is said in the widest possi- 
ble reference to the faith of all Christians, 
that all Christians must be intended here 
also: and so Chrys., Theophyl., Gicum., 
Calov., al., and De Wette. But then, ver. 
7, he says, ovx év waow 7 yv@ous: and 
how are the two to be reconciled? By 
taking, I believe, the common-sense view 
of two such statements, which would be, 
in ordinary preaching or writing, that 
the first was said of what is professed and 
confessed,—the second of what is actually 


e X > ¥ 

1) O€ WyaTN ABDFI 
LPNa 
cdef 


hkln 
no lj, 
47 


2—D5. 


IIPOS KOPINOIOTS A. 


537 


\ tal lal A 
Kabeas Set yvovarr 3 ci Sé tus “ayaa Tov 4 Oedv, odTOS d Matt. xxii 


e ” , ose > a 
EYV@OTAL UIT AUTOUV. 


“crept THs ' Bpwcews ody TaV 


7 \|,and Luke 
x. 27, from 
Deut. vi. 5. 
Rom. viii. 28. 


, , 
SeidwroOUTwr, % oidawev © te oddey EldwAov ev KOTW@, }Johniv.2, 


WL ey 2» \ \ > \ ey i 
Kal OTe ovdels Beds Pet pun eiss 5 Kal yap elrep elo °F is 


xvi. 5). Matt. vii. 23. 
xii.4. Gal. i. 19. 


8. om um avrov &! 17 Clem. 


f Rom. xiy. 17 reff. 


(from Num. 


g ver. 1. h = Matt. 


4. for m. tns Bp. ovv, m. de ths Bp. D?>-3(and lat: D1 has both Se and ovy[ Treg, 
expr]) e 1.17. 108-15 vulg (autem vulg al: enim spec: ergo F-lat) Iren-int Aug.—for 


Bpwoews, yuwrews DIP 121. 
int. 


aft ovdev ins ect F vulg Syr syr-w-ast Iren Orig- 
rec aft Ocos ins erepos, with K LN rel syrr Chr Thdrt Damase Thl @e: om 


ABDFPR! 17. 47 latt copt eth arm Cyr Bas Iren-int lat-ff. 


and practically apprehended by each man. 
Thus we may say of our people, in the 
former sense, ‘all ave Christians ; all be- 
lieve in Christ :’ but in the latter, ‘all are 
not Christians; all do noé believe.’ 
yao, scil. rep) abtav. From 7 yy. to 
end of ver. 3 (see above) is a logical paren - 
thesis. q yvaous, knowledge, abstract, 
—scil. when alone, or improperly predomi- 
nant: it is the attribute of 7 yvéots, 
‘barely.’ q ayarn | viz. ‘ towards the 
brethren, see Rom. xiv. 15, and ch. x. 23. 
oixod. | helps to build up (God’s 
spiritual temple), ch. iii. 9. 2, 3.] The 
general deductions, (1) from a profession of 
knowledge, and (2) from the presence of 
love, in a man:—expressed sententiously 
and without connecting particles, more, as 
Meyer observes, after the manner of St. 
John in his Epistles. On the text, see 
var. readd. The case supposed is the 
only one which can occur where love is 
absent and conceit present: a man can 
then only think he knows,—no real know- 
ledge being accessible without humility and 
love. Such a man knows not yet, as he 
ought to know: has had no real practice 
in the art of knowing. But if a man 
loves God (which is the highest and noblest 
kind of love, the source of brotherly love, 
1 John v. 2), this man (and not the wise in 
his own conceit) is known by Him. The 
explanation of this latter somewhat diffi- 
‘cult expression is to be found in ref. Gal., 
viv 5& yvdvrTes Gedy, paAAOV Sé yvwoOEvTes 
tr Oeod. So that herve we may fairly 
assume that he chooses the expression éyvw- 
Ta br avtov in preference to that which 
would have been, had any object of know- 
ledge but the Supreme been treated of, the 
natural one, viz. ovTos éyvw aitév. We 
cannot be said to know God, in any full 
sense (as here) of the word to know. But 
those who become acquainted with God by 
love, are known by Him: are the espe- 
cial objects of the divine Knowledge,— 
their being is pervaded by the Spirit of 
God, and the wisdom of God is shed abroad 


in them. So in ref. 2 Tim., éyyw kdpios 
Tovs dvtas avTov. See also Ps.i.6. “Cog- 
nitionem passivam sequitur cognitio activa 
ce. xiii. 12. Egregia metalepsis: cognitus 
est, adeoque cognovit.” Bengel. yiwdéonw 
does not seem, any more than yy in Ps. i. 
6, xxxvii. 18, for which the LXX have 
yivéoKw, to signify to approve, any further 
than personal knowledge of an intimate 
kind necessarily involves approval. 
4.| The subject is resumed, and further 
specified by the insertion of tHs Bpdcews. 
ovv resumes a broken thread of dis- 
course: so Plato, Apol. p. 29, éste 008 ef 
pe Glere . . . ef wor mpds Tatra elmore, 
&e.... ef ovv pe, dmep elroy, er) rovTats 
aploire... See Hartung, Partikellehre, 
ii. 22. We know that there is no idol 
in the world, i.e. that the ef5waa of the 
heathen (meaning not strictly the images, 
but the persons represented by them) 
have no existence in the world. That 
they who worship idols, worship devils, the 
Apostle himself asserts ch. x. 20; but that 
is no contradiction to the present sentence, 
which asserts that the deities imagined by 
them, Jupiter, Apollo, &e., have absolutely 
no existence. Of that subtle Power which 
under the guise of these deluded the na- 
tions, he here says nothing. The rendering 
of Chrys., Theodoret, Theophyl., (cum., 
Vulg., E. V., Luther, Beza, Grot., Est., al. 
(‘an idol is nothing in the world,’ ch. x. 
19; Jer. x. 3. Sanhedr. 63. 2 [Wetst.], 
“noverant utique Israelite idolum nihil 
esse”’), is certainly wrong here, on account 
of the parallel ovSels Geds ef uh efs which 
follows. And that there is no god, but 
One: the insertion of érepos has probably 
been occasioned by the first commandment, 
ovK €covTat cor Beol €repor TAY euod. 
5, 6.] Further explanation and confirma- 
tion of ver. 4. 5.| For even sup- 
posing that (e%rep makes an hypothesis, so 
that “in incerto relinquitur, jure an injuria 
sumatur,” Herm. ad Viger., p. 834. See 
also Hartung, Partikellehre, i. 343, who 
gives many examples. kal yap el, as 


538 


i = 2 Thess. ii. 
4. Eph. ii. 
ll. 

k = Acts xxv. 


26. 


IIPO> KOPINOIOTS A. 


VE. 


i LZ fa} \ ” > > a x 2 a A 

Neyouevor Oeoi elte ev ovpave@, cite ETL Ys, wsTrEp 
\ ’ ra 

elalv Oeot roddol Kal * KUpioe ToAdol, &1adAN ™Hpiv els 


1=Col.ii.5. Mego 6 ee Ny if 4 Nera ea ay jo 

1=Colii.o- Meds Oo TaTnp, "EE ob Ta TaVTAa Kal Hels “Els AUTO, 
18 reff. \ , ’ a) \ \ 

n Rom, xi,98, QUE els x’pios “Inoots xpiotds, "8 08 Ta TavTa Kal 
see O1. 1 nV. A > A A A 

o Acts xii 15. ouelg "Ov adTov. TAN ovK ° év Taaw 7H P yvadousr TIVES yw 
2 Cor. xi. 10. ou K 

» ver. 1. \ a , ud Y n D7 e > t ~ 

prert , O08 TH *4 ouverdsoes * ws * dpte TOD EldHAOU ws § eidwOOUTOY ABDFL 
1 Pet. ii. 19. abi 
Heb. x.2. ovv79., ch. xi. 16 reff. r ch. iy. 13 reff. defg} 

klmn 
5. ins oc bef Aeyouevor PK Iren Hil. om from eww to eow L. aft Ist ° 14 
ou 


@cor ins Kou Kvptot D Ambrst Pel. 


rec ins rns bef yns, with rel Thdrt, Ge: txt 


ABDFKPR f gk 1 mn 17 Orig, Eus Cyr-jer Chr Cyr, Thdrt, Dion-areop. 
6. om aad’ B basm Iren Orig, Eus.—nuv 5¢ 17 copt Ath Did Cyr, Epiph Orig-int,. 


ins o bef Oeos F. 


ins o bef xp. P. 5: ov B eth. 


om eos X}(ins X-corr?). 


om Ist ra D. 


Wor ournbeia ABPR! 17 syr-mg copt «th Damase: ovvednoet DFLN? rel latt syrr 


Chr Thdrt Thl Gc Tert Aug. 


rec Tov e:swAou bef ews aptt (corrn for perspicuity), 


with ALP rel syr Chr Thl Ge: txt BDFN m latt Syr arm Bas Thdrt lat-ff. 


Eur. Med. 460, kal yap «i ob pe otvyeis, 
ovk by Suvaluny ool Kak@s ppovety mote; 
see Hartung, Partikellehre, i. 140) .f-) 
beings named gods (not those who are 
named gods, ot rey. 8., i. esset, all who 
are so named) Exist (the chief emphasis is 
on eiaiv, on which the hypothesis turns), 
whether in heaven, whether upon earth, 
as (we know that) there are (viz. as being 
spoken of, Deut. x. 17, 6 yap Kipios 6 Beds 
juav, olTos Beds TOV Oedv Kal KUpios TOV 
Kupioy, see also Ps. exxxv. 2, 3) gods many, 
and lords many (the éo7mep brings in an 
acknowledged fact, on which the possibility 
of the hypothesis rests—‘ Hven if some of 
the many gods and many lords whom we 
know to exist, be actually identical with 
the heathen idols...’ The Apostle does 
not concede this, but only puts it). This 
exegesis, which is Meyer’s, is denied by 
De Wette, who takes efep as concessive, 
‘even though, and understands eioivy both 
times as only ‘are,—in the meaning of 
the heathen,—imagining it impossible that 
Paul should have seriously said in an ob- 
jective sense, ‘there are gods many. But 
in the sense in which he uses eof (see 
above) there is no unlikelihood that he 
should assert this. Chrys. gives the fol- 
lowing explanation: kai yap elrep eal Aeyd- 
pevot Geol, smep obv Kal eicly, ovx amrAds 
eioly, GAA, Aeydpmevol, ovK eV mpayuart, 
GAN ev phuart tovTo exovtes* elre ev 
obpava, etre em yas ev odpave Toy HArov 
A€ywv Kk. THY TEAHYHY K. Tov Aoirby Tay 
torpwv xopdv’ kal yap kal TavTa mposekv- 
ynoav “EAAnves* éml yijs 5€ Saimovas, at 
Tous e& avOpdmwy Oevmoinbévtas araytas. 
Hom. xx. p. 172. And similarly Theo- 
doret, Theophyl., (cum., Calv., Beza, 
Calov., Estius, Schrader,al. See the vari- 
ous minor differences of interpretation, in 


Pool’s Synopsis and De Wette: and a 
beautiful note in Stanley. There is a 
sentence in Herodotus (ix. 27) singularly 
resembling this in its structure: 7juiv de, 
ei undtv &AAO eotl arodedeyuEevov, sep 
éor) woAAd Te Kal eb ExovTa, ... GAAG Kal 
ard tod ev Mapadar epyou agol éoper, 
k.t.A. Cf. also Hom. II. a. 81 f.; o. 576 f. 

6.] Yet (see reff. just given, and 
ch. iv. 15) To us (emphatic : however that 
matter may be, we hold) there is ONE 
Gop, the Father (6 matfp answers to 
*Incovs xpiords in the parallel clause be- 
low, and serves to specify what God—viz. 
the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ), of 
Whom (as their Source of being) are all 
things, and we unto (i.e. for) Him (His 
purposes—to serve His will); and one 
Lord Jesus Christ (notice the efs Oeds 
opposed to Geol woAAoi, and efs KUpios to 
Kupiot moAAol), by Whom (as Him by 
whom the Father made the worlds, John 
i. 3; Heb. i. 2) are all things, and we 
(but here secondly, we as his spiritual 
people, in the new creation) by Him. 
The inference from the foregoing is that, 
per se, the eating of meat offered to idols 
is a thing indifferent, and therefore al- 
lowed. The limitation of this licence now 
follows. 7.| But (fondern) not in all 
is the knowledge (of which we have been 
speaking: i.e. see above, is not in them in 
their individual apprehension, though it 
is by their profession as Christians): but 
(aber) some through their conscious- 
ness (or, according to the other reading, 
habituation) to this day, of the (par- 
ticular) idol (i.e. through their having 
an apprehension to this day of the reality 
of the idol, and so being conscientiously 
afraid of the meat offered, as belonging to 
him: not wishing to be connected with 


6—11. IIPOS KOPINOIOTS A. 539 


> Bi. \ c Ss (iS > a t > fal \ i u 
E€OULOVGLV, KAL 1) “TVUVELONGLS AVTWVY ~ AGUEVIS OVOA ~ [LO- 


Ss W. gen. subj., 


Rom. ii. 15. 

, a a / a a ix.1. 2Cor. 
Avvetat. §° Boda SE Huds od “ rapactice TO Dew iva” 
° ¢ t= here (3ce) 


” \ \ 4 x e ye fa} 7 \ ihe 
ovTE cay pn payouev, * VaTEpovpeOa, ciTE Eavy Paywpuer, 
y , 9 Zz / Oe a / a e b > / ¢ lal 
TEpLaTEvOMED. Brérere O€ ? wn? Tas 7» eEovcia buov 
c , rn \ / 
auTn °Tposkoupa yévntar Ttois tacbevéow. 19 éav yap 
18 \ \ Bla p fal > d iO NY / e f 28, 
Bete AE, TOY) ENOL TE: P yuGo Uy: er. ScetberNGie .* MOTOKE «Bim since 
a n reff. 
fevov, ovyt 1 Sauveidnots avtod * adaBevods  dyTOS witom. xii.1. 
fa) , > \ \ 5) r > / 11 , Xiy. 10 
oixodounOncetar eis TO Ta FEldwrddOuTA écView, i Kai 


12 al. 


only. (-vetv, 
Rom. xiy. l. 
iv. 19 al.) 

u Rey. iii. 4. 
xiv. 4 only. 


2 Cor. iv. 14. 
x ch. i. 7 reff. 
y= ch. xy. 

a = Rom. xi. 21. bi= ch. 
Esdr, ii. 10. 1 Macc. i. 47. x. 83 only. 
f = Acts ix. 31 reff. (iron. here 


(Rom. iii. 7 reff.) z = Acts xiii. 40 reff, 
vii. 37 al. c Rom. ix. 32, 33 réff. d here only +. 
e = Mark ii. 15 || L. xiv. 3. Luke vii. 37 only}. (Prov. vi. 9.) 

only. see Mal. iii. 15.) constr., Eph. ii. 22. g ver. 1 reff. 


for ec@ovo.v, extiv N}(txt N-corr!). 

8. vuas RX} ck 1 m17. rec maptornat (corrn to suit the follg pres tenses), with 
DLP rel vulg Orig, Ath-4-mss Chr Thdrt Jac-nisib lat-ff: cumornow F: txt ABN? 
17 coptt Clem, Orig, Ath Damase. rec aft ovre ins yap, with DELP rel latt syrr 
Clem Orig, Chr Thdrt Jac-nisib Ambrst : om ABN 17 am(with tol) coptt eth arm Orig, 
Cypr Aug, (Tert,). rec ouTe cay pay. mepiaoevoper bef ouvre eav un pay. voTepouucda 
(appy to bring closer the clause paywp. wepic., to Bpwu. ov mapior., as being logically 
connected with it), with DF LPR rel syrr Clem Orig Chr Thdrt Jac-nisib Cypr: cay un 
paywuev Tepiogevomey ovTEe cay Paywuev voTepovpeda A217 (but in A “‘mepir. usque ad 
vor, voces rescripte : quid olim non liquet”’): txt (A! ?)B am(with demid flor mar tol) 
coptt arm Bas Damase.—repiocevoueba B Orig. 

9. quwy P. rec acbevovaw (appy corrn to suit acbevwv below, which however 
is gradually introduced,—acbevecw,—acbevovs ovtos,—acbevwv), with L rel Chr 


Thdrt Thl Gc: txt ABDFPX 17 Clem, Damase. 


10. edn A 17. 


gr-ff. yvwow bef exovta &! 17 Orig-int. 
17 (8A. AF 17). 
him. 77 cvvedqoe Ews &pti is not = TH 


€ws &pte ouy., but ews &pre stands sepa- 
rate, as above: so 81a Tis eujjs mapovalas 
maAw mpos tuas, Phil. i. 26) eat it as 
offered to an idol, and their conscience, 
in that it is weak, is defiled. By éws 
Gptt, it is shewn that these ac@eve7s must 
have belonged to the Gentile part of the 
Corinthian church : to those who had once, 
before their conversion, held these idols to 
be veritable gods. Had they been Jewish 
converts, it would not have been ouveldnots 
Tov e€ldéA0v which would have troubled 
them, but apparent violation of the Mosaic 
law. 8.] Reason why we should 
accommodate ourselves to the prejudices of 
the weak in this matter: because it is not 
one in which any spiritual advantage is to 
be gained, but one perfectly indifferent : 
not, with Calv., al., an objection of the 
strong among the Corinthians: no such 
" assumption must be made, without a plain 
indication in words that the saying of 
another is being cited: see Rom. ix. 19; 
xi. 19; and as Meyer well remarks, if the 
eaters had said this, they would have ex- 
pressed it, odre cay ph ¢dywuey wepioc., 
ote cay pay., boTep., as it has actually 
been corrected (see var. readd.) in some 


om oe BF vulg Orig-int: ins ADLPNX rel syrr coptt goth arm 


e1dwA.w (for -Aew) ABDLN hk m 


eoOtew bef ra et5wAobuta DF vss(not goth arm) Orig-int Aug. 


Mss., and adopted by Lachm. in his last 
edn. The 6€ carries on the argument. 
Bengel remarks (against the ordinary 
rendering, which takes mapiornut = ovv- 
fornut, ‘commendo,’ which meaning it will 
not bear) that mapaorjoe: is a verbum 
péoov, after which may follow a good or a 
bad predicate :—will not affect our (future) 
standing before God ;—and to this indif- 
ferent meaning of rapacryjoe: answers the 
antithetic alternative which follows. 
9.| 8é—q. d. “I acknowledge this indif- 
ference—this licence to eat or not to eat; 
but it is on that very account, because it 
is a matter indifferent, that ye must take 
heed,” Ke. The particular mpdskouua in 
this case would be, the tempting them to 
act against their conscience :—a practice 
above all others dangerous to a Christian, 
see below, ver. 11. 10.| Explanation 
how the wpdskoppa may arise. tis, 
scil. (see below) acbevys dv. TOV 
€xovTa yv@ou seems to imply that the 
weak brother és aware of this, and looks up 
to thee as such. év etdwdetw Kat. | See 
on eldwAo8., ver. 1. elOwAetov, as Mooet- 
detov, “AmoAAwveiov, "Ioeiov, Ke. 
“oixodopnOyoetar is not a vow media, 
as Le Clerc, Elsner, Wolf, al., nor is 


540 IiPO> KOPINOIOTS A. VIII. 127s. 


. Ps > Lé e 4: 2 lal fol lol 
bRom. xiv. 15 B GaroXdutar 0 'acBevav *év TH oh Pyvacet, 6 adeAdos 
i Rom. iv. 19. 


i dc’ Ov yxpuctos aréBavev; © ottws 8é ' dpaptavovres K ou 
teonstrch: lege godg adedpods Kal ™ TUTTOVTES adTaV THY ® cuvEldN- ...0v 
™ ikings ie aw ‘aaevodcar, eis ypiotov !dpaptavete. 13 ° Srd7rEp OeD 
Be eye Bpodua *oxavdarifer Tov adedpov pov, od pn payw cae 
: (ais: 18.) "xpéa *€is TOV ai@va, va pH TOV adeXpov pou 4 aKaDV- rk 
p Rom. xiv. 15 daXrico. 

IX. 1 Ov« eipi eXevOepos ; ovK eElwi atoaToNos ; ovyt 


q Matt. xv. 12. 


xvii. 27. 

Rom, xiv. 

21+. Sir. ix. 5. xxiii. 8. xxxv. (xxxii.) 15 only. r Rom. xiv. 21] only. Gen. ix. 4 al. s Matt. 
xxi.19. Mark iii. 29. John viii. 35. Deut. xv. 17. 


11. for kat amod., aod. yap BX! 17 coptt goth Clem,(elsw cites freely aAAa am.): aoa. 
ovyv AP: kat am. ovy 46 Damasc: txt DFLN? rel vulg syrr Chr Iren-int Jer. (The 
sentence has prob been tampered with to get rid of the apparent awkwardness of the 
question being carried on through ver 11,—and ovv and yap have been attempts to 
break it off at ec@.ew.) rec amoAcitat (to suit the fut above), with D3FL rel vss 
Chr(edd and mss vary) Thdrt Th] Gc Iren-int Jer: txt ABD!PX copt goth Clem, Bas 
Antch Thdrt, Damase. (amoAvrat D!, awoAdAurat D?: 17 illeg.) rec emt (= ‘on 
account of,’ seems to have been a corrn for the more difficult ev,—see note), with L rel 
Chr Thdrt Thl Gc: txt ABDFPX 17 Bas Thdrt,: ia latt Iren-int Jer: om ev Clem, 
(Orig) Thdrt-ms. om o7 B. rec adeAgos, omg art, bef ev Tn on yvwoet 
(attempt to simplify, at the expense of the emphatic character of the sentence), with 
LPN? rel fuld syr(a3. o a6.) Chr Thdrt: om adeAgpos vulg-ms Syr: txt ABDFN} 
m(omg 6) 17 latt copt goth eth Bas Iren-int Jer Ambrst (Clem, has o ad. ac@.: elsw, 
he cites am. yap 0 ac8. Tn o7 yv.). 

12. om Tous F. om xa F(including F-lat G-lat) D-lat. 

18. ins To bef Bpwua F. om pov (twice) F(including F-lat G-lat) Cypr ; goth 
Clem also om Ist wov; D}(and lat) Cypr om 2nd. Kpeas Nl. 


Crap. IX. 1. ree transp eAevdepos and amoatodos (possibly to bring the weightiest 
question into prominence,—or, as Mey, ovx ei. an. having been omd in mistake {as 71. 
178], was re-insd first as the weightier and first treated, cf vv 2, 3), with DFKL rel 
fuld syr basm goth Chr Thdrt Ambrst: txt ABPX m 17 vulg copt Syr zth arm Orig Tert 


it impelletur, as Castal., Bengel, Kypke, _ particularized. ov pH dy, strong 


al., nor confirmabitur, as Syr., Grot., 
Billroth, al.’ (Mey.), but as Meyer and 
De Wette, edificabitur, not without a 
certain irony, seeing it is accompanied 
by aoGevois bvros,—for thus the building 
up would be without solid foundation— 
a ruinosa edificatio, as Calv. 11.] 
.... and (thus) the weak perishes (here- 
after: see the parallel, ref. Rom. and 
note) in (as the element in which,—he 
entering into it as his own, which it is not) 
thy knowledge,—the brother, in whose 
behalf Christ died? See again Rom. as 
above. 12.] otrws, viz. as in vv. 10, 
11. wat fixes and explains what is meant 
by auapr. eis 7. a5. TUTTovTes | smnit- 
ing: Th yap amnvéarepov avOpmmou yévorT’ 
ty Tov voootvta TUrrovtos ; Chrys. p. 176. 
13.] Fervid expression of his own 
resolution consequent on these considera- 
tions, by way of an example to them, 
Bpopa, food, i. e. any article of food, 

as ver. 8; purposely indefinite here ; ‘if 
such a matteras food... . ,’ but presently 


future, I surely will not eat; ‘there is 
no chance that I eat.’ Kpéa} ‘Quo 
certius vitarem carnem idolo immolatam, 
toto genere carnium abstinerem.’ Bengel. 

oxavdahiow | be the means of offend- 
ing; ‘ commutatur persona: modo dixit si 
cibus offendit.” Bengel. ‘‘ Non autem hoe 
dicit quod hoe aliquo casu opus sit, sed ut 
ostendat multo graviora quam de quibus 
hie agitur sustinenda pro proximorum 
salute.” Grot. IX. 1—27.] He di- 
gressively illustrates the spirit of self- 
denial which he professed in the resolution 
of ch. viii. 13,—by contrasting his rights 
as an Apostle with his actual conduct in 
abstaining from demanding them (vv. 1— - 
22). This self-denying conduct he further 
exemplifies, vv. 23—27, for their imita- 
tion. See Stanley’s introductory note; and 
Conyb. and Howson, vol. i. pp. 61, 457, 
edn. 2. 1.] He sets forth, (1) his in- 
dependence of men (contrast ver. 19) ; (2) 
his apostolic office (for the order, see var. 
readd,) :—(3) his dignity as an Apostle, in 


IX. 1—4. 


IIPOS KOPIN@IOTS A. 


541 


lol 4 lal 4 \ 4 
*Inoodv tov tKkvpiov nuadv *éwpaxa; ov TO Epyov pov t John xx.18, 


25. (Acts 
xxii. 15.) 


a , > ” > reas, > , 
bpels Eote ev Kupl~; * el “ANXAOLS OVK Elpl ATTOTTONOS, x dat chi. 
v2 , conte Dine 2€ \ w ’ Ass J eae 

anda ye vpiv elmer 1 yap “ oppayis pou Tis * aTroTTOR ¥en. iv.15 


js Upels eote €v Kupio. 


8 e b \ y > / a 3 nh 
n.€4 Y atroNoyla Tols Ee 
44 un 2ovK » Eyowev » éEov- 


w= Rom. iv. 
11 (reff.) only 
x Acts i. 25. 


> t / > 
a AVAKPlWOVO LY €OTLVY AUT). Rom. i. 5. 
Gal. ii. 8 
only. Deut. xxii. 7. y w. dat., 1 Pet. iii. 15 only, see Acts xxii. 1 (xxv. 16 reff.). z Acts 
iv. 9 reff. a here bis. Rom. x. 18,19. ch. xi. 22 only P. ch, vii. 37 reff. 


Ambr Aug Pel Cassiod Bede. 


rec aft imo. adds xpiotov, with DKLP rel Syr syr- 


w-ast copt Chr Thdrt: om ABN a am(with harl tol) sah eth Orig Ambrst: pref, F 


vulg-ed(with demid) Tert Aug. (17 illeg.) 


2. om A (i.e. from ev kupiw to ev Kupiw). 


eopaka BIDIFR e. 
rec (for wou ts) Tys euns, with 


DFKL rel Chr Thdrt, apostolatus mei vulg D-lat: txt (Meyer objects to txt, that opp. 
pov is prob a corrn to suit epy. wov above. This is surely improb) BPX 17 Orig, met 


apostolatus F-lat G-lat. 


om ev xupiw D}(and lat) tol goth Chr. 


8. rec avtn bef ectiv, with DFKL rel vss Thdrt Thl He: txt ABP8 m17 Chr Damase. 


having been vouchsafed a sight of Christ 
Jesus our Lord ;—(4) his effictency in the 
office, as having converted them to God. 
édev0.] So that the resolution of ch. 

viii. 13 is not necessitated by any depend- 
ence on my part on the opinion of others. 
éopaka | Not, during the life of our 

Lord on earth, as Schrader, nor is such an 
idea supported by 2 Cor. v. 16; see note 
there ;— but, in the appearance of the Lord 
to him by the way to Damascus (Acts ix.17; 
ch. xv. 8: see Neand. Pfl. u. Leit. p. 151, 
note) ; and also, secondarily, in those other 
visions and appearances,—recorded by 
him, Acts xviii. 9 (2), xxii. 18,—and possibly 
on other occasions since his conversion. 
ov pukpdy d€ Kal TodTO dtiwua jy, Chrys. 
Hom. xxi. p. 180. év Kupi is not a 
mere humble qualification of 7d épyov mou, 
as Chrys. ib., rovréot: Tov Oeod 7d Epyov 
eotly, otk euov,—but designates, as else- 
where, the element, in which the work is 
done: they were his work as an Apostle, 
i.e. as the servant of the Lord enabled by 
the Lord, and sOIN THE Lorp. See ch. 
iv. 15. 2.] At least my apostle- 
ship cannot be denied by yow of all men, 
who are its seal and proof. heer 
ovk eipi] ovx, because it belongs closely to 
the hypothesis: ‘if I am 2zo-Apostle,’ 
see ch. vii. 9. a@dXAots, to others, i. e. 
in the estimation of others. GANG ye, 
yet at least, is stronger than @AAd alone. 
The particle shews that the sentiment 
which it introduces has more weight than 
the other to which the ada is a reply. 
See Hartung, Partikellehre, i. 385. Meyer 
(after Klotz) remarks that “in the classics 
aAAa ye is never found without one or 
more words intervening :”’ those words 
being emphatic: e. g. Aristoph. Nub. 
399, m@s ovx) Siuwr’ evéempnoey..... 


GAAG Thy avTOD ye vewv BdAAEL; 
odpayis| as being the proof of his apos- 
tolic calling and energy, by their con- 
version : better than,—by the signs and 
wonders which he wrought among them, as 
Chrys. (al.) from 2 Cor. xii. 11—13, and 
perhaps misled by the similarity of onwezoy 
and opayls. ° Their conversion was the 
great proof: so Theodoret, amddetw yap 
TaY aMOTTOALKGY KaTopbwudTaY Thy bue- 
Tépay Exw weTaBoAny. év kup. | belongs 
to the whole sentence, see above, on ver. 1. 
3.] This belongs to the preceding, 
not to the following verses : avn, viz. 
the fact of your conversion ; this word is 
the predicate, not the subject—as in John 
i. 19; xvii. 3, and stands here in the em- 
phatic place before the verb; referring to 
what went before. With ver. 4.a new course 
of questions begins, which furnish no dzro- 
Aoyta. Tots éne avakp.| For the dat. 
see Acts xix. 33 ; 2 Cor. xii. 19 :—to those, 
who call me in question: eu¢, emphatic, as 
Chrys. says, of ver. 2, kav BotAnral tis .. 
Mabey mobev bt amdaToAds clut, Huds mpo- 
BddAAoman, p. 181. 4.| He resumes the 
questions which had been interrupted by 
giving the proof of his Apostleship. 
py ovK ex.] uh asks the question: ovk 
éxouev is the thing in question: Is it so, 
that we have not power....? Theplur, 
seems to apply to Paul alone: for though 
Barnabas is introduced momentarily in ver. 
6, there can be no reference to him in ver. 
11. It may perhaps be used as pointing 
out a matter of right, which any would 
have had on the same conditions (see ver. 
11), and as thus not belonging personally 
to Paul, as do the things predicated in vv. 
1, 2,15. This however will not apply to 
ver. 12, where the emphatic jucts zs per- 
sonal. gayeiv x. weiv] To eat and 


542 


c trans., here 
only. Ezek. 
xxxVvii-. 2. 
intrans., Acts 
xili. 1 reff. 


e constr., Acts 
xiv. 9 reff. 


4. [xewv, so B'(Tischdf), av DI FR’. ] 


IITPOD KOPINOIOTS A. 


TX. 


5. for adeAgny yuvaika, yuvatkas F (Clem,) Tert: adeAg¢as yuvaikas arm(and mss 
mentioned by Jer): adeAgdo: yuvaixa lectt 8. 56: Sedul says, in greco sorores, non 
mulieres, legitur: uxores Helvid Cassiod: mulierem sororem vulg(with harl!, not am 


demid fuld al). 


with by the parties in the controversy on celibacy.) 


(The variations shew, as in ch vii., how the sacred text was tampered 


om 2nd of K. 


6. om Tou (to conform to vv 4 and 5) ABD!FPR 17 Orig Isid: ins D3KL rel Chr 


Thdrt Damase Thl ce. 


to drink, sc. at the cost of the churches: 
not with any reference to the eating of 
things offered to idols (as Schrader, iv.132), 
nor to Jewish distinctions of clean and 
* unclean (as Billroth and Olshausen) ;—see 
below, vv. 6, 7. 5.| Have we not the 
power to bring about with us (also to 
be maintained at the cost of the churches, 
for this, and not the power to marry, is 
here the matter in question) as a wife, a 
(believing) sister (or, ‘to bring with us 
a believing wife: these are the only ren- 
derings of which the words are legitimately 
capable. Augustine, De Opere Monacho- 
rum, 4 [5], vol. vi. p. 552, explains it 
thus: “ Ostendit sibi licere quod ceteris 


enim et fideles mulieres habentes terrenam 
substantiam ibant cum eis, et ministra- 
bant eis de substantia sua,” &c., and 
similarly Jerome adv. Jovin. i. 26, vol. ii. 
p- 277. So likewise Tertull., Theodoret, 
(cum., Isid. Pelus., Theophylact, Ambrose, 
and Sedul. So too Corn.-a-Lap.and Estius. 
See Estius, and Suicer, yun, I]. And 
from this misunderstanding of the passage 
grew up a great abuse, and such women 
are mentioned with reprobation by Epi- 
phan. Har. 78, vol. i. [ii., Migne], p. 1043, 
under the name of ayarntal. They were 
also called a3eAgaf: and were forbidden 
under the name of cuveisaxro: by the 
3rd Canon of the Ist Council of Nicza. 
See these words in Suicer), as also the 
other Apostles (in the wider sense, not 
only the twelve, for ver. 6, Barnabas is 
mentioned. It does not follow hence that 
all the other Apostles were married: but 
that all had the power, and some had 
used it) and the brethren of the Lerd 
(mentioned not because distinct from the 
axécroAo, though they were absolutely 
distinct from the twelre, see Acts i. 14, 
—but as a further specification of the 
most renowned persons, who travelled as 
missionaries, and took their wives with 
them. On the 48. rod xvp. see note, 


Matt. xiii. 55. They were in all proba- 
bility the actual brethren of our Lord by 
the same mother, the sons of Joseph and 
Mary. The most noted of these was 
James, the Lord’s brother [Gal. i. 19 ;-ii. 
9, 12, compare Acts xii. 17; xv. 13; xxi. 
18}, the resident bishop of the Church at 
Jerusalem: the others known to us by 
pame were Joses [or Joseph], Simon, and 
Judas, see note on Matt. ib.), and Cephas 
(Peter was married, see Matt. viii. 14. A 
beautiful tradition exists of his encouraging 
his wife who was led to death, by saying 
BLéurngo, & abtn, Tov Kuplov, Clem. Alex. 
Strom. vii. § 11 [63], p. 868 P. Euseb. 
H. E. iii. 30. Clem. Alex. Strom. iii. § 6 
[52], p. 535 P., relates that he had chil- 
dren)? On a mistake which has been 
made respecting St. Paul’s (supposed) wife, 
see note on ch. vii. 8. 6.) Or (im- 
plying what the consequence would then 
be, see ch. vi. 2, 9: does not introduce 
a new éfovola, but a consequence of 
the denial of the last two) have only I 
and Barnabas (why Barnabas? Perhaps 
on account of his former connexion with 
Paul, Acts xi. 30; xii. 25; xiii. l—xv. 39: 
but this seems hardly enough reason for 
his being here introduced. It is not im- 
probable that having been at first asso- 
ciated with Paul, who appears from the 
first to have abstained from receiving 
sustenance from those among whom he 
was preaching, Barnabas, after his separa- 
tion from our Apostle, may have re- 
tained the same self-denying practice. 
“This is the only time when he is men- 
tioned in conjunction with St. Paul, since 
the date of the quarrel in Acts xv. 39.” 
Stanley) not power to abstain from work- 
ing (i.e. power to look for our mainte- 
nance from the churches, without manual 
labour of our own. The Vulg. has ‘hoe 
operandi,’ so also Tertull., Ambrose, al., 
omitting uf, and against the usage of ép- 
yalerOa, see reff.) ? 7—12.] Exam. 
ples from common life, of the reasonable- 
ness of the workman being sustained by 


ciav dayeiv Kai reiv; 54 ur *ovK PEyowev ” €Eovciay ABI 
> \ rf c 4 e . e x d > , LPs 
adergny yuvaixa © Trepiayew, @s Kal ot AoLTroL * aTrOCTO- cef 
hoe Kal of adeXdhot Tod Kuplov Kal Kndas; ®% povos 
> x. \ / > b 4 b > / e Lol x 
ey xat BapvaBas ovx ” éyowev » e€ovciay [Prov] pH 


kl 
o17 


5—10. 


IITPOD KOPINOIOTS A. 


545 


“epydgeo bas ; , 7 Tis g orpareverat tolous ® oyrarviois * Tore ; . —— etee 


Rom. iv. 4, 5. 


Tis k eae dpmeh ava, Kal TOV KapTrov avTov OUK ae: te 5 
, , r. al. xod. Vv. 
. n 0 Pp ae” 18: 
€a Ofer > THY Marovpeaiver Toiyny, Kal €K TOU yanrak g Luke iii. 14. 

a 2 Cor. x. 3. 
ToS THs “olwvns ovK °écOier; 8 wr) 4 KaTA dvOpwrrov 1 Tim. 18. 
2 Tim. ii. 4. 
D ry 9 Jz — oe e 
sare Aare, n * Kat 0 vopos nated ov deyer j : év Jame: i L. 
yap T® Movoéws vouw yéypattat Ov SKnuwcers Body 2s: ,* 
> a \ a a L A a > n_ h Luke iii. 14. 
‘aroa@vTa. pn Tov Body “ pérer TO Bed, 19%) OV Huds "Rom. v4.25. 
2 Cor. xi. 

only+. Esdr.iv.56. 1 Mace. iii. 28. xiv. 32 only. dat., ch. xi. 5. 2 Cor. i. 15 al. i= Heb. 

i. 5,13. k ch. iii. 6 reff. Deut. xx. 6. 1 Matt. xx. 1, &c. || al. in Gospp. elsw., 

here only. Isa. v. 1. m = Luke xvii.7. 1 Kings xxv. 16. see Acts xx. 28 reff. n here 

bis. Matt. xxvi.3l. Lukeii.8. John x. 16 only. Gen. xxxii. 16. o = here only (ver. 

13). 2 Kings xii. 3. see John vi. 26, 50, 51. p ch. iii. 2 reff. q Rom. iii. 5 reff. 

r Luke xi. Ll, “12. xviii. 11. Rom. ii. 15. ch. xvi. 6. 2Cor.i.13. Job ix. 26. interrog., Luke xii. 41. Rom 

iv..9. shere only+. (-s0s, Ps. xxxi.9. Ezek. xix.4,9.) Deut. xxv. 4. t here 

bis. 1 Tim. v. 18(from l.c.) only. 1 Chron. xxi. 20. u constr., but ellipt., ch. vii. 21. Xen 


Cyr. iii. 1. 30. gen., here only. usu. w. mept, Matt. xxii. 16 al. 


7. rec (for tov kaprov) ex Tov kapmou (corrn to conform to the follg ex Tov yad.), with 


(C3?)D2:3KLN3 rel goth vss Chr Thdrt, de fructu vulg-ed(with am fuld): 
txt ABC!D1FPX! 17 sah goth Orig-c, fructum G-lat flor(and 
aft ec@ce: ins Kar miver DF. 


kapmwv (C*?) Damasc: 
harl tol) F-lat Bede. 


€K TOV 


rec ins 7 bef tis wom., with 


AC!IKLPR rel Syr copt Damase Ec: txt B C?(appy) DF latt syr sah goth arm Chr 


Thdrt Thl Ambrst Aug. 
Aug Hil. 
8. for Aadw, Aeyw DF f. 


for tTns moruyns, avtns DF sah eth Chr Thl Ambrst 


rec ins ovxt bef kat o vouos (omg ov bef Aeyer), with 


KLP rel sah Dial Chr Thdrt : simly, but ec instead of ovx:, F (an si lex hee dicit lat) : 
ecce etiam lex hec dixit Syr: txt ABCDN Orig Mcion-e Epiph, an et lex hee non dicit 


vulg. (17 def.) 


. yeypamtTa: yap, omg ev Tw pwvoews vouw, D}(om yap D?)F Orig, Hil: 
rec (for knuwoeis) Piuwoers (see 1 Tim v.18 


ABCKLPN rel vss Orig, gr-ff Aug. 


and LXX), with AB2CD2: SKLPN “vel Orig, Dial Cyr Thdrt, : 
ins wept bef twy Bowy DF (vss). 


Orig-int,. 


his work. 7.| from the analogies of 
human conduct. (1) The soldier. 

iSiots dewviors} with pay furnished out of 
his own resources,—the dativus modalis, 
see Winer, edn. 6, § 31. 7 oTpa- 
tevopat, of the soldier, who serves in 
the army: otpatevw, of the general, or 
the nation, that leads, or undertakes, the 
war. So Thucyd. iii. 101, of the states 
which joined the Peloponnesians, oto: kal 
tuveotpdtevoy mavres: but Xen. Cyr. viii. 
4. 29, of the wife of Tigranes, avdpelws 
tvveotparevero TG avdol. See Kiihner, ii. 
18 (§ 398). (2) The husbandman. 

TOV KapT. GUT. ovK éo8.] Tdy Kapmdy, as 
Meyer observes, is simply objective: he 
does eat the fruit, though it may be only 
part of it. (3) The shepherd. Here it 
is €k Tov yaA., perhaps on account of the 
inappropriateness of Td yaAa .... éo6let, 
and also of 7d yaAa wive:, milk being for 
the most part made into other articles of 
food, which sustain the shepherd partly 
directly, partly by their sale. 8.] Am 
I speaking these things merely accord- 
ing to human judgment of what is right ? 
Or (see note, ver. 6) does the law too not 
say these things? 9.] (It does say 
them): for in the law of Moses it is 


txt 


txt B!D1F Chr Thdrt, 


written, Thou shalt not (on the fut. with 
an imperative meaning, ‘Thou shalt not,’ 
i.e. This I expect of thee, that thou wilt 
not,’ common to all civilized languages, 
see Winer, edn. 6, § 43. 5. e; Kiihner, 
§ 446. 2) muzzie (the reading dimdéceis 
probably came in from the similar place, 
1 Tim. v. 18, and LXX. The verb knudw 
occurs, with its substantive xcynuds, in Xen. 
de re equestri, v. 3, del dao dy axadrlvo- 
Tov &yn, Knuodv Set 6 yap knuds avamveiy 
bey ov KwAvet, Sdxeve 5€ ok eG) aN OX 
while treading out the corn (in the sense 
=‘the ox that treadeth out ;’ but strictly 
that would require tdv B. Tov dAoaytTa)— 
“‘adogv dicuntur boves, quum grana ex 
aristis exterunt pedibus, qui mos Orientis, 
sed et Gracie, ut ex Theophrasto et aliis 
discimus. Hic triturandi mos in Asia ho- 
Gieque retinetur. Solent enim illarum re- 
gionum incolz, postquam demesse fruges 
sunt, non domum eas ex agris, more nostro, 
granis nondum excussis, in horrea convel- 
lere: sed in aream quandam sub dio com- 
portare : deinde, sparsis in aream manipulis 
frugum, boves et bubalos immittunt, qui 
vel pedibus caleantes (see Micah iv. 13), vel 
curruum quoddam genus trahentes super 
frumenta, ex aristis eliciunt grana.” Ro- 


544 IIPOS KOPINOIOTS A. IX. 


‘ ravt@s déyer ; Ou’ Huds yap eypadn, bte * deiner * er’ AB 


v Acts xxi. 22 


reff. KL 
y ch. vii. 2 / e > fal r \ c > lal a9 / 
wel é€Xaride 0 Yapotpi@v ¥ apotpiay, kat 0 ‘adodv * én’ édrrldt be 
x Rom. iy. 18 a See a er \ \ , k 
reff. 7rov *peréxyerv. |! €¢ ets tuiv Ta” mvevpaTixa ° éoTrei- nc 
y here bis. 4 
Luke xvii. 7 d f 2 a a Ses Ae \ oe 6 , b 
only. Deut, PAMEV, KMEyYa €b NMELS UVULWVY TA TAPKLKA EPLOOLED ; 
cil. 10. 
Zz nv ae 9 reff. a here bis. ch. x. 17, 21, 30. Heb. ii. 14. ¥. 13. viii. 13 only. Prov.i.18. Esdr. 
v. 40 al. b Rom. xv. 27 (reff.). c = Mark iv. 14 al. fr. d = 2 Cor. xi. 
15 only. Gen. xly. 28. Isa. xlix. 6. e Matt. xxv. 24, 26 ||. John iv. 36. 2 Cor. ix.6. Ps. cxxy. 5. 


10. rec ew eAmibt bef opetAer 0 apotpiwy (appy connected with the next var read,— 
to throw the 1st em eAmd: more into emphasis at the beginning, as the 2nd is at the end 
of the sentence), with D?KLX% rel (vss) Chr Thdrt Thl (ic: o em eAm. ap. op. D!: 
opetret o Eb €AT. ap. operAet F': in spe qui arat debet arare F-lat, so also D3(and lat) : 
txt ABCPN! m 17 Orig, Dial Eus, Cyr Damasce, debet in spe qui arat arare yulg Aug 
Pel Bede. rec (for em eAm. Tou meTeEXELV) THS EATIDOS aUTOU mETEXEW ET EATLDL, 
with D?-3KLN3 rel Chr Thdrt Damase Th] Ge: trys eAmidos avrov metexerw DIF: txt 
ABCPR! 17 (vulg) syrr (copt) sah eth Orig Eus, Cyr Aug. (Jeyer’s account seems to 
be the right one, that, it being overlooked that adkoav must be supplied aft adowy, pete- 
xew was supposed to be infin aft opetrc:, and so tov altered to avtov; then the sense 


bettered by insg tyns eAmid0s and transposing the original em edmd: to the end.) 


11. ins ov bef peya D}(and lat). 
k rel Chr Cyr Damase Thl Ce. 


senmiiller. Is it for oxEN (generic) that 
God is taking care? We must not, as or- 
dinarily, supply uévoy, only for oxen, and 
thus rationalize the sentence: the question 
imports, ‘In giving this command, are the 
oxen, or those for whom the law was given, 
its objects?’ And to such a question there 
can be but one answer. Every duty of 
humanity has for its ultimate ground, not 
the mere welfare of the animal concerned, 
but its welfare in that system of which MAN 
is the head: and therefore man’s welfare. 
The good done to man’s immortal spirit by 
acts of humanity and justice, infinitely out- 
weighs the mere physical comfort ofa brute 
which perishes. So Philo (de victimas 
offerentibus, § 1, vol. ii. p. 251) rightly 
explains the spirit of the law: ob yap brép 
TaY Gddywy 6 vduos, GAN brép Tay voor 
Kk. Adyov exdvTar’ ste od Tv Ovopéevwy 
gppovtls eorw, va pndeulay €xor AdBny, 
GAG Tov BudyTwr, va wept pndey mabos 
Knpalvwot. 10.] Or (the other alter- 
native being rejected) on ouR account (37 
nas, emphatic—not on account of men 
generally, but as Estius, ‘‘propter nos 
evangelii ministros :” cf. the juets of vv. 
11, 12, with which this 7ués is inseparably 
allied) altogether (7) mdvrws poses, 
«2... va ph ocvyxwphon md driovy ayr- 
eimety TS Gkpoary. Chrys. p. 183.) does it 
(6 véuos: or perhaps 6 6eds, but better the 
former, as above, tT@ 8e@ being only in- 
cidentally introduced as the confessed 
Author of the law, and 6 véuos remaining 
the subject of the sentence) say (this) ? 
(on our account): for on our account it (viz. 
ov Knudoets K.7.A., not, that which follows, 
q. esset yéyparra:) was written because 
(argumentative, as the ground of éypdpn, — 


Geptomuey CDFLP c m latt Thdrt: txt ABN 


not, as in some of my earlier editions, con- 
taining the purpose of éypapn, expressed 
in its practical result) the plougher (not 
literal but spiritual, see below) ought to 
plough in hope, and the thresher (fo 
thresh, see var. readd.) in hope of par- 
taking (of the crop). The words used in 
this sentence are evidently spiritual, and 
notliteral. They are inseparably connected 
with 5¢ juas which precedes them: and 
according to the common explanation of 
them as referring to a mere maxim of agri- 
cultural life, would have no force whatever. 
But spiritually taken, all coheres. ‘ The 
command (not to muzzle, &c.) was written 
on account of us (Christian teachers) that 
we ploughers (in the yedpy.ov Beod, ch. iii. 
9) might plough in hope,—and we threshers 
(answering to the Bovs 4A0év) might work 
in hope of (as the ox) having ashare.” So 
Chrys. and Theophyl.: rouréoti, 6 d:dac- 
kados opelAer aporpiay, kal koma em érmldt 
GpoPis kK. avTimicblas. Soalso Meyer and 
De Wette: but by far the greater part of 
interpreters (also Stanley) take it literally ; 
understanding 7uas of mankind in general, 
and 6 a&potpi@v and 6 adoe@y of labourers in 
agriculture. Nowminute distinction must 
be sought between the apotpi@y and the 
&Aoa@v. ‘The former is perhaps mentioned 
on account of the process answering to the 
breaking up the fallow ground of Heathen- 
ism :—the latter on account of its occur- 
rence in the precept. 11.| The pets 
(both times strongly emphatic :—we need 
sorely some means of marking in our Eng- 
lish Bibles, for ordinary readers, which 
words have the emphasis) is categoric, but 
in fact applies to Paul alone. The secon- 
dary emphasis is on duty... tuav. It is 


J1i—14. 


12 ef addoe Ths f buav ® eEovcias *petéyouoww, od waddov 
jmets ; GX’ ovK Méypnodueba TH eEovcia TavTyn, GAA 
Tava‘ oréyouer, iva wn Twa | éyxorny * damev TH eday- 
yedio Tod xpicTod. |8 love! oidare OTL of TA™ iepa™ épya- 


ITPO> KOPIN@IOTS A. 


545 


f posn., see 

2 Cor. xii. 19 

reff. and note. 

w. gen. obj. 

Matt. x v ¢ 

John xvii. 2. 
om, ix. 21. 

Sir. x. 4. 

xvii. 2. 

h ch. vii. 21 reff. 


, \ ) We ai: yy MC , ec Ap Ta ae 
Cowevos [Ta] €x Tod lepod éaOiovaw, of TH? Ovotacryplo ‘%,xi.7. 


4 grapedpevovTes TH? OvciacTypio * cupmepiCovtas ; | obras 


(-mTecv, Rom. xv. 22.) k = 2 Cor. vi. 3. 
n here only. 


x. 18 reff. 


o = Jer. xxxvii. (xxx.) 9. (€pyacta, 1 Chron. vi. 43, ix. 13. xxviii. 13.) 
q here only. Proy.i. 21 only. (evmdapedpos, ch. vii. 35.) 


1 Thess, iii. 1, 
5only+. Sir. 


viii. 17 only. 
: j here only +. 
1 ch. vi. 2, &e. m adj., 2 Tim. iii. 15 only. Josh. vi. 7. 


p ch. 
r here only +. 


12. rec efovoras bef vuwy, with KL rel vulg Chr, Thdrt: txt ABCDFPN m 17. 47 


arm Chr,. for ov, ovxt &3. 


ov Kexpnucba A. for Tav., avtn F. 


rec eyxorny bef twa, with DFKLP rel syr Chr Thdrt: txt ABCN 17 vulg 


D-lat copt Tert Ambrst: om tiva F-lat G-lat sah arm Clem Orig-int. 


DLN ab! f¢k o Orig: cuvex. m. 


€KKOT]V 


13. rec om ra [bef ex], with ACD?(?)KLP rel syrr arm: ins BD!FX 46 coptt, que 
de sacrario sunt vulg G-lat, coptt lat-ff (F-lat omits saerario and reads que desunt.) 
rec mposedpevoytes (see ch vii. 35), with KLN% rel Chr Thdrt Procop, Thl ec: 

txt ABCDFPR! m! 17. 47 Eus Procop, Damase. 


one of those elaborately antithetical sen- 
tences which the great Apostle wields so 
powerfully in argument. The 7ue?s— 
jects, being identical, stand out in so 
much the stronger relief against the triple 
antithesis, butv, mvevpatixd, éometpapev, 
—and tpov, capkikd, Oepicwpev. If 
we read the subjunctive, for the usage after 
ei, see Winer, edn. 6, § 41. b. 2, end; ch. 
xiv. 5; 1 Thess. v. 10; Kiihner, § 818 a. 
1. The usage is common in Homer, Od. 
a. 204, al. fr..—doubtful in Herod. ii. 13; 
viii. 49, 118,—and hardly ever found in 
Attic writers. See Soph. Cd. Tyr. 198, 
ef te vd apy, and (Hd. Col. 1442, ef cov 
oTEpnde. avevp. and capk. (see Rom. 
xv. 27) need noexplanation. ‘The first are 
so called as belonging to the spirit of man 
(De W. and Meyer, as coming from the 
Spirit of God; but it is better to keep 
the antithesis exact and perspicuous), the 
second as serving for the nourishment of 
the flesh. 12.] adAou does not neces- 
sarily point at the false teachers ; others 
may have exercised this power. Upov 
is the objective genitive: power over you, 
—see reff. The second aAAd is not in 
apposition with the first, but in opposition 
to the idea implied in éyp. TH é&. TavTn. 
Meyer compares Hom. Il. a. 24 f., aA” 
ove “Atpeldn “Ayaueuvore Hviave Buua, 
-AAAG KaKds apler. oréyonev | The 
word was commonly used, as may be seen 
in Wetst., of vessels containing, holding 
without breaking, that which was put 
into them ; thence of concealing or cover- 
ing, as a secret; and also of enduring or 
bearing up against. In this last sense 
Diod. Sic. iii, 34, uses it literally of ice, 
oréyovTos Tov KpugTdAAou diaBaces oTpa- 
ToTebwy K. Guat@y epddovs,—and (xi. 25, 
Vor. Il. 


Wetst. but ?) of a besieged fort, ob uhvye 
Thy Opunv... foTeyev... 7d... TELXOS, 
-.-GAAG brelkew jvayKd¢ero. So also 
Aisch. Sept. c. Theb. 216, ripyov oréyev 
edxeo0e moAculwy Sdépv. These last usages 
are very near akin to this of our text,— 
We endure all things: viz. labour, pri- 
vations, hardships. The éyxorat (hin- 
drances—so Diod. Sic. i. 32, speaks of the 
Nile as being moAAdkis 8a Tas eyKomas 
avaxA@uevos) would arise from his being 
charged with covetousness and self-seeking, 
which his txdependence of them would 
entirely prevent. 13, 14. | Analogy of 
the maintenance of the Jewish priesthood 
Srom the sacred offerings, with this right 
of the Christian teacher, as ordained by 
Christ. Meyer rightly remarks, that of 
7a iepa épyafdpevor can only mean the 
priests, not including the Levites: and 
therefore that both clauses apply_to the 
same persons. épyaleoOar, ede, 
péCerv, are technical words for the offer- 
ing of sacrifice. See reff. to LXX. 

tepov here, as @voracrnpiov is parallel with 
it below, is probably not ‘the sacrifice,’ 
‘the holy thing, but the temple— the 
holy building’ Similarly Jos. B. J. v.13. 
6, makes the Zealots say, Se? .... robs TG 
vag oTparevouevous ek TOV vaod TpEde- 
aba. mwapedp. | So Jos. contra Apion. 
i. 7, speaks of the priests as 7H Oepameig 
Tov Peod mposedpevorTas. On the prac- 
tice referred to, see Num. xviii. 8 fi.; Deut. 
xviii. 1 ff. No other priesthood but the 
Jewish can have been in the mind of the 
Apostle. The Jew knew of no @uctacrh- 
prov but one: and he certainly would not 
have proposed heathen sacrificial customs, 
even i connexion with those appointed by 
God, as a precedent for Christian usage : 

NN 


546 HPO KOPINOIOTS A. IX. 
seonstrdat, yal 6 KUplos * dueTakev Tols TO Evaryyedov t KaTaryyer- 
Acts xs NovTW, eK TOD evayyediou “ Gv. 15 éyw O€ ov Y Kéexpnuat 

i118. inf., _ i = 
Lake vis.3 gySerL ToUTwY' odK eyparya Sé TadTa wa ovT@S YyéevNTAL 
inf., here 


, , la) lal a \ 

Hani. Wey mot *¥ Kadov yap por ¥ waddov aroOaveivy 7 TO 
5 Theod. - , ka 7, \ b / 16 2) \ ce 2? 

“Kavynua jov **iva Tis » KEev@oEL. €ay yap ° evay- 


only. 


t = Acts xiii. 
5 reff. 


= Matt. iv. fs > x Zz , P 9) nh, , 
z 4\| L. (from yerifwpar, OUK €EOTLV foot KAVYXN LA avayrkyn yap fol 
Deut. viii. 3) ney, Ae De} , f2 \ 3\ a ne » / 
only: 21 ETT LKELTAL* oval yap ot €O0TLY EAV [L7) EVaYYE to@MiUal. 
vch, vu. « 
reff. , \ i \ lal / h \ lA ‘: > \ 
whit. xi, 27 €& yap § Ex@y TovTO Tpaccw, pucbov éyw et Se 
12. Luke y 
xxii. 37. xxiii. 31. John xiv. 30. x = ch. vii. 1,8, 26. Jonah iv. 3. y Mark ix. 42. constr., 
Acts xx. 35. z Rom. iy. 2 reff. Proy. xvii. 6. a arrang. of words, 2 Cor. ii. 4 reff. 
b Rom. iv. 14 reff. c absol., Rom. xv. 20 reff. d Acts xxvii. 20 reff. kpatepy 5 emtxeioeT avayxn, 
Hom. Il. ¢. 458. e Paul, here only. epp., Jude 11 only. gospp. (but not John) and Rey. passim. 
fhere only. Hos. ix. 12. g Rom. viii. 20 only. Exod. xxi. 13 only. h = Matt. v. 12. vi. 


Rom. iv. 4 reff. 


15. rec ovder expnoauny Tovrwr, with K rel Chr Thdrt Thl Ge: ovdex rovrwy expn- 
cauny Cc: ovK expnoauny ovderr T. 8 23: ovder ov Kkexpnuat T. 80: ovden kexpyuai T- 
D2(L?): txt ABCD!3F PR?! m 17 Damasce. * ovdels BD!N?! 17 sah Tert Ambrst-ed : 
ovders un A: Tis F 26: wa tis ov wy 109: wa tes CD?-3K LPN rel vulg(and F-lat) Chr 
Thdrt Damase Thl @c Jer Aug. rec xevywon, with K rel Chr Thdrt: txt ABC 
DFLPR k 17. 47. 

16. evayyeArCoua: LP f k Damase: evayyeArowpyat DF. for kavxnua, xapis 
gratia DF'S8}(txt X-corr!) Ambrst-ms. rec ovat Se (clumsy alteration, not seeing 
that yap explains avaryxn), with KLN® rel syrr eth arm Chr Thdrt: txt ABCDFPR! 
17 latt coptt Orig Ath Chr, Cyr Orig-int Ambrst Jer. for 2nd eorw, erat 
(alteration, to apply it better to the last day) F Ambrst: est aut erit G-lat: om 119 
Syr copt. ree evayyeALoua (from -Cwua above), with AKX rel Orig Ath Cyr: 
evangelizem D-lat G-lat(2nd altern) : -Coua: LP f m: txt ABCDF Chr, : evangelizavero 





vulg(and F-lat) G-lat(1st altern). 


besides that the idea is inconsistent with 
ottws Kal: see below. 14.] So also 
(i.e. in analogy with that His other com- 
mand) did the Lord (Christ; the Author 
by His Spirit of the O. T. as well as the 
New) command (viz. Matt. x. 10; Luke 
x. 7, 8) to those who are preaching the 
gospel, to live of (be maintained by. 
Themistius [Kypke] has (qv ée& épyacias) 
the gospel. Observe, that here the Apos- 
tle is establishing an analogy between the 
rights of the sacrificing priests of the law, 
and of the preachers of the gospel. Had 
those preachers been likewise sacrificing 
priests, is it possible that all allusion to 
them in such acharacter should have been 
here omitted? But as all such allusion és 
omitted, we may fairly infer that no such 
character of the Christian minister was 
then known. As Bengel remarks on ver. 
13: ‘Si missa esset sacrificium, plane 
Paulus versu sequente apodosin hue ac- 
commodasset.’ 15. | ovSevi TovTwv is 
best explained of the different forms of 
étovola,—not, with Chrys. al., rév woAA@y 
mapaderyuaTwv—mToAAGy ydp mor mapexdv- 
twv ekovalay, Tod oTpatidtov, Tod ye- 
wpyov, TOU woimévos, TOY aroardAwr, TOD 
véuou, TaV Tap’ huav eis buas yevouevwr, 
TaY map’ buwv eis TOUS GAAOUS, TAY lepéwr, 
TOU MposTaymatos TOU XpioTod, ovderi Tov- 


twv éereloOny eis TO KaTaAdoa Toy euavTOD 
vdéuoy, kal AaBety. Hom. xxii. p.193. True, 
that each of these examples pointed to a 
form of éfovcia, and none of these forms 
had he made use of. See ref. on ch. vii. 21. 

éypawya is the epistolary aorist—I 
wrote (write) not these things however, 
that it may be thus (viz. after the ex- 
amples which I have alleged) done to me 
(in my case, see reff.):—for it were good 
(reff. ) for me rather to die (or, better for me 
to die, see ref. Mark) than that any one 
should make void (the remarkable reading 
of the great Mss. appears to have arisen 
from the unnatural look of the future 
with wa. It can only be explained by 
supposing an aposiopesis; the Apostle 
breaking off at #, and exclaiming with 
fervour, Td katxnud pov ovdels Kevdcet) 
my (matter of) boasting. To understand 
amobaveiy as Chrys., Theophyl., Gc., Es- 
tius, Billroth, al., 08. Auz@, seems quite 
unnecessary. Further on, Chrys. himself 
expresses the true sense: ow kal (wijs 
avrg yAuKitepoy hv 7d yiwduevoyv:—and 
Calvin, “tantum Evangelii promovendi 
facultatem nimirum proprie vite pra- 
ferebat.” 16 ff.| The reason why 
he made so much of this materies glori- 
andi: viz. that his mission itself gave 
him no advantage this way, being an office 


15—19. IIPO> KOPINOIOTS A. 547 


idxewv, * oixovouiay \reriotevua. 18 tris odv pov éoTup iher only. 
? lad Hal. Ss lad TW Job xiv. 17 


0 ™piabos, wa ° ebayyedilowevos Padatravoy ® Onow TO x tule wi.2, 
evayyéuov, els TO fy °KaTaxpyjoacba TH éEovola jou 16 ik 29. 
év TO ebayyediv; 1? éredOepos yap dv éx« mavrov, VRP ;\A 
Taow éwavtov 4 €Sovhwoa, iva * Tovs * TAElovas § KEpdijocw | Bony. 


reff. m here only +t. n constr., Matt. xxii, 44 || (from Ps. cix.1). Rom. iv. 17 (from 
Gen. xvii. 5}. Gen. XXXil. 12. Wisd. x. 21. - och. vil. 31 only+. Ep. Jer. 28 only. 3 Macc. 

» Bae p w. €X, here only. w. 470, Rom. vii. 3. Acts vii. 6 reff. r (Luke 
vii. 43, sing.) Aets xix.[32. xxvii. 12. ch. x.5. xvy.6al. Exod. xxiii. 2 Ed-vat. (om art. AB.) s = Matt. 


xviii. 15. 1 Pet. iii. 1. (Matt. xvi. 26 al. fr.+. Job xxii.3Symm. -8os, Phil. i. 21.) 
18. rec (for 1st wov) wor, with DFLPR3 rel syr Chr Thdrt Aug: txt A B(Tischdf) 
CKN! n 17 vulg Syr coptt eth Cyr Ambrst Jer Pel Bede.—eorat uo erit mihi DIF. 
rec aft To evayyeAuov ins Tov xpisTov (see ver 12), with D?-3F KLP rel syrr Thdrt 
Jer: om ABCD'8 a 17 vulg(not F-lat) D-lat coptt «th arm Chr-comm, Cyr Ambrst 


Aug Pel Bede. kataxpacOa A 17. 


Thv ekovoiav DF, 
19. ins ev bef maow D}(and lat). 


entrusted to him, and for which he was 
solemnly accountable: but in this thing 
only had he an advantage so as to be able 
to boast of it, that he preached the gospel 
without charge. oval yap—explains 
the avdy«n. On oval ear, see ref. Hos. 
17.] For (illustration and con- 
firmation of ovat yap «.7.A. above) if Iam 
doing this (preaching) of mine own ac- 
cord (as a voluntary undertaking, which in 
Paul’s case was not so, as Chrys., 7d éxay 
K. Gkwv em) ToD eyKexepicOa Kal wh ey- 
KexetpioOar AapBavwy: not, as E. V., al., 
willingly, for this was so), [have a reward 
(i.e. if of mine own will I took up the 
ministry, it might be conceivable that a 
uic0dés might be due to me. That this was 
not the case, and never could be, is evident, 
and the uic 66s therefore only hypothetical): 
but if involuntarily (which was the case, 
see Acts ix. 15; xxii. 14; xxvi. 16), with 
@ STEWARDSHIP (oix. emphatic) have I 
been entrusted (and therefore from the 
nature of things, im this respect I have 
no picOds for merely doing what is my 
bounden duty, see Luke xvii. 7—10: but 
an ovat, if J fail in it. Chrys. observes 
well: ov5é yap ciev, ci SE dKwy, ovK exw 
puicOdy, GAN otk. wemlor. Secxvis Ott Kal 
oltws Exet wioOdy, GAAG ToLodTOY, oioy 6 Th 
emitaxbev ekavicoas, ovx olov éxeivos 6 ex 
TeV éauTOU piroTiunoduevos kK. bmTEepBas Td 
énitayua. p.194). The above interpre- 
tation, which is in the main that of Chrys., 
Theophyl., cum. (altern.) al., Meyer, and 
De Wette, is the only one which seems to 
me to satisfy, easily and grammatically, all 
the requirements of the sentence, and at the 
same time to suit the logical structure of 
the context. The other Commentators go 
in omnia alia, and adopt various forced and 
arbitrary constructions of the verse. 
18.] Ordinarily, and even by De Wette, 
thus arranged and rendered: ‘ What then 


for 2nd ov, wor F(not G). 


ev(but marked for erasure) 77 e&. X!: 
at end add pov D!, 


is my reward? (It is), that in preaching 
Imake the gospel to be without cost, that I 
use not my power inthe gospel.’ But this, 
though perhaps philologically allowable 
(against Meyer,—see John xvii. 3,—ai7n 
eotly 7 aidvios (wh, WaywdoKnwor.... 
also John xv. 8; 1 John iv. 17 [?]), is not 
true. His making the gospel to be without 
cost, was not his uicdds, but his nabxnua 
only: and these two are not identical. 
The kavxnua was present: the pic6ds, 
Suture. Meyer’s rendering is equally at 
fault. He would make tis ody pod éorw 
6 wicOds; a question implying a negative 
answer— What then is my reward? 
None: in order that I preach gratui- 
tously,’ &c. But thus he severs off (see 
below) the whole following context, vv. 19 
—23: and as it seems to me, stultifies the 
kavxnua, by robbing it altogether of the 
coming picdds. Iam persuaded that the 
following is the true rendering: What 
then is my reward (in prospect) that I 
(iva, like Saws in classical Greek, with a 
fut. indic., points to the actual realization 
of the purpose, with more precision than 
when followed by the subjunctive. So 
Xen. Cyr. ii. 4. 31, Kipos, & ’Appéve, 
KeAEVvEL OUTW TOLEIY OE, OTWS WS TAXLOTS, 
éxwv olvets kal Toy Sacudy Kal 7d oTpa- 
Tevuwa,—Kiihner, Gramm. ii. 490, where 
see more examples) while preaching, ren- 
der the gospel without cost (i.e. what 
reward have I in prospect that induces me 
to preach gratuitously) in order not to 
use (as carrying out my design not to use, 
kataxp. see ref. and note: not, to abuse, 
as EK. V.) my power in the gospel (= 77 
etovo. mov TH ev T@ evaryy., as often; cf. 
Tots Kuptois Kata odpka, Eph. vi. 5; of 
vekpol év xptore, 1 Thess. iv. 16, al. fr.) ? 

19 ff.] He now proceeds to answer 
the question, ‘What prospect of reward 
could induce me to do this ?’ For (q.d. 


Nw 2 


* 


548 IPOS KOPINOIOTS A. IX. 

tRom. vill, 20 nab eéyevouny Tots "lovSalots ws “lovdatos, iva *lov- snc 
4, 5, 21. a 

us Heres Salovs *KepSijow ois. id vowov ws ‘v0 vopor, pa aved 
cpr od A g < 
i2sonly. Oy autos tbmd vomov, wa rods timo vopov * KEepdijcw" mn 
(-uws, Rom. . 


ii. 12.) 

v = here (Acts 
xix. 39) 
only t. 


w= Rom. v. 6. 22 eryevOuLnv TOU 


20. om ka D}(and lat) m coptt. 
Sedul. (ws quasi G-marg.) 


91 a u ’ , ¢ u ” \ x u ” fal fal 
21 roig “ avomois @s “avomos, pn wy “ avopos VeEeou 
> ’ Vv v fal icf s 5 , \ u > Ld 
avn ‘évyomos xploToU, wa * KepoOavw TOUS ~ AVOLOUS. 
Ww > / Ww > lal / ts ‘\ w > ley . 
aabevécw * aclerns, wa Tovs “ agVeEvets 


om Ist ws F-gr 39. 67? (Clem) Orig, Tert 
rec om py wy autos u70 vouor (i.e. from vopuov to 


vouor, by oversight of copyist), with D3K rel Syr copt eth Orig, Thdrt : ins ABCDFPR 


17 latt syr sah goth arm Chr Cyr 
Keponow to Kepdnow L. 


Mar-mere(quoting Nest) Damase Orig-int.—om from 


21. rec dew and xpiarw (confusion of vowels and not observing the constr: see note), 


with D3KL rel sah Thdrt: txt ABCD! FPX d m17 latt syr copt Orig 


Damase (e-comm Th] Ps-Ath lat-ff. 
rel Orig Did Chr Thdrt : 


verse.—Tous avomous bef kepd. D. 


Did Chr Cyr Isid 
rec Kepdnaw (from ver 20), with DKLN® 


txt ABCFPN! 17 («epSavwuey Clem), and m Orig, in next 
rec om tous (probably to suit sovdaovs above), 


with FKLN? rel Chr Thdrt: ins ABCDPN! 17 Orig Did. 


22. aft eyevouny ins de cat autem et F. 


acfevovow DF. rec aft acdeve- 


ow ins ws (to tally with the three former), with CDFKLPN? rel vss Orig, Chr Thdrt 
Thl: om ABN vulg(not F-lat) D-lat Orig, (retaining the three former) Orig-int, Cypr 


the reward must have been great and glo- 
rious in prospect) being free from (the 
power of) all men, I enslaved myself 
(when I made this determination: and 
have continued todo so) to all, that I might 
gain (not Tods mdyras, which he could not 
exactly say, but) the largest number (of 
any: that hereafter Paul’s converts might 
be found to be of 7Acloves: see below on 
ver. 24). Bengel has remarked on kep- 
Syow, ‘congruit hoc verbum cum conside- 
ratione mercedis : but ‘congruit’ is not 
enough: it is actually THE ANSWER to 
the question tls wot eat 6 wioOds; This 
‘lucrifecisse’ the greater number is dis- 
tinctly referred to by him elsewhere, as his 
reward in the day of the Lord: tis yap 
quav edms  xapa h aréepavos Kavx7- 
gews; 2) ovxi Kal tpets, Eumpoobev Tov 
kuplov jay “Incod ev TH avTov mapov- 
ala; ipets yap eore 7 dda Hpav kal 7) 
xapd. 1 Thess. ii. 19, 20. And it is for 
this reason that Wa.... Kepd. is three 
times repeated : and, as we shall presently 
see, that the similitude at the end of the 
chapter is chosen. 20—22.] Spe- 
cializes the foregoing assertion maow eu. 
ed0vAwoa, by enumerating various parties 
to whose weaknesses he had conformed 
himself, in order to gain them. 

20. tois “Iovd. ds “Iovd.] See examples, 
Acts xvi. 3; xxi. 26. od elev, "lovdatos, 
GAN’ ds “lovdatos, Wva delty brit oixovoula Td 
mpaypa Av, Theophyl. atter Chrys. The 
Jews here are not Jewish converts, who 
would be already won in the sense of this 
passage. Tois Vd vopov....]| These 
again are not Jewish converts (see above); 
nor proselytes, who would not be thus dis- 


tinguished from other Jews, but are much 
the same as "Iovdator, only to the number 
of these the Apostle did not belong, not 
being himself (avtés contrasts with os 
above) under the law, whereas he was 
nationally a Jew. 21. rots avépois os 
av. | The d&vouo are the Heathen: hardly, 
with Chrys., such as Cornelius, fearing God 
but not under the law. Paul became as a 
Heathen to the Heathen, e.g., when he 
discoursed at Athens (Acts xvii.) in their 
own manner, and with arguments drawn 
from their own poets. py dv x.7.A. | 
not being (being conscious of not being, 
remembering well in the midst of my 
dvoula that Iwasnot. This is implied by 
uh, which is subjective, giving the convic- 
tion of the subject, not merely the objective 
fact, as od« &v would do) an outlaw from 
God (cod and xpicrod are genitives of de- 
pendence, as after karhxoos, tvoxos, Ke.) 
but a subject-of-the-law of Christ (the 
words seem inserted rather to put before 
the reader the true position of a Christian 
with regard to God’s law revealed by Christ, 
than merely with an apologetic view to 
keep his own character from suffering by 
the imputation of avoula) that I might 
gain those who had no law. kepdav@ 
(here only in N. T.) and xep5h4ow are both 
found in the classics: see Matthia, § 239, 
and Lobeck on Phrynichus, p.740. 22. ] 
The aoGeveis here can hardly be the weak 
Christians of ch. viii. and Rom. xiv., who 
were already won, but as in ref., those 
who had not strength to believe and re- 
ceive the Gospel. ‘This sentence then does 
not bring out a new form of condescen- 
sion, but recapitulates the preceding two 


20—24. 


§ Kepdnow. 

Twas *cwow. 
\ na 

4 guyKow@vos avTod yévopmat. 


ep ce c eyA / / \ , ts Oe 
Tadio TpéyovTes mdvTes pev Tpexovow, els O€ 
AapBaver Td *BpaBeiov ; obtws ° TpéxeTe, Wa 


b ch. vi. 2. ver. 13 al. 
only. Polyb. xviii. 29. 4 al. 
ix. 30. Phil. iii, 12. Exod. xy. 9. 


Ambr Ambrst Aug Bede. 


IIPO> KOPINOIOTS A. 


ec = here (Luke xxiv. 13. John vi, 19. xi. 18. 
d Phil, iii, 14 only +. 


for yeyova, eyevounv I Clem. 


549 


a a / / . 
Xrols Xtadow yéyova mavta, iva ¥ TayT@s *Rom.x. 2 
93 ’ be nr Py x \ ) / icf : 
3 qravra S€ Tow Sia TO evayyéduov, va 


y Acts xxi. 22 
reff. 
z= Rom. xi. 


24D ob Yoldate OTL OL | Mreff 


Bic Bae! 

/ only. 

f KaTaX\a- Sieg Eph, 
9 oe) 


Rey. xiv, 20. xxi. 16) 


e = Rom. ix, 16 reff. f = Rom. 


rec ins ta bef mavra 


(prob to suit ros raow: but often when mayra occurs, ta is insd bef it in some mss), 
with D?-3KLP rel Orig, Mae Chr, Thdrt: txt ABCD!FX Clem Orig, Naz Chr, Cyr, 
for mavtws Twas, mavtas (conformation to the foregoing clauses) DF latt 
lat-ff, tous maytas 17 Clem Orig,(but ravra,), 
23. rec (for mayra) tovto, with KL rel syrr goth Thdrt Damasc Thl We: txt 
ABCDFPX m17 latt coptt eth arm Orig, Naz Chr(schol on 7) Ambrst Pel Sedul Bede. 
24. aft BpaBevoy ins eyw de Aeyw vuw ego autem dico vobis F. 


classes, tots trd véuov.... Tots avduots. 
Tots waow....| This sums up 
the above, and others not enumerated, in 
one general rule,—and the various ocea- 
sions of his practising the condescension 
(aorists) in one general result (perfect). 
To all men I am become all things (i.e. 
to each according to his situation and pre- 
judices) that by all means (‘omnino:’ or 
perhaps as Meyer, zn all ways: but I pre- 
fer the other) I may save some (tivds 
is emphatic: some, out of each class in 
the mayres. It is said, as is the following 
verse, in extreme humility, and distrust of 
even an Apostle’s confidence, to shew them 
the immense importance of the pic@éds for 
which he thus denied and submitted him- 
self). 23.] But (q.d. ‘ not only this 
of which I have spoken, but add’) all things 
I do on account of the gospel, that I may 
be a fellow-partaker (with others) of it 
(of the blessings promised in the gospel 
to be brought by the Lord at His coming). 
24 ff. | ‘This is my aim in all I do: 
but inasmuch as many run ina race, many 
reach the goal, but one only receives the 
prize,—I as an Apostle run my cowrse, 
and you must so run yours, as each to 
labour not to be rejected at last, but to 
gain the glorious and incorruptible prize.’ 
This, as compared with the former context, 
seems to be the sense and connexion of 
the passage. He was anxious, as an Apostle, 
to labour more abundantly, more effectually 
than they all: and hence his condescension 
(cuvyxardBaors) to all men, and self-denial : 
accompanied with which was a humble 
self-distrust as to the great matter itself 
of his personal salvation, and an eager 
anxiety to secure it. These he proposes 
for their example likewise. 24. | 
The allusion is primarily no doubt to th 
Isthmian games; but this must not be 


pressed too closely: the foot-race was far 
too common an element in athletic con- 
tests, for any accurate knowledge of its pre- 
dominance in some and its insignificance 
in others of the Grecian games to be here 
supposed. Still less must it be imagined 
that those games were to be celebrated in 
the year of the Epistle being written. The 
most that can with certainty be said, is 
that he alludes to a contest which, from 
the neighbourhood of the Isthmian games, 
was well known to his readers. See Stan- 
ley’s note: who, in following out illustra- 
tions of this kind, writes with a vivid 
graphic power peculiarly his own. 
BpaBetov| Wetst. quotes from the Schol. 
on Pindar, Olymp. 1,.Aéyerar 5& 7d 515d- 
fevov Yyepas TE. viknoayTs aOAnTH amd mev 
Tov diddvTwy avTd BpaBevtay BpaBetov, ard 
d& Tay abAovyTwy GOAov, and from the 
Etymol., BpaBetov Aéyerat 6 mapa Tov Bpa- 
Bevt@y didduevos orépavos TH vikGveTt. 
ovtws Tp.| Thus (after this manner 
—viz. as they who run all, each endeavour- 
ing to be the one who shall receive the 
prize:—not, as the one who receives it 
(Meyer, De Wette),—for the others strive 
as earnestly as he: still less must we take 
iva katadaByre for os KatadaBetv, which 
is barely allowable, and here would not 
suit the sense; the ottws being particu- 
larized presently by one point of the ath- 
letes’ preparation being specially alleged 
for their imitation) run (not kal dpeis 
tpexete, because the evident analogy be- 
tween the race and the Christian conflict 
is taken for granted. If, as Dr. Peile 
imagines, a contrast had been intended, 
between the stadium where one only can 
receive the prize, and the Christian race 
where all may, it must have stood otrws 
d& Sueis TpéxeTe, ws Kal [wavras? | KaTa- 
AaBeiv. But such contrast would destroy 


‘ 


550 


Luke xiii. 24. 

#4 John xviii. Ante. 
36. Col. i. ’ a 
29, iv. 12. EKELVOL 
1 Tim. iv. 10 


r vit 66 | apOapTov. 


IIPO> KOPINOIOTS A. 


TX. 25—27. 


26 ya ™Tolvuy “ovTws TPeYO "WS OUK 


] s , “~ e > 7 , 
tga © adndws, XoUTws Pruxteio "ws ovK 4aépa * dépor 
Dan. vi. 14 
Theod. h constr., Acts xx. 35 reff. i ch. vii. 9 (reff.) only +. k ch. vi. 4 reff. 

1 Rom. i, 23 (reff). m Luke xx. 25. Heb. xiii. 13 (James ii. 24 v. r.) only. Isa. ili. 10. v. 13. n ch, 
iii. 15 reff. o here only+, (-Aos, ch. xiv. 8. -AOTNS, 1 Tim. vi. 17.) p here only +. Xen. 
Rep. Lac. ir. 6. q Acts xxii. 23. ch. xiv. 9. Eph, ii. 2. 1 Thess. iy.7. Rey. ix. 2. xvi. 17 only. Wisd. 
vy. 11, 12. r Acts y. 40 reff. 

25. om ovy K k 6. 119 arm Iren Clem; insd in syr with an asterisk. [a at 

the beginning of ap@apror is written over the line by N?.] 

the sense), in order that ye may fully the Christian’s temperance in all things, as 


eet (the prize of your calling, see Phil. 
. 14. On Agu Baveo and KataAauBavw 
see note, ch. vii. 31). 25.| The point 
in the ottws, the conduct of the athletes 
in regard of temperance, which he wishes 
to bring into especial prominence for their 
imitation :—as concerning the matter in 
hand,—his own abstinence from receiving 
the world’s pelf, in order to save himself 
and them that heard him. The 8€ spe- 
cifies, referring back to otrws. The em- 
phasis is on Tas, thus shewing ovtas to 
refer to the mavtes who tpéxovow. 
&yovilspevos i is more general than tpéxwv, 
—q. d. ‘ Every one who engages, not only 
in the race, but in any athletic contest,’ 
and thus strengthening the inference. The 
art. (6 dywy.) brings out the: man as an 
enlisted and professed dywriCéuevos, and 
regards him in that capacity. Had it 
been mas 5€ adywu¢., the sense would have 
been, ‘ Now every one, while contending,’ 
&e., making the discipline to be merely 
accidental to his contending —which would 
not suit the spiritual antitype, where we 
are enlisted for life. Examples of the 
practice of abstinence in athletes may be 
seen in Wetst. in loc. I will give but two: 
(1) Hor. de Arte Poet. 412: “ Qui studet 
optatam cursu contingere metam, Multa 
tulit fecitque puer, sudavit et alsit: Ab- 
stinuit venere et vino.” (2) Epict. ¢. 35: 
OéAais GAbumia vikijoat; Kaye vh Tovs 
Oeovs, KouWoy yap éotw. GAAG oKdre Kar 
7a Kabnyovmeva Kal Ta axddovba, kal otTws 
Gmrov tay épywy. Bet o” ebtaxteiv, avay- 
KoTpopelv, améxerOat meuudroy, yuna 
Ceobat mpos avaryKny ev pa TeTAyMEVN, éy 
Kabpart, ev Wixet, wh puxpdy mivew, ) 
olvov’ ws &ruxey ards, ws iatp@ mapa 
Sedwxéva cavtdy Tq emordrn, elra eis TOY 
ayava mapépxec bai. éxetvor | scil. 


eykparevovTat. év ovv, ‘immo 
vero’ (reff.). The Schol. on Pind. 
Isthm. d2d8ects, cited by Meyer, SAYS: 


aorépos 5€ ear TOU ayavos mitus, Td de 
avéxabey céAwa Kal airod jv 5b arépavos. 

jpets Sé, scil. eyxparevducda iva 
AdBouev orépavov. He takes for granted 


his normal state. 26. | I then (eéya 
emphatic—recalls the attention from the 
incidental exhortation, and reminiscence of 
the Christian state, to the main subject, 
his own abstinence from receiving, and its 
grounds. toivuy, as distinguished from 
other particles which imply restriction of 
what has been generally said to some par- 
ticular object, indicates the dropping of 
minute or collateral points, and return- 
ing to the great necessary features of the 
subject,—and this, as introducing some 
short and pithy determination or conclu- 
sion: see Hartung, Partikellehre, ii. 348. 
E. g.,— Xen. Cyr. vi. 3. 17, totrwy pev 
tolvuy GAs etn, & Se Koupds july eidévas, 
Tata, pn, dinyovd) sO run as (oftws—as, 
see reff.) not uncertainly (reff.: cf. also 
Polyb. ili. 54. 5, ris xidvos &SnAov Toiod- 
ons Exdorots Thy entBacw :—‘ uncertainly,’ 
i.e. without any sure grounds of con- 
tending or any fixed object for which to 
contend ; both these are included. Chry- 
sostom rightly brings it into subordination 
to the main subject, the participation with 
idolaters :—ri 5€ éorwv, ovK GdjAws; mpds 
oxomdy Tia BAérwv, pnolv, ovK eik® Kal 
parny, Kabdrep bets, Ti yap july yiveTat 
mwA€ov ard Tov eis eidwAcia eistevat, Kal 
Thy TeAcLOTHTA SAOEv exelyny emidelkvucbat ; 
ovdev. GAA’ ovUK eym ToL1ovTOS, GAAG TavTA 
Gmrep To, bnep Ths Tav TAnTloy gwrnplas 
mow. Kav TeAcLdTnTA emidelfwua, 50 ad- 
Tous’ Kky ouyxatdBaow, 5° abrovs’ Khy 
brepB@ Térpov ev TG wh AauBdvew, Wa 
by cravdarti:cbGov Khy KataB@ wA€ov Tav- 
Twy, Tepiteuvduevos Kal ~vpduevos, Iva ph 
brogkeAtcOGot. Hom. xxii. p. 201); 80 
fight I, as not striking the air (and not 
my adversary). The allusion is not to a 
oxiapaxla or rehearsal of a fight with an 
imaginary adversary, as Chrys. (€xw yap 
bv rAh~w), Theophyl. al. m., but of a fight 
with a real adversary (viz. here, the body) 
in which the boxer vainly hits into the 
air, instead of striking his antagonist. So 
Entellus in the pugilistie combat, Aun. y. 
4A6, ‘ vires in ventum effudit,’ when Dares 
‘ictum venientem a vertice velox Praevidit, 


95 nr \ e > / h / { 2 , 

mas O€ 0 &aywvifopevos ™ ravTa EYKPATEVETAL ARC 
KL 

Kk wev ovv iva ' pOaprov oTépavov éBoow, mets a vi 


fg! 
m 
17, 


a. L. 


IIPOS KOPINOIOTS A. 


551 


7 aN Svrwmiafo pov TO caua Kal * Sovrtaywya, a Laake vt, 6 


"un “Tras aAXNols KNpvEas avTos Y 


adoKypos yévomac. Can, 


Proy. xx. 


L \ CA > a ¢ 30. 
X. 1 * OU Grw yap twas V ayvoeiv, adeAHoi, OTL Ob + ner ontyt. 


XXVii. 29 v. r. 


v Rom. i. 28 reff. 


Symm. [Fischer, but not in Montf. or Bahrdt.]} 
) 


27. adAAa B m. 


Gen. xlii, 18 


uch. viii. 9 [Rom, xi, 21] al8, P. (exc. Acts 
w Rom. xi. 25 reff. 


umomte(w D%(vrwm-) e 1! m! (Treg)46. 113-marg Clem Eus, 


Naz, Chr-ins, Thdrt,: vromia¢w FKLP a b! c f g? no Eus, Serap Ephr Naz, Bas-2-mss 
Chr-ms Cyraiiq Damase,. [castigo vulg(and F-lat) G-lat(1st altern) Ambr Aug; lividum 


Jacio D-lat G-lat(2nd altern) Iren-int Paulin.] 


otoua F-gr. 


Cup. X. 1. rec (for yap) de (the connexion not being perceived or wrong word sup- 


plied aft omn at beg of lection), with KLN® rel syrr Chr Thdrt: om goth arm: txt 
ABCDFPR! 17 latt coptt Clem Orig, Mcion-e Did Cyr Iren-int Cypr. 


celerique elapsus corpore cessit.? See ex- 
amples both of what is really meant, and of 
the oxiapaxta, in Wetst. Obs., in both 
places od« is used and not pf, as importing 
the matter of fact, and joined closely with 
the adverb in one case and the verb in the 
other. 27.| But I bruise my body 
(rwmiafe, lit. to strike heavily in the 
face so as to render black and blue,—* i7- 
dmia,—Ta& bd Tos Stas TY TANyOV 
tyvn, ut ait Pollux: sed latius dici sic 
ceepere ap olasSnmorovy TAnyiis Tpavpara, 
ut ait Scholiastes ad Aristoph. Acharn., 
Cicero Tuse. 2, ‘ Pugiles cstibus con- 
tusi,’? i.e. drwmaCéuevo.” Grot. The 
body is the adversary, considered as the 
seat of the temptations of Satan, and espe- 
cially of that self-indulgence which led the 
Corinthians to forget their Christian com- 
bat, and sit at meat in the idol’s temple. 
The abuse of this expression to favour the 
absurd practice of the Flagellants, or to 
support ascetic views at all, need hardly be 
pointed out to the rational, much less to 
the Christian student. It is not even of 
fasting or prayer that he is here speaking, 
but as the context, vv. 19—23, shews, of 
breaking down the pride and obstinacy and 
self-seeking of the natural man by laying 
himself entirely out for his great work— 
the salvation of the greatest number: and 
that, denying himself “solatium” from 
without: ‘My hands have been worn away 
[ef. xetpes atta, Acts xx. 34] with the 
black tent-cloths, my frame has been bowed 
down with this servile labour [ ef. 2Aev@epos 

. . edovAwoa, ver. 19].” Stanley) and 
enslave it (‘etiam dovAaywyeiy a pyctis 
desumptum est ; nam qui vicerat, victum 
[vinctum ?] trahebat adversarium quasi 
servum. Grot. But this seems to want 
confirmation. I can find no account of 
such a practice in any of the ordinary 
sources of information. Certainly Dares 
is not made the slave of Entellus in Ain. 
v.: and Virgil is generally accurate in such 


matters. I had rather give a more general 
meaning: that viz. of the necessary sub- 
jection, for the time, of the worsted to 
the prevailing combatant), lest perchance 
having proclaimed (np. absolute: as in 
isch. Eum. 566, xkhpuvoce, kijpvt, kat 
otpatoy Kareipydbov [ Peile]. The sub- 
ject of the proclamation might be the laws 
of the combat, or the names of the victors 
[ An. v. 245], each by one in the capacity 
of herald : probably here the former only, 
as answering to the preaching of the 
Apostles. The nature of the case shews, 
that the Christian herald differs from the 
agonistic herald, in being himself @ com- 
batant as well, which the other was not: 
and that this is so, is no objection to thus 
understanding knpvtas. “ This introduces 
indeed a new complication into the meta- 
phor : but it is rendered less violent by the 
fact, that .. . . sometimes the victor in the 
games was also selected as the herald to 
announce his success. So it was a few 
years after the date of this Epistle, in the 
case of Nero. Suet. Nero, c. 24.” Stan- 
ley) to others, I myself may prove re- 
jected (from the prize: not, as some 
Commentators, from the contest altogether, 
for he was already iz it). An examination 
of the victorious combatants took place 
after the contest, and if it could be proved 
that they had contended unlawfully, or un- 
fairly, they were deprived of the prize and 
driven with disgrace from the games. Such 
a person was called exrexpiwévos, and amo- 
dedoxiwacuevos, see Philo de Cherub., § 22, 
vol. i. p. 152. So the Apostle, if he had 
proclaimed the laws of the combat to 
others, and not observed them himself, 
however successful he might apparently be, 
would be personally rejected as addé«imos 
in the great day. And this he says with a 
view to shew them the necessity of more 
self-denial, and less going to the extreme 
limit of their Christian liberty ; as Chrys. 
ei yap euol Td Knpdta, Td Sidatat, Td pupl- 


552 IIPOS KOPINOIOTS A. X. 
xActsv.9  * qrarépes * av TavTes ¥ UTO TH vepeAny Yoav Kal Tay- 7 
r . 
"Acts iM res * Ota THS Garacons * dupdOov, 2 Kal mavTes *eis Tov ABS 

ch, 1x. 20. 2 x = 
Gaiv.2i. Movohy * €Barticavto ev TH vepedy Kat ev Th Oadacon, §)j 
v. 15. 
r Actsix.82 3 Kal mavtes TO avTo » Bpopa ° TvevpaTtixoy Epayor, * Kal ™% 
a Acts viii. 16 


reff. b Rom. xiv. 15 reff. 
1 Pet. ii. 5 bis t. 


c Paul (here 3ce. 


Rom. i. 11. ch. ii. 13. xii. 1. xiv. 1 al.) only, exe- 


2. «Bartic@qoav ACDFN17 Dial Bas Did Chr,ji. Cyr, Thdrtaiiq Thl: txt BELP rel 


Orig, Chr. Thdrt, Damase (ie. 


(Notwithstanding the strong manuscript evidence, 


the passive appears to have been a corrn to the more usual expression in the case 


of Christian baptism.) 


transp ve. and daa. F. 
3. om avro A C}(appy) 46 eth: om To auto RX}. 


mvevpaticov bef Bpwua BC2PR? 


93: mvevparikoy eparyoy bef Bpwua A 17.137 Mcion-e: txt (C! ?)DFKLN3 rel yss Orig 
Dial Chr Thdrt Thl Iren-int(citing ‘‘ Seniores ”’) lat-ff. 


ovs mposayaryeivy ovk apKel cis owrnplar, 
ei wh Kal Ta Kat euavToby mapacxolunv 
GAnwTa, TOAAG maAdAoy buiv. p. 202. 
X. 1—22.] He proceeds, in close con- 
nexion with the warnings which have just 
preceded, to set before them the great 
danger of commerce with idolatry, and en- 
forces this by the example of the rebellions 
and rejections of God’s ancient people, 
who were under a dispensation analogous 
to and typical of ours (I—11); and by 
the close resemblance of our sacrament 
of the Lord’s Supper,—their eating of 
meats sacrificed,—and the same act among 
the heathen, in regard of the UNION in 
each case of the partakers in one act of 
participation. So that THEY COULD NOT 
EAT THE IDOL’S FEASTS WITHOUT PAR- 
TAKING OF IDOLATRY = VIRTUALLY AB- 
TURING CHRIST (vv. 15—22). 1a 
yap joins to the preceding. He had been 
inculcating the necessity of se/f-subduing 
(ch. ix. 24—27), and now enforces it in 
the particular departments of abstaining 
Srom OGraictlion. idolatry, &c., by the 
example of the Jews of old. ov 0éAw 
. , see reff. ot wat. Hpav| He 
uses this expression, not merely speaking 
for himself and his Jewish converts, but 
regarding the Christian church as a con- 
tinuation of the Jewish, and the believer 
as the true descendant of Abraham. 
mavTes ... WavTes... wavres, each time 
with strong emphasis, as opposed to tots 
mAcloow, ver.5. ALL had these privileges, 
as all of you have their counterparts under 
the Gospel: but most of them failed from 
rebellion and unbelief. urd Thy ved. 
qoav}| The pillar of cloud, the abode of 
the divine Presence, went before them, 
and was to them a defence: hence it is 
sometimes treated of as covering the camp, 
e.g. Ps. civ. 39, drerérace vepéAny eis 
oKxerny avtois: and thus they would be 


under it. So also Wisd. x. 17, xix. 7,— 
h Thy mapeuBoddy cKiaCovea vepeAn. See 
Exod. xiii. 21, xiv. 20. 2.| els 


tT. Move. éBarr., received baptism (lit. 
baptized themselves: middle, not passive, 
see var. read.) to Moses; entered by the 
act of such immersion into a solemn cove- 
nant with God, and became His church 
under the law as given by Moses, God’s 
servant,—just as we Christians by our 
baptism are bound in a solemn covenant 
with God, and enter His Church under the 
Gospel as brought in by Christ, God’s 
eternal Son; see Heb. iii. 5, 6. Others 
(Syr., Beza) explain it ‘per Mosen,’ or 
(Calv., al.) ‘auspiciis Mosis, which eis 
will not bear,—not to mention that the 
formula Bamrri(w eis was already fixed in 
meaning, see reff. év TH Vv. Kal év TH 
6.] The cloud and the sea being both 
aqueous, and this point of comparison 
being obtained, serves the Apostle to indi- 
cate the outward symbols of their initia- 
tion into the church under the govern- 
ment of Moses as the servant of God, and 
to complete the analogy with our baptism. 
The allegory is obviously not to be pressed 
minutely: for neither did they enter the 
cloud, nor were they wetted by the waters 
of the sea; but they passed under both, 
as the baptized passes under the water, 
and it was said of them, Exod. xiv. 31, 
“Then the people feared the Lord, and 
believed the Lord and his servant Moses.” 
To understand, as Olsh., the sea and 
cloud, of water and the Spirit respec- 
tively, is certainly carrying the allegory too 
far: not to mention that thus the baptism 
by the Spirit would precede that by water. 

3.| They had what answered to the 
one Christian sacrament, Baptism: now the 
Apostle shews that they were not without a 
symbolic correspondence to the other, the 
Lord’s Supper. The two elements in this 
Christian sacrament were anticipated in 
their case by the manna and the miraculous 
stream from the rock: these elements, in 
their case, as well as ours, symbolizing THE 
Bopy and Bioop or Curis?. The whole 
passage is a standing testimony, inciden- 


2—4, 


IIPO> KOPIN@OIOTS A. 


553 


/ x aX Gc \ ” d / ” A : 
TAVTES TO AUTO “ TVEUMLATLKOV ETLOV “TrOMa* ETTLVOY Yap 4 Heb. ix. 10 


’ c fol > ral / /, ec / be e 3 e 
ex “TvEeupaTikns akohovlovans TETpaS, 1) TETPAa OE © HV O 


e — Matt. xxvi. 26. xiii. 37. 


4. om avto A 46 eth Orig, Promiss. 


John xy. 1. 


only. Ps. 
ci. 9 only. 
Dan. i. 16 
Theod. 


Gen, xli. 26,27. Exod. xii. 11. Ezek. xxxvii. 11. 


rec moua bef mvevwaricoy emiov (to con- 


form with the preceding), with DFKL rel latt syrr Dial Chr Thdrt Iren-int(as above) 
Orig-int: txt ABCPN 17. 137 Orig, Cyr Epiph Jer (emwoy 187 Orig, : emay D!). 

rec de bef metpa (not observing the emphasis), with ACD?KLP rel Mcion Orig, Kus, 
Chr Thdrt: txt BD!38 Orig, Eus,.—7rerpa de, omg the 7 preceding, F. 


tally, but most providentially, given by the 
great Apostle to the importance of the 
Christian sacraments, as necessary to 
membership of Christ, and not mere signs 
or remembrances : and an inspired protest 
against those who, whether as individuals 
or sects, would lower their dignity, or deny 
their necessity. Bpopa mvevpatikov 
«.7.A. | The manna is thus called, from its 
being no mere physical production, but 
miraculously given by God—the work of 
His Spirit. Thus Isaac is called, Gal. iv. 
29, 6 Kata mvetpa yevyndels, in opposition 
to Ishmael, 6 kara cdpka yevynbels. Jose- 
phus calls the manna @e?ov BpGua kal mapa- 
dofov, Antt. ili. 1. 6: and in Ps. Ixxvii. 24, 
it is said &prov ovpavod eSwxev avtots. 

We can scarcely avoid recognizing in these 
words a tacit reference to our Lord’s dis- 
course, or at all events to the substance of 
it,—John vi. 31—58. ‘“ For the sense of 
mvevpatixds, as ‘typical,’ ‘seen in the 
light of the spirit,’ cf. Rev. xi. 8, #iv1s KaAe?- 
Tat TvevpaTiK@s Sddoua.” Stanley. 

4. ] It is hardly possible here, without doing 
violence to the words and construction, 
to deny that the Apostle has adopted. the 
tradition current among the Jews, that the 
rock followed the Israelites in their jour- 
neyings, and gave forth water all the way. 
Thus Rabbi Solomon on Num. xx. 2: “ Per 
omnes quadraginta annos erat iis puteus” 
(Lightf.): and Schéttgen cites from the 
Bammidbar Rabba, “ Quomodo compa- 
ratus fuit ille puteus (de quo Num. xxi. 
16)? Resp. Fuit sicut petra, sicut alveus 
apum, et globosus, et volutavit se, et ivit 
cum ipsis in itineribus ipsorum. Cum 
vexilla castra ponerent, et tabernaculum 
staret, illa petra venit, et consedit in atrio 
tentorii. Tunc venerunt Principes, et juxta 
illum stetertint, dicentes, ‘ Ascende, putee, 
&e.!” (Num. xxi. 17) et ascendit.” See 
other testimonies in Schéttgen. The 
only ways of escaping this inference are, 
(1) by setting aside the natural sense alto- 
gether, as Chrys. (ob yap 7 Tis wéTpas puiats 
Tb Udwp Hpiet,.... GAN Erépa Tis TETpa 
mVEULATLKH TO Tay eipydero, TouvTéoTV 
6 xpictés, 6 mapwv avTots mavtaxod, Kab 
mwdvtTa Oavuatoupyav’ did yap TovTO elmer, 


axoAovbovens. p. 203), Theophyl.,—or (2) 
by taking mérpa= 7d éx Tis wéetpas Bdwp, 
as Erasm.. Beza, Grot., Estius, Lightf.: 
—and so Calvin, who says: ‘‘ Quomodo, 
inquiunt, rupes que suo loco fixa stetit, 
comitata esset Israelitas? Quasi vero 
non palam sit sub petrz voce notari aquz 
fluxum, qui nunquam populum deseruit.” 
But against both of these we have the plain 
assertion, representing matter of physical 
fact, €mwov ék mvevpatinys akoAoviotons 
métpas, they drank from a (or, after a 
preposition, tie) miraculous rock which 
followed them: and I cannot consent to 
depart from what appears to me the only 
admissible sense of these words. How ex- 
tensively the traditionary reliques of un- 
recorded Jewish history were adopted by 
apostolic men under the inspiration of the 
Holy Spirit, the apology of Stephen may 
bear witness. 7 werpa Sé HV 6 xpt- 
otés | But (distinction between what they 
saw in the rock and what we see in it: they 
drank from it and knew not its dignity: 
but) the rock was Christ. In these words 
there appear to be three allusions : (1) to 
the ideas of the Jews themselves: so the 
Targum on Isa. xvi. 1: “Afferent dona 
Messie Israelitarum, qui robustus erit, 
propterea quod in deserto fuit RUPES EC- 
CLESIA ZIONIs :” so also in Wisd. x. 15 ff., 
the copia Geod (see note on John i.1) is said 
to have been present in Moses, to have led 
them through the wilderness, &c. That the 
Messtrau, the ANGEL OF THE COVENANT, 
was present with the church of the Fathers, 
and that His upholding power was mani- 
fested in miraculous interferences for their 
welfare, was a truth acknowledged no less 
by the Jew than by the Christian. (2) To 
the frequent use of this appellation, A 
Rock, for the God of Israel. See, znter 
alia, Deut. xxxii. 4, 15, 18, 30, 31, 37; 
1 Sam. ii. 2; 2 Sam. xxii. 2, and passim ; 
xxiii. 3, &c.; Psalms passim, and especially 
Ixxviii. 20, compared with ver. 35: see also 
Rom. ix. 33; 1 Pet. ii. 8. Hence it became 
more natural to apply the term directly to 
Christ, as the ever-present God of Israel. 
(8) To the sacramental import of the water 
which flowed from the rock, which is the 


D54 


/ 
f Matt. iii. 17! os’ 
mi ee 


IIPOS> KOPIN@IOTS A. 


X. 


5aXN ovK fév &tois Sadeloow avtav 1 nvd0- ABCD 
[ 


Mas is c , , \ 2 rn ae tis 

2 Cor sii. 10. engev 0 Oeos, “KatertpwOncay yap €v TH €epHug. ebed 

12.) Jer. xiv. ~ : , Ca > , , \ \ > 

a" 6 radra Sé itvmroe juav * éyervnOncav, | eis TO pn eival nol 
g ch. ix. 19 (eis > \ a \ eo > , 47 
nee uty, «MAS ™erOuuntas Kaxdv, Kalos Kaxeivor ™ éreOdpynoar. 

YUM. Xi¥. , , 3A od 
“7 pndé °eidmrAoAdTpa yiverOe, Kabws Ties avTaY, WsTrEP 
; Fag ] k plur., ver. 11 reff., but see note. 1 Rom. iy. 11 reff. m here only. Num. xi. 34 (only ?). 


n absol., Rom. vii. 7 reff. och. vy. 10, 11 reff. 


5. [qvdoxncer, so ABC Clem Mcion-e Chr. | 


7. edwdodrarpas yiwerbar F ck 3. 116-22 arm, effici aut efficiamini G-lat. 
ins ef bef avtwy A. 


kaOws ins kat D} Syr. 


aft 
rec (for ws7ep) ws, with CD1KP 


dk Mcion-e, Ee: xaéws 17 Mcion-e,: txt ABD'LX rel Chr Thdrt Damase Thl.—om 


point here immediately in the Apostle’s 
mind. As wellin sacramental import as in 
upholding physical agency, that rock was 
Christ. ‘The miraculous (spiritual) food 
was (sacramentally) the flesh of Christ : 
the miraculous (spiritual) drink was the 
blood of Christ: so that the Jews’ miracu- 
lous supplies of food and drink were sacra- 
mentally significant of the Body and 
Blood of Christ, in kind analogous to the 
two great parts of the Christian Supper of 
the Lord. In the contents prefixed to 
the chapters in the E. V., we read as the 
import of these verses, “ Te sacraments of 
the Jews are types of ours,” which though 
perhaps correctly meant, is liable to be 
erroneously understood ; inasmuch as no 
sacramental ordinance can be a type of 
another, but all alike, though in different 
degrees of approximation, and by different 
representations, types of H1M, who is the 
fountain of all grace. The difference be- 
tween their case and ours, is generally, 
that they were unconscious of the sacra- 
mental import, whereas we are conscious of 
it: “they knew not that I healed them,” 
Hos. xi. 3: and in this particular case, 
that Christ has come to us “ not by water 
only, but by water and blood,” 1 John v. 
6: His Dratru having invested our sacra- 
mental ordinance with another and more 
deeply significant character. To enter more 
minutely into the import of the words, ‘the 
rock was Christ, would be waste of time 
and labour. The above reasons abundantly 
justify the assertion, without either press- 
ing the verb jv beyond its ordinary ac- 
ceptation, or presuming to fix on the 
Apostle a definiteness of meaning which 
his argument does not require. See in 
Meyer’s note an example of the proceeding 
which I blame. 5.| Howbeit not 
with the greater part of them (in fact 
with Joshua and Caleb only) was God 
pleased. Kateotp. yap...] ‘The 
very words of the LXX, sce ref. 

6.| Now (3¢ transitional; the contrast 
being, between the events themselves, 


and their application to us) these things 
happened as figures (not ‘types’ as we 
now use the word, meaning by type and 
antitype, the material representation, and 
the ultimate spiritual reality,—but figures, 
as one imperfect ceremonial polity may 
figure forth a higher spiritual polity, but 
still this latter may not itself be the ulti- 
mate antitype) of us (the spiritual Israel as 
distinguished from the literal),—in order 
that we might not be (God’s purpose in 
the rérot: of course an ulterior purpose, 
for they had their own immediate purpose 
as regards the literal Israel) lusters after 
evil things (generally: no special reference 
yet to the Corinthian feasters, as Grot. 
supposes. So Theophyl. rightly : «a@oAc- 
K@s Tepl mdons KaKklas A€yet, ered) Kal 
maga Kakla e& émOuulas. elta kal Kar’ 
eldos Tl@no. Tas Kaxlas. Similarly Chrys.) 
as they also (xal, i.e. supposing us to be 
like them) lusted. The construction (tadra 

. ¢yevn@noay) may be a verb substantive 
attracted into the plur. (or sing.) by the 
predicate,—one often found : so Herod. i. 
93, 7 mév mepiodos,..... cial orddion &E: 
and ii. 15, ai @7Bat Atyurtos éxadéero : 
so in Latin, Ter. Andr. iii. 3. 23, ‘ Aman- 
tium ire amoris integratio est :’ see many 
other examples in Kiihner, § 429: or, 
which is perhaps better, as in ver. 11, 
where see note. The rendering, ‘ Now 
in these things they were figures of us’ 
(I know not by whom suggested, but I 
find it in Dr. Peile’s notes on the Epistles), 
is inconsistent both with the arrangement 
of the words,—in which tadra has the 
primary emphasis,—and with éyev}Onoar, 
which should be joav. 7.) Now, the 
special instances of warning follow, coupled 
to the general by pmdé in this negative 
sentence, as so often by «ai in an affirma- 
tive one. Notice, that all four of these 
were brought about by the ém@upeiv 
Kkakov, not distinct from it. This first 
instance is singularly appropriate. ‘The 
Israelites are recorded to have sat down 
and eaten and drunken at the idol feast 


5—9. IPOS KOPIN@IOTS A. 555 


, , , € \ a \ rn \ > Er 
yéyparrrat P’Exalicey 6 Aads hayeiv Kat meiv, Kal 4 av- i acitia 


/ y "19 
éotnoav *rraifew. 8 unde § tropvedmpev, Kab@s TWes ad- resi.” 

n ee ee? 5) Pi YER LS > ms bbe — 
Tay * érropvevoay kab emecay [ev] Hote quepa etxoourpels iF, 
xiriades. 9 nde * éxmreipafwpev Tov KUpLov, KaOws Ties 35%)" 

wet u 2 ’ ae \ a vy» > , 2 Kings vi. 5 
avTav “éreipacay Kat UTO THY ‘ Ohewy aT@AOVTO, | Chron. | 

Jer, xxxviii. 


t Luke iy. 12 || Mt. (from 
u = Acts vy. 9. xv. 10. Heb. iii. 
Nom, xxi. 6. 


(xxxi.) 4. Hom. Od. @. 251. sch. vi. 18 reff. Num, xxv, 1—6. 
Deut. vi. 16). x. 25 (John viii. 4] only. Ps. Ixxvii, 18. 
9. Exon. xvii. 2,7. vy Mark xvi. 18. Luke x, 19 al. 


[wew, so B'(Tischdf) D!F: mw &.] 
8. exropyevauey DIF. eferopvevoay (see LXX) I)1¥ 67! Chry. 
ABCD!FPX 1m 17 Chr-ms Thdrt Damasc. ] om ev BD!FN! Tren. 
9. exreiparwuer I, rec (for kuptov) xptorov (see note), with DFKL rel latt syrr 
copt-wilk sah arm-marg Thdrt Mcion(Epiph says: 6 5& Mapklwy dvt) rod Kipioy 
xpiotdov érotnoev) Chr, (Ec Thi Iren-int(citing “ Seniores”) Ambr Ambrst Aug Pel: 
Geov A 2 Bede: txt BCPN17 syr-mg copt-ms th arm Epiph Chr, Thdrt Damasec Sedul 


avertn EF, 
[emecay, so 


Kkabws Tives avtTwy wstep F, 


Cassiod. 
am n 17 vss Epiph Iren-int. 
amwAdvyto BX. (A is doubtful.) 


of the golden calf in Horeb: the very 
temptation to which the Corinthians were 
too apt to yield. And as the Israelites 
were actually idolaters, doing this as an 
act of worship to the image: so the Co- 
rinthians were in danger of becoming 
such, and the Apostle therefore puts the 
case in the strongest way, neither be (be- 
come) ye idolaters. mailer, poy 
‘choreas agere,’ ‘ saltare accinentibus tym- 
panis vel cantoribus :’ see reff., where the 
same word (or its cognate pm) occurs in 
the Heb. The dance was an accompani- 
ment of the idol feast : see Hor. ii. 12.19: 
“Quam nec ferre pedem dedecuit choris 
....sacro Diane celebris die.’ 8. | 
Another prominent point in the sins of the 
Corinthian church. eikooiTpets x. | 
The number was twenty-four thousand, 
Num. xxy. 9, and is probably set down 
here from memory. The subtilties of Com- 
mentators in order to escape the inference, 
are discreditable alike to themselves and 
the cause of sacred Truth. Of the prin- 
cipal ancient Commentators, Chrysostom 
and Theophyl. do not notice the discre- 
pancy: (cum. notices it, and says that 
some ancient copies elxooitécoapas ebeoay 
here (so m tol syr-txt arm), but passes 
it without comment. Although the 
sin of Baal-peor was strictly speaking 
idolatry, yet the form which it exhi- 
bited was that of fornication, as inci- 
dent to idolatrous feasting, see Num. xxv. 
1, 2. Thus it becomes even more directly 
applicable to the case of the Corinthians. 

9. | €xre_p.— tempt beyondendurance, 
‘tempt thoroughly.’ Similarly egapveto@a, 
‘to persist in denying,’ al., as Suidas, 7) yap 
e& mpd0ects, eritacw Sydot. See Musegr. 
on Kurip. Iph. Taur. 249, and cf. ex- 


rec aft ka@ws ins rat, with D3KL rel Syr Chr Thdrt: om ABCD!FPR 


om avtwy XN}, 


eferreipacay CD'FPN am 17. 


tAnpéw, Acts xiii. 32. So also in Latin, 
‘oro’ and ‘ exoro,’ &e. Tov KUpLov | 
There may be two views taken of the in- 
ternal evidence concerning the reading 
here. On the one hand it may be said 
that xptorév being the original reading, it 
was variously altered to kipioy or Ody by 
those who found a difficulty in supposing 
that the Jews of old tempted Christ, or 
even by those who wished to obliterate this 
assertion of His prz-existence: and so 
De Wette, al. On the other it may be 
said, that k¥ptov being the original, it was 
variously explained in the margin xpiordy 
and fete as is often the case: and so 
Meyer. On comparing these, it seems to 
me that the latter alternative is the more 
probable. The inference that tives aitav 
erelpacay requires Toy xpiotdy as an ob- 
ject, is not a necessary one, and hardly 
likely to have produced the alteration, 
closely connected as 7. xp. is with the verb 
in the first person. I have therefore with 
Meyer adopted the reading kvpiov. The 
tempting of the Lord was,—as on the other 
occasions alluded to Num. xiv. 22, where it 
is said that they tempted God ten times,— 
the daring Him, in trying His patience by 
rebellious conduct and sin. Cf. the similar 
use of meipa(w Acts vy. 9; xv.10. And he 
warns the Corinthians, that they should not 
in like manner provoke God by their sins 
and their partaking with idols. Chrys., 
Theophyl., and (ic. understand the temp- 
tation of God to be the seeking for signs : 
Theodoret, to be in danger arising from 
those who spoke with different tongues, 
emelpaCoy S€ K. of Tats diapdpois KEXpN- 
Mévol YA@TTaIs, KaTa piAoTiutay uaddAor 7} 
xpelay Tavtas em’ exxAnolas mpospepoyTes. 

imo tav ddhewv, by the (well- 


556 
w here bis. 
Matt. xx. 11. 
Luke y. 30. > , a \ rn 
John vi-41, @7T@ANOVTO UTO TOU 
43,61. vii. 32 
only, Exov. ¥ TyTruK@S 
xvi. 7 A 
(Stayoy. B). 


Num. xiv. 29. 


IIPOY KOPIN@IOTS A. 


X. 


10 unde “yoyyvfere, Kalas twes adtov * éyoyyvoav Kal 
* 6NoOpeuTod. 
“quvéBawov éxelvols, eypadn Oé 
Oeciav Hpuav, eis ods TA °TEAN TOV © ai@vev * KaTHYTHKED. 


ll radra 5é [avta] 
® qpos ” vov- 


x here only +. ¢ oe ca rn cf / , . / 
Cesc, 12 wste 6 © doxav { éotavalt, © BreréTo py *' TréoN. 
ant =e cat 13h \ (atin > i aN > .es 6 , 

xi. 23, x0 TrELPAG LOS ULaS OUK el npev €L 1) ay P@TLVvos: 
-evats, Josh. xvii. 13 A.) y here only +. z Acts iii. 10 reff. plur., ver.6. Luke xxiv. 11. els 
xix. 31. Jamesii.19. Rev. i. 19. iil. 2. Ps. exly. 10. a = ch. vii. 35 reff. Eph. 
vi. 4, Tit. iii. 10 only +. Judith i 27 (23) Ald.(-tyots, ABN). Wisd. xvi. 6 only. (-Oeretv, Acts xx. 31.) 
c here only. see Matt. xiii. 39. Heb. ix. Acts xxvi. 7 reff. e ch, iii. 18 reff. f Rom. 
xiv, 4 (reff.). g= hets xiii. 40 reff. h Luke xxii. 28, Actsxx.19al. Deut. iv. 34. 
i = Luke vy. 26. vii. 16. Exod. xy. 15. k Acts xvii. 25 reff. 


10. for yoy yucere, yoyyu(wuev D F-gr & 17 copt arm Orig, Chr,(txty.) Aug). 
rec aft xa9ws ins kat, with KL rel Chr Thdrt: om ABCDFPX ad m 17 latt syrr 


coptt Orig Eus Epiph Iren-int.—xafamep BPX 93 Orig. 


oAeBpevrov D!: oAcOpou F-gr. 


amwAdvuyto A. 


11. om zavyta (as ver 6) AB 17 sah Mcion-e-t Orig, Dial Hip Cyr-jer, Cyr Oros, 


Pac: 
wth Orig, Chr Iren-int-ms Tert Aug, Idac. 


syr-txt coptt Thdrt,(h. 1. expressly : 
exewots cuveBn) Thi, Cc: 


Mcion-e Orig, Hip Eus Mac Cyr-jer, Chr Cyrsspe- 
Dial, Hip Cyr-jer,(eyevero,) Chr-2-mss : 
rec katnytnoev (alteration of the perf into 


d 17.47 Mcion-e Orig, 
Chr Thdrt,. for mpos, ets Rt, 


ins CKLP rel vss Thdrt (ie Thi Iren-int, Jer, and, but ravta de ravta, DFR da 


rec tumot (as ver 6), with DFL rel 


avTt Tov ws TuTo, and elsw expl tTavta TumiKws 


txt ABCKPX d 17. 47 latt syr-mg Iren-int-from-Sen 


suveBavey (see note) BCKPR 
txt ADFL rel Dial, 


the aor, so common with the copyists), with ACD*KL rel Orthod Orig, Dial Epiph Chr 
Thdrt, -cav P Hip,: txt BD!FX Hip, Orig, Bas, Cyr,. 
13. for ove etAngerv, ov KataAaBn F; non apprehendat latt. 


known) serpents. The art. is so often 
omitted after a preposition, that wherever 
it is expressed, we may be sure there was 
a reason for it. 10.| yoyyvfere has 
been by Estius, Grot., al., and De Wette, 
understood of murmuring against their 
teachers, as the Israelites against Moses 
and Aaron, Num. xiv. 2; xvi 41. But 
not to mention that this was in fact mur- 
muring against God, such a reference 
would require something more specific 
than the mere word yoyyi¢ere. The 
warning is substantially the same as the 
last, but regards more the spirit, and its 
index the tongue. Theophyl.: aivirrera 
be abrovs Kal bia Tobrov, Bri ev Tots TeEL- 
parmots ok Epepoy yevvalws, GAN eydy- 
yuCov A€yovres Tdre ter Ta ayabd, Kab 
éws wéTe af Kaxwoes; similarly Chrys. 

The destruction referred to must be that 
related Num. xvi. 41 ff. when the pesti- 
lence (which though it is not so specified 
there, was administered on another occa- 
sion by a destroying angel, 2 Sam. xxiv. 
16, 17, see also Exod. xii. 23) took off 
14,700 of the people. The punishment of 
the unbelieving congregation in Num. xiv., 
to which this is commonly referred, does 
not seem to answer to the expression 
&médovto bd 7. dAoOpevTod, nor to the 
Twes, seeing that all except Joshua and 
Caleb were involved in it. oh 
Tumis, see var. readd., by way of 
figure. Meyer cites from the Rabbis, 


‘Quidquid evenit patribus, signum filiis.’ 
The plural cuvéBavoy expresses the 
plurality of events separately happening : 
the singular éypdpy, their union in the 
common record of Scripture. Similarly 
2 Pet. iii. 10, crorxeta. . . AvVOhcovTa... 
Ta ev auTH epya garaedecea See reff. 
and Winer, edn. 6, § 58. 3. a. Sé con- 
veys a slight opposition to cvyéBawov éxel- 
vols. Ta TéAy T. alwv.| = 7 ovr- 
TéAeia Tov aidvos of ref. Matt., and rd 
éoxatoy Tay jnuepay to’twy of Heb. i. 1, 
where see note: the ends of the ages of 
this world’s lifetime. So Chrys.: ovdév 
BAAo Aéyer bri CeatnKe Aowrdy Td Si- 
kaothpiov To poBepor. The form vov- 
Gecia belongs to later Greek. The classi- 
cal word is vov@érnais or vovSerla: see 
Lobeck on Phrynichus, p. 512. 
katyvt.| have reached. The ages are 
treated as occupying space, and their extent 
as just coincident with our own time. See 
a similar figure in ch. xiv, 36, 12.] 
éotavat, viz. in his place as a member of 
Christ's church, to be recognized by him at 
His coming for one of His. Tosuch an one 
the example of the Israelites is a warning 
to take heed that he fall not, as they did 
from their place in God’s church. 
13.] There are two ways of understanding 
the former part of this verse. Chrys., 
Theophyl., Grot., Est., Bengel, Olsh., De 
Wette, al., take it as a continuation, and 
urging of the warning of the verse pre- 


10—16. 


IIPOS KOPINOIOTS A. 


557 


rn a ig \ . . 
lariatos 8 6 Oeds, Os ovK edoer Has ™ TretpacOhvat ™ UTrEp 1= 0h. i. 9 ret. 


\ an 
0 dvvace, GAA TroLnTEL TLV TO 


Bacw ” tod Svvac@at 4% UTreveyKeEiv. 
a / 
pov, * hevryete aro THs “ eldwdodaTpeElas. 
tal (v4 
pols NEyo" KplvaTe vpEis O Pye. 


xviii. 10. xxvi. 18. 
Job ii. 10. Ps. liv. 12. 
t ch. vi. 18 reff. 


p Matt. xiii. 3. Acts ili. 2. 
ll. 1 Pet. ii. 19 only. 
s Acts xv. 25 reff. 
ver. 7.) 
xiv. 17. 


for ove eave, ovk apnoe: DF. 


a \ \ 
 Teipacu@ Kal THY ° eK- 


Rom. xi. 8,10. Ps. cxlix. 7, 9. 
Proy. vi. 33. 


vy = Acts xvii. 22. 2 Cor. vi. 13. 


x attr., Matt. xxi. 42 (from Ps. cxvii. 22) al. 


meipacOnvat bef vuas B. 
bef Suvas@e F 123? D-lat, adding uvreveyxew F Augarig- 
xe, with KX rel Thdrt, Damase (ie Thl-ed: aft, D?: om 


m ch. vii. 5 reff. 
” n = ch. iy. 6. 
2 Cor. xii, 6. 
o Heb. xiii. 7 


14.23,2 ap {only +. Wisd. 
Storep, “anyamyret yee 
15v w iB. xi. M4 only. 
@S ppovt 7 EKB. EK T. 
\ , a TOAEMLOU. 
16X+7o qoTHploy THS Poets. 
2. 


q 2 Tim. iii. 
r ch, viii. 13 (xiv. 13 y. r.) only. 
u Gal, y. 20. Col. iii.5. 1 Pet. iv. 3 only +. (-7pys, 
w Matt. vii. 24. ch. iv. 10 al. Proy. 


ins ov 
rec ins vuas bef umevey- 
ABCD!FLPN! n 17. 47 


syrr sah Mac, Bas, Chr-comm-and-2-mss Cyrsepe Thdrt, Thl-mss. 


15. aft ppovimors ins vay D ¢ (coptt) 
vwas X}(txt X-corr!). 


ceding, by the consideration that no 
temptation had yet befallen them but 
such as was 4av@pémvos, ‘within the 
power of human endurance :’ but ‘major 
tentatio imminet,’ Beng.:—while Calvin, 
al., and Meyer regard it as a consola- 
tion, tending to shew them that Badez- 
érw «wh wéon is within the limits of their 
power, seeing that their temptation to 
sin was nothing extraordinary or unheard 
of, but only ‘ according to man: and they 
might trust to God’s loving care, that no 
temptation should ever befall them which 
should surpass their power to resist. This 
latter seems to me beyond doubt the correct 
view. For (1) in the parallel which they 
bring for the former sense, Heb. xii. 4, 
ovarw is distinctly expressed,—and would 
have been here also, had it been intended. 
Besides, in that case, ov7w, as having the 
primary emphasis, would have been pre- 
Jjiwed, as in Heb. xii. 4: otw meipacuds 
buas eiAnpev..... Then again (2) this 
restricts the sense of meipacuds to persecu- 
tion, which it here does not mean, but 
solicitation to sin, in accordance with the 
whole context. etAndev—has taken 
you, not €AaBer, ‘took you,’ shews that the 
temptation was still soliciting them. 
GvOpamvos]| not, as Piscator, al., and 
Olsh., originating with man, as opposed to 
other temptations originating with the 
devil, or even with God’s Providence: but, 
as Chrys: éjumetpos,—opposed to bmép 3 
divacbe, adapted to man. mioTés | He 
has entered into acovenant with you by call- 
ing you: if He suffered temptation beyond 
your power to overcome you, He would be 
violating that covenant. Compare 1 Thess. 
v. 24, mistds 6 kaddy buds, ds Kal moihoet. 
és = dr ovTos. TOUoeL .. . Kab 


aHhv €xB.| Then God makes the temptation: 


too: arranges it in His Providence, and in 
His mercy will ever set open a door for 


for Kpiware vuets o pnt, KpLvETE ouv pnt D}, 


escape. THv &B.] the escape, i.e. 
which belongs to the particular temp- 
tation: Thy amadAayhy Tod metpacuod, 
Theophyl. Tov Suy. | in order that 
you may be able to bear (it): obs., not, 
‘will remove the temptation :’ but, ‘will 
make an escape simultaneously with the 
temptation, to encourage you to bear up 
against it.’ 14.] Conclusion from the 
above warning examples : IDOLATRY IS BY 
ALL MEANS TO BE SHUNNED; not tam- 
pered with, but fled from. devyete 
amd (‘fugiendo discedite a,’ Meyer) ex- 
pressing even more strongly than the accus. 
with gevyw, the entire avoidance. This 
verse of itself would by inference forbid 
the Corinthians having any share in the 
idol feasts; but he proceeds to ground 
such prohibition on further special con- 
siderations. 15—22.] By the analogy 
of the Christian participation in the 
Lord’s Supper, and the Jewish participa- 
tion in the feasts after sacrifices, joined 
to the fact that the heathens sacrifice to 
devils, he shews that the partaker in the 
idol feast is a PARTAKER WITH DEVILS; 
which none can be, and yet be a Christian. 
15.] An appeal to their own sense 
of what is congruous and possible,—as in- 
troducing what is to follow. Os ex- 
presses an assumption on the Apostle’s part, 
that they are @pdviuor. De W. compares 
Plato, Alcib. 1.104, és dxovcoudvm Aéyw. 
Aéyw and pnp both refer to what follows, 
vy. 16—21. tpets is emphatic—be 
YE the judges of what I am saying. 
16.] The analogy of the Lord’s 
Supper, which, in both its parts, is a par- 
ticipation in Christ. The stress through- 
out to ver. 20, is on kotvwvia, and kot- 
vevot. 76 Totyptov is the accus., 
by attr. corresponding to tav dptov. 
TO %. THS EVA.] i.e. b cdAoyoUyTES KaTa- 
okeva Couey ((ic.), as explained imme- 





558 


y Gal, iii, 14. 
James iii. 10, 
Rev. vy. 12. 
13. vii. 12. 
Gen. xxviii. 
4 


z Matt. xxvi. 
26 || Mk. 
Luke ix. 16. 
xxiv. 30. ch. 

i . 1 Kings ix. 13. 

14. 1Pet.i.2. 1Johni.7 al. 

e Rom. y. 15 reff. f Rom. xi. 32 reff. 


16. for evdoyias, evxapiotias F 71. 80. 213 Syr. 


vias N1(marked for correction by X-corr!). 


IIPOS KOPIN@IOT® A. 


a 2 Cor. vi. 14 reff. 
c Acts ii. 46 reff. 


be 


“a a a 
Y evrNoylas 0 *EvAOYODUEV, OvYL *KoWwvia TOD ” aipatos 
Tod »ypictod éotw ; * TOV apToV Ov © KOpEV, OVXL * KoL- 
vovia ToD“ cwpatos TOU 4 ypioToD éotw ; 17 Gre Els ApTos, 
aA rn e e e ON {er . f e \ f / > fo] Cs 
év capa °ot © moAddol éeopev: foi yap ‘ mavtes Ex TOD Evos 


b (ch. xi. 25, 27.) Eph. ii. 13. Heb. ix. (12) 
d Rom. vii. 4. (ch. xi. 24, 27, 29.) 


mvaoyouney D). Koww- 
Ist cori bef rT. am. tT. xp. (transposn to 


avoid the harshness of ectw at the end) ABP Syr coptt Cyr, Aug Bede: txt CDFK 


LN rel latt syr goth Chr Thdrt Ambrst. 


Cyr Aug Bede (see above): om sah : txt BCDFKLPN rel Ke. 


2nd eorw bef 7. cwu. T. xp. A Syr copt 
for 2nd xpioTov, kupiov 


DIF 21 latt goth (Dial) Thdrt Ambrst Aug (goth Thdrt Ambrst syr-mg xvpiov before) : 


auTovu nN. 


17. aft aprov ins kat Tov [evos] mornpiov DF vulg-sixt(with demid harl tol, not am) 


Ambrst Pel Bede. (om evos D.) 


diately by 9 evAoyoduev,—over which we 
speak a blessing, the Christian form of 
the Jewish 7273 Dia, the cup in the Pass- 
over over which thanks were offered after 
the feast,—in blessing of which cup, our 
Lord instituted this part of the ordinance : 
see Lightfoot in loc.,and note on the history 
in Matt. xxvi. The rendering of Olsh., al., 
the eup which brings a blessing, is wrong, 
as being against this analogy. 6 evdo- 
youpev| which we bless, i.e. consecrate 
with a prayer of thanksgiving: not, as 
Erasmus, Beza, ‘quod cum gratiarum ac- 
tione sumimus? (rep) ob evxXapioTovper). 
Observe, the first person plural is the same 
throughout: the blessing of the cup, and 
the breaking of the bread, the acts of con- 
secration, were not the acts of the minister, 
as by any authority peculiar to himself, 
but only as the representative of the oi 
adyres, the whole Christian congregation 
(and so even Estius, but evading the legi- 
timate inference). The figment of sacer- 
dotal consecration of the elements by trans- 
mitted power, is as alien from the apostolic 
writings as it is from the spirit of the 
Gospel. ko.vwvia | the participation 
(i. e. that whereby the act of participation 
takes place) of the blood of Christ? The 
strong literal sense must here be held fast, 
as constituting the very kernel of the 
Apostle’s argument. The wine is the 
Blood, the bread is the Body, of Christ. 
(In what sense the Blood and the Body, 
does not belong to the present argument.) 
We receive into us, make by assimilation 
parts of ourselves, that wine, that bread : 
we become therefore, by participation of 
that Bread, one Bread, i.e. ONE Bopy: 
hence the close and literal participation in 
and with Christ. Ifwe are to render this 
éarww, represents or symbolizes, the argu- 
ment is made void. On the other hand it 
is painful to allude to, though necessary to 
reprobate, the caricature of this real union 


with Christ which is found in the gross 
materialism of transubstantiation. See 
further on ch. xi. 26, 27. dv KA@pev | 
probably already the breaking of the bread 
in the communion was part of the act of 
consecration, and done after the example 
of our Lord in its institution. See ch. 
xi. 24; Acts ii. 42, xx. 7, 11. For the 
rest, see above. 17. | Because we, the 
(assembled) many, are one bread (by the 
assimilation of that one bread partaken : 
not ‘one loaf’), one Body (by the rowwvla 
of the Body of Christ, of which that bread 
is the vehicle); for the whole of us par- 
take of that one bread. Meyer and De 
Wette and many other Commentators take 
eis &pros alone, ‘ there is one bread ;? and 
impugn the interpretation given above by 
saying that it is evidently not so, because 
the following clause uses &pros in its Titeral 
sense. But it is for that very reason, that 
I adhere to the interpretation given. By 
partaking of that bread, we become, not 
figuratively but literally, one bread: it 
passes into the substance of our bodies, 
and there is in every one who partakes, a 
portion of himself which is that bread. 
The bread which was before, is now jets. 
But that loaf, broken and blessed, is the 
medium of kowwvla of the Body of Christ ; 
we then, being that one bread, are one 
Body; for we all partake of that one 
bread. So that there is no logical inver- 
sion, and no arguing (Meyer) from the 
effect to the cause. The argument is a 
very simple and direct one ;—the bread is 
the Body of Christ; we partake of the 
bread: therefore we partake of the Body 
of Christ. Of these propositions, the con- 
clusion is implied in the form of a question 
in ver. 16: the minor stated in the latter 
clause of ver. 17; its connexion with the 
major producing the conclusion given in 
the former clause 67: .... éopev. The 
major itself, rodté éorw Tb oGud pov, 


17—19. IIPOS KOPINOIOTS A. 559 


/ / Ny ’ \ M1 Xj / * 
aptou © weréyowev. 18% Bdémere tov ‘lopanr' kata‘ cdpKas ch. ix. 10,12 
/ . Lips s h ch. i. 26. 
ovy ot é€aOiovtes Tas Ovalas, * kowwwvot Tod |! Pvovacrnptov ” Pritt 2. 
“ay, 2 A 4 > , l ps ee i Rom. i, 3 reff. 
eloiv ; 19 ri ody dnt; OTL ™EeidwrOOUTOV "Ti éoTLY, 7) OTE k Matt, xxiii 


0. 2 Cor, i. 
7, Heb. x. 33. 1Pet.v.1. Isa. i. 23. Ich, ix. 13 bis. Rom. xi. 3 (from 3 Kings xix. 10) al. 
m ch. viii. 1 reff. : i > 


n= Acts y. 36. ch. iii. 7. Gal. ii. 6. vi. 3, 15. Demosth. 582, 27, 
18. rec ovxt, with BD°KLPN3 rel Thdrt: txt ACD' FPR?! 17 Chr. ecOovtes Di, 
19. ree transp evdwAodutoy and e:SwdAov, with KL rel syrr goth Chr Thdrt: :8wAoburoy 
twice F; but G-lat has over the 1st dolis immolatum sit, and over the 2nd idolum aut 
idolothitum : eSwAo8vTov, omg from tT: eotiv to Te eat, AC'N'(omg tz also) Epiph: 
e.dwdov, omg the other clause by homeotel, 17.71: txt BC?DPN-corr! m vulg(and 
F-lat) coptt 2th arm Ambrst Aug Pel Bede. (Zhe received reading seems to have been 


adopted as the most natural order on the re-insertion of the omitted clause. 


remarks of Epiph and Aug, see Tischdf.) 


For the 
eotw bef 7 (twice) D!F latt. 


for n ott, ovx ott DE (Tert) Ambrst Aug-mss,. (for lst é71, ovx ots Chr-mss.) 


is suppressed, as axiomatic. The above 
remarks shew also the untenableness of the 
rendering of Calv., Beza, Bengel, al..— 
“because there is one bread (antecedent), 
we being many are one body” (conse- 
quent): for this would parenthesize ver. 
17, and take it altogether out of the argu- 
ment, giving it a sense which, as occurring 
here, would be vapid—‘ obiter hoe dicit, 
ut intelligant Corinthii, externa quoque 
professione colendam esse illam unitatem 
quze nobis est cum Christo,” Calv. Meyer 
objects to rendering ek tod évds aptov 
petéexouev, we partake of that one bread : 
saying rightly that wetéxw is always found 
with a gen. or an acc., never with éx. He 
would render, for we all, by means of that 
one bread, partake (viz. in the one Body: 
so metéx. is absol. ver. 30). This is ex- 
ceedingly harsh, besides as it seems to me 
(see above) confusing the whole argument : 
and we may safely say would not have 
been thus expressed by the Apostle, leaving 
the most important words to be supplied 
from the context,—but would have been 
oi yap mavtes ev TH Evi tiptw Tod Evds 
oduaros peréxouev. The usage of ék, 
too, would, though perhaps barely allow- 
able, be very harsh, especially when it is 
remembered that the &pros is not (by the 
hypothesis) the ultimate, but only the me- 
diate object of participation. None of the 
examples given in Bernhardy, Syntax, 
p- 230, which Meyer quotes for his sense 
of éx, seem to justify it. They apply 
mostly to the subjective source, é« mpo- 
volas, or the circumstances originating, 
@s €x TovTwy,—not to the medial instru- 
ment, which it appears to me would re- 
quire did. [In a subsequent edn. Meyer 
seems to have slightly modified his view, 
rendering, for from the one bread we all 
receive a portion. | 18.] Another 
example of xowwvta, from the Jewish feasts 
after sacrifice. T. “lop. kata cdpxa. | 
(=T. “Iop. Tav Kara odpka: so we have 
tots Kuplos kata odpxa, Eph, vi. 5), the 


actual material Israel, as distinguished 
from 6 lop. kata mvetua, see Rom. ii. 29; 
Gal.iv, 29; and 6"Iop. Tod Oeod, Gal. vi. 16. 

ot éo8. T. Ovo.] viz. those parts of 
the sacrifices which were not offered ; see 
on ch. viii. 1. The parts to be offered are 
specified, Levit. iii. 3; the practice of eat- 
ing the remainder of the meat sanctioned 
and regulated, ib. vii. 15—18. Kot- 
vwvol Tov Gvo.| partakers with the altar 
(in a strict and peculiar sense,—the altar 
having part of the animal, the partaker 
another part; and by the fact of the 
religious consecration of the offered part, 
this connexion becomes a religious con- 
nexion. The question has been raised, and 
with reason, why the Apostle did not say 
kowwvol Tod Qeov ? Meyer answers,—be- 
cause the Jew was already in covenant 
with God,and the Apostle wished to express 
a closer connexion, brought about by the 
sacrifice in question :—De Wette,—because 
he was unwilling to ascribe so much to the 
mere act of sacrifice, see Heb. x. 1 ff.: and 
to this latter view I incline, because, as De 
W. remarks, @cod would have suited the 
analogy better than O@vo.acrnptov, but 
Paul avoids it, and evidently is reluctant to 
useit. But to carry this view further, and 
suppose with Riickert that he would not 
concede to the *Iop. kara cdpka any kol- 
vevia Oeov, is [Meyer] contradicted by 
Rom. ix. 4, 5. Still the inference lies 
open, to which our Saviour’s saying points, 
Matt. xxii. 20, 21. The altar is Gon’s 
altar). 19, 20.] The inference from 
the preceding analogies would naturally be, 
that Paul was then representing the idols 
as being in reality what the heathen sup- 
posed them to be—and the eater of meats 
offered to them, as partaking with the idol. 
This objection he meets,—but with the 
introduction of a new fact to their con- 
sideration—that the things which the hea- 
then sacrifice, they sacrifice really to devils. 

19.] ri odv gypr; what am I then 
assuming ? so Xen. Anab., i. 14. 4, tf odv 


560 


o Acts vii. 14 
xy. 20. ch. 


xii. 2. 2 


me 7. a , > , a 
mT. Kal ob Bed P Otovaw, ob Oérw dE vpuas 


vi. 16. 


1 Thess. i. 9 q / / 

al, Num. Saypuovieov yiver Ban. 
es 4 

Pp pool, Acts 7UVEWW KAL TIOTNPLOV q 
xiv. 13. fy 7 . 
Exod. iii. g 
Bagi eal UpLOU a PETE Se eee 
Acts xiv. 18. 


q Devt. xxxil. 
17. Paul,here 9» 
(4 times) and €O [LEV A 
1 Tim. iv. 1 
only. 
x1. 9. Ps. lxxvii. 20. 
xxxii. 21). xi. 11, 14 only. 


t see Isa. Ixy. 11. 
w ch. i. 25 reff. 


20. for aAA ort a, a Se D: adda a F latt lat-ff. 
evn below), with KL rel Chr Thdrt Damase: txt ABCDFPR 


(occasioned by the insn of 


i 17 Mcion-e Epiph Eus. rec aft 


IPOS KOPINOIOTS A. 


gospp. passim. Acts xvii. 18. James ii. 19. Rev. 


X. 


, fe 
odSardov ® tl eat; 2 GAN Ste & ? Ovovew 4 Samoviors 


Kk Kolvwvovs TOV 


21 9b Suvace * toTHpiov * Kupiouv 
Saipoviov, ov dSvvacbe * tpamrelns 
st rpamretns %t Saywovioy. 2 47 


Vv a X / 2 \ w? Ld > fal 
Tmapatnrovpev TOV KupLoOV ; /47) LayYUpPOTEPOL AUTOU 


r ch. xi. 27. s = Rom. 
v Rom. x. 19 (from Deut. 


ix. 20. xvi. 14 only. 


u = ch. xi. 22. 


rec (for @vovow, twice) Ove 


Ist @v. ins ta €6vn, with ACKPR rel vulg 


(and F-lat) G-lat syrr coptt goth «th arm Chr Thdrt Orig-int Aug, Bede: aft ort, 


L: om BDF 
rec 2nd @v. bef «at ov Gew, with 
Aug. 


F (syrr copt). 


KeAevw@ ToLyoal; Ste etdadd0. ti 
éorw] that a thing sacrificed to an 
idol is any (real) thing (so sacrificed) ? 
(i.e. has any real existence as a thing 
sacrificed? The accentuation 7 €or 5 
would come nearer to the sense of ch. 
viii. 4, 87 ovdty eliwrov ey Kdon~,— 
‘that there is any (such thing as an) 
offering to an idol?’ and in a matter 
so ambiguous it is impossible to decide 
between the two) or that an idol is 
any thing (real? e.g. that Jupiter és 
Jupiter in the sense of a living power) ? 
—(Not so :—this ellipsis of the negative, 
taken up by Aad, is found in classical 
Greek: e.g. Xen. Mem. i. 2. 2, mas obv 
aitos dv rowdTros BAdouvs bv aoceBets 
Peis erolnoev; GAN exavoe ey TOUTwY 
modAovs, apeTis mommoas érOupetv, Ke. 
See Hartung, Partikellehre, ii. 37.) But 
(I say) that the things which they 
(i.e. the Gentiles) sacrifice, they sacri- 
fice to devils, and not to God (da:u., not 
‘false-gods, nor in the sense in which 
it is used in the mouth of idolaters them- 
selves, Acts xvii. 18, and Xen. Mem. i. 
1.1, deities [see Stanley’s note, in which 
this idea is ingeniously combined with 
the Christian sense given below |,—but, 
as always in LXX and N. T. when used 
by worshippers of the true God, DEVILS,’ 
‘evil spirits.’ ‘The words are from Deut. 
fref.], see also Ps. xev. 5 [Baruch iv. 7, 
Oicavres Samovios Kk. ov be@ |. Heathen- 
dom being under the dominion of Satan 
[5 &pxwv tod Kdcpov Tovrov |, he and his 
angels are in fact the powers honoured 
and worshipped by the heathen, how- 
ever little they may be aware of it): 
but (the inference being suppressed ‘and 


Saimoviwy bef kowwvovs (omg twv) D)3F goth. 


Mcion-e Epiph Eus Tert Ambrst Aug,(expr,) Aug-cit(qua sacrificant). 


DFKL rel: txt ABCPX m 17 Eus Orig-int 
for yiweoGat, evar 


ye therefore by partaking in their sacri- 
fices would be partakers with devils : 
but’) I would not have you become par- 
takers with devils (ray generic). 

21.] Reason of the ot 6éAw,—sententiously 
expressed without dp. ov Svvacbe 
applies of course to the real spiritual 
participation of the table of the Lord 
so as to profit by it: to moral possi- 
bility. The mworyjprov Satpoviev is said 
as corresponding to the cup of which 
mention has been already made, not as 
Grot., al., and De Wette fancy, referring 
to the libation at an idol feast. 
tpémeta is said by Pollux vi. 12 (Suicer) 
to be used in the sense of 7& otla Ta 
én avtav Tav TpaweCav TiWéueva. Com- 
pare the description in Herod. iii. 18, 
of the ‘HAlov tpdae(a,—Polyb. iv. 35. 4, 
dbsre mepi Tov Bwudy Kk. Thy TpdmeCav Tis 
Gcod Katachayivat Tovs "Epdpous &mavtas, 
—and ref. Isa. From this passage pro- 
bably, the tpdwe(a xuplov became an ex- 
pression current in all ages of the Christian 
Church : see Suicer in voce. 22.] Or 
are we provoking (is it our wish to pro- 
voke, that He may assert His power) the 
Lord (Christ) to jealousy (by dividing our 
participation between Him and devils) }— 
see ref. Deut., which evidently is before 
the Apostle’s mind :—are we stronger than 
He (are we then such, that we can afford 
to defy His power to punish)? 
23—XI.1.] Now that he has fully 
handled the whole question of partaking in 
idol feasts, and prepared the way for 
specific directions as about a matter no 
longer to be supposed indifferent, he pro- 
ceeds to give those directions, accompany- 
ing them with their reasons, as regards 


20—27. 


IIPOS KOPINOIOTS A. 561 


4 ld 
°3 Tldvta * &eoriv, AXN od tavTa Xouphéper’ mavTa x ch, vi. 12 
re 


“eEcotw, aXN ov mdvta Y oixodoped. 
*Cnreitw, AAA *7d Tod Erépov. %5 wav TO év © waKér-* 23 
Xp “rorovuevov écOleTe pndev ° dvaxpivovtes Sid THY 
cuveionow *8€ Tod Kupiov yap » yh Kab Td ™ TAjpowa 
7 ei Tus ixarel buds Tov 


f 


auThs. 


4 a a 
wopeverOa, Tav TO 'tapatiWéuevov duiv éoOiere pmdev 


xli. 56. e = Acts iv. 9 reff. 
1. xlix, 12. h = Mark viii. 20. Ps. xev. 11. 
v. 12. k = ch. vi. 6 reff. 


1 = Mark vi. 41. 


OA, \ wie SFG Satie 
24 undels * TO EavTon Acts 3 
z see Matt. xvi. 


a ver. 33. 
ch. xiii. 5. 
2 Cor, xii. 14. 
Phil. ii. 21. 
Neh. ii. 10. 
b Rom. ii. 1 
? r \ I P 
reff, 
amiotav Kat Oédere , fh 
d epp., here 
only. Matt. 
x.29al. Gen. 
Psa. xxiii. 
John ii, 2 al, Esth. 
Gen. xliii, 31, 32. 


k 


£= ch. vill. 7. 2 Cor. i. 12: 
i = Matt. xxii. 3, &c. 
Acts xvi. 34 al, 


238. rec (twice) ins wor bef eteor. (from ch vi. 12), with C3(1st time) HKL(P)X3 rel 
(xth 1st time, demid goth, 2nd) syrr Chr Thdrt Orig-int Aug,: txt ABC'DN1(F 17, 
once) am(with fuld harl' lux tol) copt Clem Ath Damasce Iren-int Tert Cypr.—om 2d 
clause (passing from wavta to wayvta) FP: om Ist cl. 17. 


24. for ro (twice), ra A 47 Antch (Tert). 


rec aft erepou ins exagros (supple- 


mentary: perhaps, as Mey, a reminiscence of Phil ii. 4), with D?-3KUL rel syrr goth 
Chr Thdrt: om ABCD! FHPR 17 eth latt coptt eth arm Clem lat-ff. 


25. Staxpivorres P. 


26. rec yap bef xupiov (transposn to more usual order, not observing the emphasis), 
with AHKLP rel Chr Thdrt: txt BCDFX a 17. 

27. rec aft ec ins de (for connexion; but thus perplexing the sense), with CD3HKL 
rel (Syr) syr sah goth Thdrt, Damase Thl @e: om ABD!FPR latt copt arm Antch Chr 


Thdrt, Jac-nisib Ambrst Aug. 
Bede. 


mutual offence or edification. 23.) 
He recurs to the plea of ch. vi. 12 ;—re- 
asserts his modification of it, with a view, 
after what has passed since, to shew its 
reasonableness, and to introduce the fol- 
lowing directions. oikodopet | viz. the 
Christian body: tend to build up the 
whole, or the individual parts, of that 
spiritual temple, God’s oirodoun. 

24.| Further following out of otxodoper. 
This ought to be our object: the bringing 
on one another to perfection, not the 
pleasing ourselves, see Rom. xv. 2,3. In 
the second clause, €xagros must be sup- 
plied from pndels (hence it has found its 
way into the rec.): so Plato, Rep. ii. p. 366 
D, ovdels Exdy Slkaos, GAX.... Weyer 
7d &dikov,—i. e. Exaotos Weyer. See Bern- 
hardy, Syntax, p. 458. 25.| The key 
to understanding this and the following 
verse is, to remember that ovvetSyots is 
used in each case of the conscience of the 
person spoken of, i.e. in the two first cases, 
that of the veader,—in the third, as ex- 
plained by the Apostle, that of the weak 
brother : see there. Every thing which 
is being sold (offered for sale) in the 
flesh-market (wdkeAAov is adopted from 
the Latin. It was also used by the Rabbis, 
in the form fae. See Stanley, and ex- 
amples in Wetst.), eat, making no enquiry 
(whether it is meat offered to idols or not), 
on account of your conscience (to be joined 

Vou. Et: 


aft amiorwy ins es Serrvov DF fuld! Ambrst Pel 
TayTa Ta TapaTiOeueva, A coptt. 


with éo@fere und. avak., not with avarpl- 
vovtes only,—as is shewn by the parallel 
below, ver. 28, —where the reason given is 
joined to éo@lere). The meaning being,— 
‘eat without enquiry, that your conscience 
may not be offended. If you made enquiry, 
and heard in reply, that the meat had been 
offered to idols, your conscience would be 
offended, and you would eat dia zpos- 
Kkéumatos to yourselves. De Wette, al., 
understand rv ovv., all through, of the 
conscience of another, and apply to all the 
explanation of ver. 29. But as Meyer 
well observes, no reader could possibly 
refer T}y ouveld. to any one but himself, 
no other person having been mentioned, 
until ver. 28, where éxetyoy roy mnvd- 
cavta is introduced, and thy cuveldnow 
is to be referred (but even then not with- 
out special explanation given) to the new 
subject. 26.] The principle on which 
such an eating ought to rest: that all is 
Gop’s, and for ow use: and where no 
subjective scruple is cast in, all to be freely 
partaken of : see 1 Tim. iv. 4. 27. | 
The same maxim applied to their conduct 
at a banquet given by a heathen. A mis- 
cellaneous banquet, and not a sacrificial 
feast, is meant. At such, there might be 
meat which had been offered to idols. 
Grot. says well on @éAcere opeverOat, 
«“ Admonet tacite, melius forte facturos, si 
non eant: ire tamen non Ee : supra, 
0 


562 


m here only t. 
n Luke xx. 37. 
John xi. 57. 
Acts xxiii. 


TIPO> KOPIN@IOTS A. X. 28—33. 


bay , e al 
© dvaxplwovres Sia tiv Souveidnow: 5 cay O€ Tis Dpiv 
” a m ¢ , / > \ ? 0b. Ps ae a ‘ 
eirn Todto ™icpoOutov éotw, my éoOieTe dv exeivoy TOV 


30 only t. s \ , 

one ait." enpdcavta Kai THY fouveldnow. 2 f cuveldnow O€ ° eyo 

aS aN 2. Sinise ae) \ Aa Poe ae, a%, , 5 
onl, §«ouxt THY PeavTovV, adAA THY © TOU ETEPOV. wa TL yap 

reff. € : " “ ee BY f ‘ + +€X€ 
p2nd pers» 9) TédNevOepia pov KpwetTar vTO * adds TVVELONTEDS ; Pw 

2 Cor. vii. 7 ; = e's 2 
ee 30 ef éy@ 'yapite “ weTexo, TL * Bracdnpovpar “ uTep ov are 

nies a , y / ” \ 

cy a eyo *evyapioT@ ; 31 ¥ eire ovv éoOlere elite wivete €lTE TL jee 

46. Luke 


xiii. 7. 


Acts iv. 25. vii. 26 only. 
+ — Rom. vi. 17 reff. dat., Rom. iv. 19, see note. 


Gen. iv. 6. r= Gal. ii, 4. v. 1, 13 al. s = Job xix. 27 vat. 


u ch. ix. 10, 12 reff. v = Rom. iii. 


mn 
17. 


8 reff. 
y so ch. iii. 22 reff. 


28. om vuw F latt goth Tert Aug). 


w ellips., ch. vii. 1 al. 


x = Rom. xiv. 6. i. 8 al. absol., ch. xi. 24 reff. 


rec (for sepo8.) eSwAobutoy (see notes) 


with CDFKLP rel syr copt goth arm Chr Thdrt: tmmolaticium D-lat F-lat [in ver 19 
simulacro immolatum D-lat, idolis immolatum F-lat vulg|: txt ABH sah Eus (Clem) 


Orig. 
w-ob. 


om exeivoy Tov unvucayta kat F Ambrst. 
rec at end ins Tov yap kupiov n yn Kat TO TANpwua avTns (repetilion from 


aft xa: ins d:a D Syr syr- 


ver 26: see also on ver 31), with H?KL rel syr goth Chr Thdrt Phot @e Thl: om 
ABCDFH'PX 17 latt Syr coptt 2th arm Damase Ambrst Aug Pel Bede. 


29. for ovx:, ov D' 17. 


epavtov H m: ceavtov D!: tuam latt. 


for 


adAns, amorov F D-lat G-lat goth Ambr Jer Sedul Primas (txt Ambrst Aug Pel Bede). 
30. rec aft e: ins de (supplementary, but disturbing the sense), with @e: om ABCD 


FKLPR rel vss Clem Cyr. 


cap. v. 10.” On 814. tT. cvveld., see above, 
ver. 25. 28.| Who is the person sup- 
posed to say this? not, as Grot.,al., think, 
the host, of whom tts could hardly be said, 
but it would stand éay 5€ duiy efx: nor, 
as Chrys., Theophyl., al., and De Wette, 
—some heathen guest, by whom De W. 
imagines it said maliciously, or to put the 
Christian to the proof,—for his cuvefna1s 
would hardly be so much taken into ac- 
count in the matter; but, as Neander, Pfl. 
u. Leit. p. 399, and Meyer,—some weak 
Christian, wishing to warn his brother. 
tepdburov is apparently placed advisedly, to 
represent what would be said at a heathen’s 
table. De W. supposes it on this very 
account to be a correction: but surely this 
is giving a corrector credit for more fine- 
ness of discrimination than they ordinarily 
shew. Much more probable is it, that the 
unusual and apparently incorrect tepdéurov 
should give place to the ordinary and more 
exact term. SU ek. T. pyv....| On 
account of the man who informed you, 
and (kal specifying the particular point or 
points to which the more general preceding 
clause applies: as, T@vde elvexa, Kal yijs 
iuépw... kal uddriora TE xpnotnply ai- 
guvos éév, wal tloacOa OéAXwy ..... 
Herod. i. 73. See Hartung, Partikellehre, 
i. 145) conscience: i.e. to spare the in- 
former being wounded in his conscience. 
29.] Explanation of the last 5:4 thy 
ovveldnow, as meaning not your own, but 
that of the informer. True to his inter- 
pretation (see above), De W. supposes Tod 
€répov not to refer to Toy unvicavta, but 


to ‘your weak Christian brother ;’ but then 
how very harsh and clumsy are the various 
references to understood persons ;—and 
how simple, on the other interpretation, is 
the reference in each case of tiv cvv. to the 
subject of the clause. wa th ydp | 
For why is my freedom judged by a 
conscience not mine own?—i.e. ‘ Why 
should I be so treated (hazard by my 
actions such treatment) that the exercise of 
my Christian freedom, eating as I do and 
giving thanks, should become matter of 
condemnation to another, who conscien- 
tiously disapproves of it?’ If (no copula) 
I partake thankfully (dat. of the manner, 
cf. Soph. Antig. 616, copia yap &k tov 
KAewoy Exos méepaytat—and Bernhardy, 
Syntax, p. 101), why am I to be spoken 
ill of for that for which I give thanks ? 
These words have been misunderstood. It 
has been generally supposed that the Apos- 
tle is impressing a duty, not to give occa- 
sion for the condemnation of their liberty 
byanother’sconscience. But the ground on 
which he is here arguing, is the unfitness, 
absurdity, injustice to oneself and the cause 
of God, ver. 31, of so acting as to be con- 
demned for that in which a man not only 
allows himself, but for which he gives 
thanks to God. The sentiment is the same 
as in Rom. xiv. 16, uh BAacpnucloOw 
buav Td ayabdv. The emphasis is each 
time on éyé. 31—XI. 1.] General 
conclusion of this part of the Epistle, 
—enforced by the example of himself. 

31.|] This efre ody ... ., passing 
from the special to the general, is not with- 


XI. 1—3. 


a / Zz >’ Py / @ na lal 
TTOLELTE, TTAVTA “ELS o£av €OU TOLELTE. 


IIPO> KOPINOIOTS A. 


563 


he "I 
32 4 am posKorroL * Rom: ii. 7. 
6 al 


xe) La a a Eph.i. ° 
kal lovdatows yiverbe kai "EXXnow Kai TH » exxAnola Tod a Acts xxiv. 16. 


> Geod: °3 Kabas Kayo ° TdvTa Taow 4 apécKw, pn ° EyTaV 
\ fal lal a 
TO e€uautov ‘atudopov, aAAa TO £TaV § TOAAaY, Wa co- 
> 


hil. i. 10 
only +. P. 
Sir, xxxv. 
(xxxii.) 21 
only. 

b ch, i. 2 reff. 


= r Teh r / \ > \ nq bch e 
Oaow. XI. 1” pipntal wou yivecbe, Kalas Kayo ypioTod. © Acts =x. 36 


\ d Rom, viii. 8 


a) A \ = * 
2i°’Krawe@ Oe twas ote °rdavtTa pov * péuvynobe, cal oR 


Kabos } 


/ Cin x m 
Tapéooxa wvuiv tas ™ Tapaddces 


a , e ver. 24, 
KQATEYVETE, f ch. vii. 35 
x is only+. Eccl. 
ii. 3 Symm, 


3 °Gédw Sé buds °eidévas OTL TayTos avdpos 4 KEepada oO. RSI™™, 
reff. 


h ch. iv. 16 reff. 


i Luke xvi. 8. Rom. xy. 11. vv. 17, 22 only, w. OT, Eccles. viii. 15. 


=2Tim.i.4. Heb. xiii.3. Prov. xxxi. (xxiy.) 7. 1= Lukei, 2. Acts xvi. 4. ver. 23. ch. 
xv. 3. 2 Pet. ii. 21. Jude 3. m = Matt. xv. 2. Gal.i,14. 2 Thess. ii. 15. iii. 6 al.$ Jer. 
xxxix. (xxxii.) 4. xli. (xxxiv.) 2 only. n = Luke viii. 15. ch. xy. 2. 1 Thess. y. 21. Heb. 
lii. 6, 14. x. 234. o Col. ii, 1. 
31. 1st moterre bef rs DF. om 2nd moverre F Ambrst (Gand). at end 


add tov yap kupiov n yn &e (as in ver 28) C3. 
32. ree yiweode bef kar tovdatois, with DK LN rel: yu. covd. re F: txt ABC! m 17 


Orig Cyr Did. 


om tov F: avtov G. 
33. for mayta Tac.y, macw Kata Tayta F: ravta mayta D. 


usual), with DF KLPR3 rel Orig Petr: txt ABCN?. 


rec cuudepoy (nore 
om 2nd to F. 


Cuap. XI. 2. rec aft uwas ins adeApa: (addition at beginning of a new section), with 
DFKL rel vss(add wou Syr al) Thdrt: om ABCPR a coptt eth-rom arm Ath Cyr-jer 


Bas Chr Thl-comm Oros. 


mavtote P. 


om ka Al o 57. ins TayTa- 


xou bef rapedwxa F D-lat Ambrst. (In F, wbzque is not written in the Latin column but 


inserted over the Greek word.) 
F(and G-lat, not F-lat) Ambrst. 
ins ovtws bef katexete C eth Ath, Chr. 


3. om Ist Se F(and G-lat, not F-lat) syr Ambrst. 


out reference to the last verse, in which 
the hypothesis is, that the Christian and 
thankful act of the believer is marred by 
the condemnatory judgment of his weak 
brother. All such hindrances to God’s 
glory they are to avoid; and in all things, 
eating or drinking, or any other particular 
of conduct (rt, any thing, the stress being 
on 7roretre,—Wwhether ye eat or drink, or 
do any thing; not as E. V. whatever ye 
do,—értovv), the glory of God is to be 
the aim, self-regard being set aside: and 
so,— 32.] all offence is to be avoided 
(it being understood that this refers to 
adidpopa, for in other things, both Jews 
and Greeks must be offended, see ch.i.23), 
whether to Jews or Heathens (both these 
out of the Church), or to the Church of 
God (their own brethren). 33.] His 
own course of conduct :—As I in all things 
(aceus. of that on which the subject acts, 
or over which the quality predicated ex- 
tends, as in gAy@ Thy Kepadthy ;—so Tod 
mdvt evdatuovos bABov, Soph. Gd. Tyr. 
1197. See Kiihner, ii. 222. 4) please (‘am 
pleasing :’ as Meyer well remarks, not the 
result, but the practice on Paul’s part ; 
for maow dpéckew Thy cuuBoudrctovTa k. 
Td Kowa mpatTovTa &dvvaroy, Demosth. 
1481. 4). éwavTov and Tév joAdGy are 
opposed: see ver. 24, tva ow0., his 


Tmapadecdwka NR: mapadwxa F. 


aft mapadooes ins wou D'F latt lat-ff. 


om vel 


om Ist o B'(B? Tischdf) 


great aim and end ;—so ch. ix. 22. 
XI. 1.] kayo, scil. winrhs yéyova. 
pare on the sense, Phil. ii. 4, 5. 
XI. 2—34.] REPROOFS AND DIREO- 
TIONS REGARDING CERTAIN DISORDERS 
WHICH HAD ARISEN IN THEIR ASSEM- 
BLIES: viz. (1) THE NOT VEILING OF 
THEIR WOMEN IN PUBLIC PRAYER (vv. 
2—16): (2) THE ABUSE OF THE ayaa 
(17—34). 2—16.] The law of 
subjection of the woman to the man (2— 
12), and natural decency itself (13—16), 
teach that women should be veiled in 
publie religious assemblies. 2.) 8¢, 
implying a distinction from the spirit of 
the last passage, which was one of blame, 
and exhortation to imitate him. He praises 
them for the degree in which they did this 
already, and expresses it by the slighter 
word pépynode. maytTa, see above, 
on ch. x. 33. And ye keep (continue 
to believe and practise) the traditions 
(apostolic maxims of faith and practice, 
delivered either orally or in writing, 
2 Thess. ii. 15), according as (according 
to the words in which) I delivered (them) 
to you. This was their general practice : 
the exceptions to it, or departures at all 
events from the spirit of those rapaddcers, 
now follow. 3.] “It appears, that 
the Christian women at Corinth claimed 


Com- 


002 


564 


p absol., Matt. 
vi. 5, &e. 
Luke iii. 21. 
Acts vi. 6. 


. 9, 30 al. a 7 \ f 
tmx. hntevov ‘kata 'Keparis Exov *Katawrxvver THY KepadyY mn 


q=Actsxix. | 
6. ch. xiii. 9. xiv. 1, &e. 


D'F. 


IIPOS KOPINOIOTS A. 


r (Mark xiv. 3 rec.) and ellips., Esth. vi. 12. 


ME. 


s = ch. i. 27. ver. 22. 


rec om Tov bef xpiorov, with CFKLP rel Orig, Eus, Chr, Thdrt Damase 


Thi, @e,: ins ABDN m 17 Clem Eus,Chr, Thl, Gc). 


for their sex an equality with the other, 
taking occasion by the doctrine of Chris- 
tian freedom and abolition of sexual dis- 
tinctions in Christ (Gal. iii. 28). The 
gospel unquestionably did much for the 
emancipation of women, who in the East 
and among the Ionian Greeks (not among 
the Dorians and the Romans) were kept 
in unworthy dependence. Still this was 
effected in a quiet and gradual manner ; 
whereas in Corinth they seem to have 
taken up the cause of female independence 
somewhat too eagerly. ‘The women over- 
stepped the bounds of their sex, in coming 
forward to pray and to prophesy in the 
assembled church with uncovered heads. 
Both of these the Apostle disapproved,— 
as well their coming forward to pray and 
to prophesy, as their removing the veil: 
here however he blames the latter practice 
only, and reserves the former till ch. xiv. 
34. In order to confine the women to 
their true limits, he reminds them of their 
subjection to the man, to whom again he 
assigns his place in the spiritual order of 
creation, and traces this precedence up to 
God Himself.’ De Wette. TAvTOS 
avipds| ‘of every Christian man’ (as 
Chrys., al.,'Meyer, De W.), certainly,— 
and for such the Apostle was writing: but 
not only of every Christian man : the Head- 
ship of Christ is over all things to His 
Church, Eph. i. 22, and thus He is Head 
of every man. The word kepodAq in 
each case means the head next above. This 
must be borne in mind, for Christ is THE 
Heap of the Christian woman, as well as of 
the Christian man. God is the Head of 
Christ, not only according to His human 
Nature : the Son is, in his Sonship, neces- 
sarily subordinate to the Father: see ch. 
iii. 23, note, and ch. xv. 28. From xpirés, 
the order descends first: then, in order 
to complete the whole, ascends up to God. 

Observe that though (Gal. iii. 28) the 
distinction of the sexes is abolished in 
Christ, as far as the offer of and standing 
in grace is concerned, yet for practical 
purposes, and for order and seemliness, it 
subsists and must be observed. 4,] 
The case of the man here treated, was 
regarded by the ancient Commentators, 
Chrys., Theodoret, Theophyl., G2c., and 


Grot., Mosh., al.,as an actually oceurring 
one among the Corinthians :—but by recent 
ones, since Storr and Bengel, as hypotheti- 
cally put, to bring out that other abuse 
which really had oceurred. Had it been 
real, more would have been said on it be- 
low: but from ver. 5 onwards, attention is 
confined to the woman. a posevy. pray- 
ing in public: mpod. discoursing 
in the spirit; see on ch. xii. 10. 

kata Ked. €xwv | scil. 71. The Jews when 
praying in public put over their heads a veil, 
called the Tallith, to shew their reverence 
before God and their unworthiness to look 
on Him: Lightf., Hor. Heb. in loc. Gro- 
tius’s note on the Greek and Roman cus- 
toms is important :—‘“ Apud Grzcos mos 
fuit sacra facere capite aperto. Legendum 
enim apud Macrob. i. Saturn. 8, Jiliec 
Graco ritu capite aperto res divina fit, 
apparet ex loco ejusdem libri ¢. 10, ubi 
itidem de Saturno agitur, et sacrum ei fiert 
dicitur aperto capite ritu peregrino; et 
ex loco iii. 6, ubi Varronem ait dicere, 
Greci hoe esse moris, aperto capite sacri- 
ficare. dmapaxadimT@ Kepady ait de 
ejusdem Saturni sacris agens Plutarchus 
in Romanis questionibus. Lucem facere 
id dici solitum Festus testatur. Eodem 
modo, id est aperto capite, etiam Hereuli 
in ara maxima sacrum fieri solere testa- 
tur, preter Macrobium dicto libro iii. 6, 
Dion. Hal. lib. i., nimirum quia id sacrum 
institutum erat ab Evandro homine Greco. 
Sed Auneas (?) contrarium morem in Ita- 
liam intulit sacra faciendi velato capite, ne 
quod malum omen oculis aut auribus ob- 
veniret: ut Virg. nos docet Mn. iii. et ad 
eum Servius, et in Breviario Aurelius Vic- 
tor: sed et Plutarchus in Romanis ques- 
tionibus. Et ejus moris etiam Plautus 
meminit in comeediis quibusdam: ut solet 
admiscere Romana Grecis. Paulus Greecis 
Corinthiis scribens Greeum prefert mo- 
rem, et causas adfert quales ferebat negotii 
natura. Ex Pauli preescripto perpetuo 
hune morem tenuere Christiani veteres. 
Tertul. Apologetico; ‘ Illue suspicientes 
Christiani manibus expansis, quia innocui : 
capite nudo, quia non erubescimus: deni- 
que sine monitore, quia de pectore oramus,’ 
&e. Nihil hue pertinet mos Septentrionis 
in reverentiw signum caput velandi, qui 


xpistos eoTw, Kepary Sé yuvatxos 0 avnp, Kepady Oé ABCI 
Tov xpiaToD 6 Beds. * mas dvnp ? rposevxopevos 7) 4 Tpo- abe 


gh 
17, ¢ 


4— 7. TIPOS KOPIN@IOTS A. 565 


avtod. ® aca Sé yur7 ? rposevxomévy 7) 4 rpopyntevovac t ver. 19 omy. | 
‘axatakaduTT@ Th Kepadf SKataroxiver THY Kepadyy AMeesso 
avTas: “év yap eoTw “Kal 7d ado TH Y eEvpynuévn. % eb sen.2°"” 
yap ov “KataxadvrTeTat yuri, Kal *KeipdcOw e& Sé edn. 6, 31. 
Yaloxypoyv yuvatkt 770 * Keipacbat 4 Y Evpacbat, * Kataxa- 

ee A\uTTésOw. 7 avnp mev yap ovK *odeires Y KaTaKadUTTE- 


ar 
uch. xii. (9) 1 
To \ / b > ee. \ c , a di ¢ , ; ce 
, cba tiv Keparijy,  eixwv Kai ° d0€a Oeod Siradpyorv" 1) 


only. constr., 
here only. 

see 1 Pet, vy. 
9 


v here bis. 
Acts xxi. 24 
only. Num. 


x here bis. Acts viii. 32. xviii. 18 


DF vi. 9. : w here (3ce) only. Gen, xxxviii. 15 al. 

Z only. 2 Kings xiv. 26. ch, xiv. 35. Eph. v.12. Tit.i. ll only. P. Gen. xli. 3, &c. only. 
PR zconstr., Phil. i. 21, .a = Acts xvii. 29. Rom. xv. 1. b Rom. viii. 29 reff. GEN. 1. 
def 26, 27. c= Ps. xvii, 1: d Acts viii. 16 reff. 

k 1m 

fo47 


§. for tava Se, kat 7. A Syr eth: om de P. om Tn D'F. rec for avTys, 
eauTys (see note), with BD%KL rel Orig: txt ACDFLPX ab! d g? h 0 17 Chr Thdrt. 


6. aft Keipac8w ins 7 Evpacdw B. 
7. rec om 7 (conforming to the preceding and following), with CD°KLN, rel Chr 


Kiihner, ii. 45 (§ 421). 6.] the ar- 


quanquam per Germanicas nationes late 
gument see above. ov kat.,—is to be 


manavit, et Judeis tamen et Grecis, et ve- 


teri Italic fuit incognitus.” KaTOLOX. 
7. keh. avtovd| dishonours his Head, 
i.e. Christ: not, his own head literally,— 
except in so far as the literal and meta- 
phorical senses are both included,—the 
(literal) head of the man being regarded as 
the representative of his spiritual Head. 
See this brought out in Stanley’s note: 
for the head of the man zz this respect of 
honouring or dishonouring, has been, ver. 
3, explained to be CuristT. Him he dis- 
honours, by appearing veiled before men, 
thus recognizing subjection to ¢hem in an 
assembly which ought to be conformed to 
Christian order. 5.] The case of the 
woman is just the converse. She, if she 
uncovers herself (on the manner of cover- 
ing, see below ver. 15, note) in such an 
assembly, dishonours her head (the man ; 
not, as Meyer and many others, literally, 
her own head [but see above]: of this 
kind of dishonour there is no mention at 
all in our passage, and ver. 3 has expressly 
guarded us against making the mistake) 
by apparently casting off his headship: 
and if this is to be so, the Apostle pro- 
ceeds, why not go further and cut off her 
hair, which of itself is a token of this sub- 
jection ? But if this be acknowledged to be 
shameful (it was a punishment of adulter- 
esses, see Wetst. in loc. and Tacit. Germ. 
19), let the further decency of the addi- 
tional covering be conceded likewise. 

The reading éavr7js may have arisen from 
fancying that her own head is meant. 

év ... éotw. 70 atTd] she: not it, Td 
a&kataxdAuTrToyv eivat. The neut. is used 
because the identity is generic, not indivi- 
dual: cf. Eur. Med. 928,—-yuvi 5€ O7jAU 
Kam Saxpvors bv, and other examples in 


unveiled, the pres. indicating the normal 
habit. kat ketp., let her axso, besides 
being unveiled, &c. keip. 7 Eup. ] 
‘plus est radi quam tonderi,’ Grot. 
7—9.] A second reason for the same,— 
Srom the dependence of the man on God 
only, but of the woman on the man. 
7.] yap refers back to and gives a reason 
for kataxkadurtécOw, the difference be- 
tween the sexes being assumed,—that one 
should be and the other should zot be 
veiled. The emphasis is accordingly on 
Gvrp. ov« deter, should not, 
ought not: see reff. eikdv God, ref. 
Gen. -This the man is, having been created 
first,—dérectly, and in a special manner: 
the woman indirectly, only through the 
man. x. 56a @.] And the (repre- 
sentative of the) glory of God: on account 
of his superiority and godlike attributes 
among other created beings. This is ob- 
viously the point here brought out, as in 
Ps. villi. 6: not, that he is set to shew 
forth God’s glory («is yap Sdékav bed 
opelrcr 6 avhp SroTeTaxX Oa TG OeG, Phot. 
in @cum.), however true that may be: nor, 
as Estius, from Augustine, ‘quia in illo 
Deus gloriatur:;? wor is ddta the repre- 
sentative of the Heb. nina, Gen. i. 26 
(6uotwors), as Riickert, al., suppose, be- 
cause the LXX have rendered anna, Num. 
xii. 8; Ps. xvii. 15, by 56éa: for, as Meyer 
observes, in so well-known a passage as 
Gen. i. 26, the Apostle could hardly fail 
to have used the LXX word duoiwots. 
Man is God’s glory: He has put in 
him His Majesty, and he represents God on 
earth: woman is man’s glory : taken (ver. 
8) from the man, shining (to follow out 
Grotius’s similitude, “ minus aliquid vero, 


IIPOS KOPINOIOTS A. XI. 


yuviy 88 °S0€a avbdpos éorw. § ov yap éoTw avnp €K 
, sh > \ , / 
rt yupatkds, GXXA yun €& avopos* * Kat yap oui ° éxria@n 
‘\ ‘ lal \ \ » 
dvyp Sia Ti yuvaika, GAA yuviy 61a Tov dvdpa. 1 dia hove 


gseenote.  TOUTO *oeiret 7 yuvn * é£ovclay * éxyew % él Ths Kepadiys ee 

acde 

Damase: ins ABD! FPN3 Dial Isid Thdrt. ins tou bef avdpos F. gh 4 
9. om ver K. 10. 7 yuvn bef operAce H m 17. 


47 


ut luna lumen minus sole”) not with light 
direct from God, but with light derived 
from man, “7d OAv, &ppev ared€s, phi- 
losophis. Imperat materfamilias suze fa- 
milix, sed viri nomine.” Grot. This of 
course is true only as regards her place 
in creation, and her providential subor- 
dination, not in respect of the depen- 
dence of every woman’s individual soul 
directly on God, not on man, for supplies 
of grace and preparations for glory. The 
Apostle omits eixdév, because anthropologi- 
cally the woman is not the image of the 
man, on account of the difference of the 
sexes: and also perhaps because thus he 
would seem to deny to the woman the being 
created in the divine image, which she is 
as well as the man, Gen. i. 26, 27. The 
former reason appears the more probable : 
and so De W. and Meyer. “It may be 
observed that, whereas in Genésis the gene- 
ral character of man under the Hebrew 
name answering to &Opwros is the only 
one brought forward, here it is merged in 
the word évfp, which only expresses his 
relation to the woman.” Stanley. 8.| 
4p gives the reason of the former assertion 
yuvh ddta avdpds,—viz. that the man is 
not (emphasis on éoriv, which prevents the 
éx having a figurative sense, of dependence : 
—‘takes not his being,’ in the fact of his 
original creation. The propagation of the 
species is not here in view) out of the 
woman, but the woman out of the man 
(compare Gen. ii. 23, cAnOhoeta yuvh, Ste 
ék Tov avSpds artis éAyjdOn). 

9.] For also (parallel with ver.8—another 
reason: not subordinate to it, as Meyer, 
who renders é« in ver. 8, ‘dependent on,’ 
and regards this verse as giving the reason) 
the man was not created (emphasis on 
éxric8n, as before on éoriv) on account of 
the woman, &c. In this verse, besides 
the manner of creation, é« Tod av5pds, the 
occasion of creation, 81a 7dv &vdpa, is in- 
sisted on; see Gen. ii. 18 ff 10.} 
81a TovTo, on account of what has just 
been said, by which the subordination of 
the woman has been proved :—refers to vy. 
7—9, not as Meyer, to ver. 9 only : for vv. 
8, 9, give two parallel reasons for yur) 
ddta avdpds, the inference from which pro- 
position has not yet been given, but now 


follows, with ddefAer answering to ovK 
ddetrer above. dd. ¥ y- eEovctay ex. 
émi tas Keb. ] The woman ought to have 
power (the sign of power or subjection ; 
shewn by the context to meana veil). So 
Diodor. Sic. i. 47: eixdva .... elkoot ™7- 
xav, povddAbov, Exovoav Tpeis BactAclas 
em) THs Kedadgs, &s Siacnuatver Sr Kal 
@uydrnp Kal yur) Kal phrnp Bacihews 
tmnpte, where acide evidently are 
crowns, the tokens of kingdom. And as 
there from the context it is plain that they 
indicated participation in the glory of the 
kingdoms, so here it is as evident from the 
context that the token of éfovata indi- 
cates being wader power: and such token 
is the covering. So Chrys. (7d xaAvmte- 
cOat, swotayis x. ekovolas), Theodoret, 
Theophyl. (7d tod efovordCerOar ctpuBo- 
Aov), Ecum., Beza, Grot., Est., Bengel, 
Wolf, al., Billroth, Riickert, Olsh., Meyer, 
De Wette. To enumerate the various 
renderings would be impossible. Some of 
the principal are, (1) a sign of power to 
pray and prophesy in public, bestowed on 
her by her husband. So Schrader, iv. 158: 
but this would be quite irrelevant to the con- 
text. (2) Some suppose éfougiay actually 
to mean a veil, because the Heb. 173, ‘a 
veil,’ comes from the root 173, ‘ subjecit.’ 
So Hammond, Le Clere, al. But (see 
Lexx.) ‘subjecit’ is not the primary, only 
a tropical meaning: the primary meaning, 
‘extendit, diduxit, is much more likely to 
have given rise to the substantive. It is 
certainly a curious coincidence that the 
Heb. terms should be thus allied,—and 
that alliance may have been present to 
the Apostle’s thoughts: but this does not 
shew that he used éfovala for a veil. 
(3) Kypke would put a comma after éfoue., 
and render ‘propterea mulier potestati 
obnoxia est, ita ut velamen (see ver. 4) 
in capite habeat. But the sense of oget- 
Aew Tt would require (see Lexx.) traxojy, 
not éfovclay. (4) Pott renders, ‘mulie- 
rem oportet servare jus (sive potestatem) 
in caput suum, sc. eo, quod illud velo 
obtegat.’ But this, though philologically 
allowable (see Rev. xi. 6; xx. 6; xiv. 18; 
and with érdvw, Luke xix. 17), is entirely 
against the context, in which the woman 
has no power over her own head, and on 


g—11. 


h 


dua Tovs © aryyéXous. 


IIPO KOPINOIOTS A. 


567 


j \ = i- 
igi ovre yuri) yopis avdpos ” rkiesss ps. 


cxxxvii. 1. 


i= Matt. Luke passim (not Mark, John, nor Luke in Acts). Paul, Eph. vy. 33. Phil. i, 18. iii. 16. iv. 14 


only. Rey. ii. 25. Lam. iii. 3. 


11. rec avnp xwpis yur. ovte yurn xwpis avd. (appy more natural order), with D?KL 


that very account is to be covered. (5) 
Hagenbach (in the Stud. und Krit. 1828, 
p- 401) supposes égovota here to mean her 
origin, e-otcla from ét-eiut, as map-ovcla 
from ap-cius:—to shew that she (ver. 
8) cori eé avdpds. But apart from other 
objections to this, it must thus be, Thy éé. 
or THY e&. avras. Other renderings and 
conjectures may be seen in Meyer’s note, 
from which the above is mainly taken: 
and in Stanley’s. Sia Tovs ayyéAous | 
On account of the angels: i.e. because in 
the @hristian assemblies the holy angels of 
God are present, and delighting in the due 
order and subordination of the ranks of 
God’s servants,—and by a violation of that 
order we should be giving offence to them. 
See ref. So Chrys. (od« ofdas drt wer” ay- 
yeAwy eotnkas; met exelvwy ddeis, met? 
excivwv duvels, Kal EoTnkas yeAa@y ; cited by 
Hammond, but from what work of Chrys. 
I have not been able to find. In his com- 
mentary on this passage he is not clear, but 
seems to take this view,—e«i yap Tod av5pds 
Katappoveis, pnot, Tovs ayyeAous aidécOnrt, 
Hom. xxvi. p. 234. In the Hom. on the 
Ascension, vol. ii. pt. ii. p. 443 (Migne), he 
says, ef BovAe: (deity Kk. udpTupas kK. ayyéAous 
tvotov THs micTEws TOUS dpPPadrmods, K. Oper 
7d OéaTpoy éxetvo’ ci yap THs 6 aNp ayyéAwv 
é€umérAnotalt, TOAA® maAAov 7H exKAnota 
.... OTe yap Gras 6 ahp ayyéAwy eure- 
TANTTAL, Ukovoov TL mnow 45 amdaTodos, 
évTpémwy Tas yuvaikas dste Exew KaAvwma 
éml Tis Kepadjs: “dpetAovow Kk.T.A.”), 
Grot. (whose note see in Pool), Estius, 
Wolf, Riickert, Meyer, De Wette. (1) 
Others, with a modification of this render- 
ing, take rods ayyéAous as the guardian 
angels, appointed, one to take charge of 
each Christian. So Theophyl. (7d ava- 
Kekadipba avacxuvTiay eupatverr Hy Kal 
oi Tois TiaTois TapeTOmevol Uyyeror Bde- 
AvcoovTat), Jerome (not Aug. de Trin. xii. 
7, as Meyer, see below), Theodoret. But, 
though such angels certainly do minister 
to the heirs of salvation,—see Matt. xviii. 
10, and note,—there does not appear to be 
any immediate allusion to them here. (2) 
Others again understand ‘ dad angels,’ who 
might themselves be lustfully excited ; so 
Tertull. de Virg. Vel. 7, vol. ii. p. 899, 
“propter angelos: scilicet quos legimus a 
Deo et coelo excidisse ob concupiscentiam 
foeminarum.” See also cont. Marcion. v. 
8, p. 488,—or might tempt men so to “be, 
—Schéttgen, Mosh., al.—or might 7zn- 


jure the unveiled themselves : so, after Rab- 
binical notions, Wetst. But of a&yyero, 
absol., never means any thing in the N. T. 
except the holy angels of God. See, in 
Stanley’s note, a modification of this view, 
which is consistent with that meaning. 
(3) Clem. Alex. fragm. ix. brorum. lib. iii. 
(p. 1004 P.) says, ayyéAous gyal rTobs 
diucatovs x. evapérous. (4) Beza, the 
Christian prophets, “in cotu loquentes 
ut Dei nuncios et legatos.” (5) Ambrose, 
the presidents of the assemblies. (6) 
Lightf., the angeli or nuntii desponsatio- 
num, persons deputed to bring about be- 
trothals. (7) Rosenm., Schrader, and many 
others,—eaploratores vel speculatores : 
« Poterat nempe nove consuetudinis notitia 
per amicrovs speculatores in publicum ema- 
nare, christianasque uxores tum Judzis, 
de isto mulierum habitu pessime existiman- 
tibus, tum Grecis quoque in suspicionem 
rei christian probrosissimam adducere.” 
Rosenm. Against all these ingenious 
interpretations is the plain sense of of &y- 
yeAo (Matt. xiii. 49. Mark i. 13. Luke 
xvi. 22. chap. xiii.1. Col. ii.18. Heb.i. 
4, 5, 7, 18, al.), which appears to me irre- 
fragable. But still a question remains, 
Wuy should the Apostle have here named 
the angels, and adduced them as furnish- 
ing a reason for women being veiled in the 
Christian assemblies? Bengel has given 
an acute, but not I believe the correct 
answer: ‘“mulier se tegat propter angelos, 
i.e. quia etiam angeli teguntur. Sicut 
ad Deum se habent angeli: sic ad virum 
se habet mulier. Dei facies patet: velan- 
tur angeli: Esa. vi. 2. Viri facies patet : 
velatur mulier.” Surely this lies too far 
off for any reader to supply without fur- 
ther specification. Aug. de Trin. xii. 7 
[10], vol. viii. p. 1004, gives an ingenious 
reason: “Grata est enim sanctis angelis 
sacrata et pia significatio. Nam Deus non 
ad tempus videt, nec aliquid novi fit in 
jus visione atque scientia, cum aliquid 
temporaliter aut transitorie geritur, sicut 
inde afficiuntur sensus vel carnales anima- 
lium et hominum, vel etiam ccelestes an- 
gelorum.” (He makes no mention,—see 
above,—of guardian angels.) I believe 
the account given above to be the true 
one, and the reason of adducing it to be, 
that the Apostle has before his mind the 
order of the universal church, and prefers 
when speaking of the assemblies of Chris- 
tians, to adduce those beings who, as not 


568 


k ver. 8. 

1 ch. viii. 6. 
Rom, xi. 36. 

m = Luke vii. 
43. Acts iv. 
19. Ps. lvii. 


1. 

n Matt. iii. 15 
only. 1 Mace. 
xii. 11 only. 
(-7ret, Eph. 
v. 3. 1 Tim. 
ii.10. Tit. ii. 9 
1. Heb. ii. 10. 
vii. 26 only. 
Pa. Ixiv. 1.) 
constr., here 
only. 

bis only +. r Rom. i. 26 reff. 
u Heb. i. 12 (from Ps. ci. 26) only. Exod. xxii. 27. 


o ver. 5. 


TIPO> KOPIN@IOTS A. 


p = Rom. i. 26 (reff.). ii. 27. xi. 21, 24. see James iii. 7. 


Job xxvi. 6. 


EL 


\ 3 / 6 ev X. e ‘ 
oUTe avnp yepis yuvatKos év Kupios  @srrep yap 7 YyvvI) 
| fal A \ fol , \ A 
ke Tod avopos, otTws Kal o avip Sia THs yvvaiKds, TA SE 

fa lal cal lal / / 
ladvraéx Tob Oeod. 13 év buiv adtois ™ kpivate ” mpeTroV 
Lal lal Lad , 
€oTly yuvaixa °aKxatakadduTTov TH Oew@ TrposevyerOar ; 
a ca \ \ \ 

14 ghd€ 4) Pdvois adTn SiuddoKer buas OTL avinp pev €av 

4, 'atysla avT@ éatw, 15 yuri) dé éav IKopd, Soka 
Koma, atysia a’t@ éotw,  yuvyn pth, 

rol la > \ / / 
avTn éotw; OTe % SKoun *avtt “sepiBoralov dédoTas 


q here 


s here only. Num. vi. 5. t = Luke xi. 11. 


Ps. ciii. 6. 


rel vulg syrr Chr Thdrt Pel: txt ABCD!3FHPX d m 17 coptt 2th arm Clem Bas-sel 


Damasc Sing-cler Ambrst Aug. 
12. om 6 F(not G) 17. 


for da, ex K. 
18. for ev vu avTos, vues avtor D vulg(not tol) lat-ff. 


om ts H. 
mpoow x. bef tw 0. DF vss. 


14. rec ins 7 bef ovde (addition to mark the interrogation), with D°KL rel syr-mg 


sah: om ABCD!FHPR 17. 47 latt syrr copt arm Tert Ambr Ambrst. 


rec avT7 


bef 7 vats, with D?KL rel Chr Thdrt: om avtn F arm Tert: txt ABCD!'3HPX a m17 


eth Damasc. 


aft wey ins yap X!(but marked for erasure) copt. 


for eay, av D}. 


15. avtn SedoTa: CHP a d m vulg(with F-lat) syr Damase Ambr: om avrn DF KL e 
fh1 Chr, Thdrt Ge Tert,: ded0ra avrn ABN ¢ g k 0 17 G-lat Syr coptt «th arm. 


entering into the gradation which he has 
here described, are conceived as spectators 
of the whole, delighted with the decency 
and order of the servants of God. Stan- 
ley thinks the most natural explanation of 
the reference to be, that the Apostle was 
led to it by a train of association familiar to 
his readers, but lost to us: and compares 
the intimations of a similar familiarity on 
their part with the subjects of which he 
was treating in 2 Thess. 11. 5—7. 

11.] Yet is neither sex insulated and inde- 
pendent of the other in the Christian life. 
év xuptw is not the predicate (as Grot., 
&e.),—‘ neque viri exclusis mulieribus... 
participes sunt beneficiorum per Christum 
partorum:’ nor does it mean according 
to the ordinance of God, as Chrys., Beza, 
Olsh.,—for the phrase év xvpl» is well 
known as applying to the Christian state, 
in the Lord. See e.g. Rom. xvi. 2, 8, 11, 
12 (bis), &e. 12.] And in this, 
the Christian life accords with the ori- 
ginal ordinance of God. For (proof of 
ver. 11) as the woman is (was taken, Gen. 
ii. 21 f.) out of the man, so the man is (is 
born, in the propagation of the human race) 
by means of the woman; but all things 
(both man and woman and all things else : 
a general maxim, see 2 Cor. v. 18) are of 
(as their source,—thus uniting in one great 
head both sexes and all creation) God. 
They are dependent on one another, but 
both on Him: the Christian life therefore, 
which unites them in Christ, is agreeable to 
God’s ordinance. 13.] Appeal to their 
own sense of propriety: cf. ch.x.15. 

év ipiv avr.}] Each man within himself, in 


his own judgment. 14.] 4 vous 
avty, nature herself: i.e. the mere 
fact of one sex being by nature unveiled, 
i.e. having short hair,—the other, veiled, 
i.e. having long hair. This plainly de- 
clares that man was intended to be un- 
covered,—woman, covered. When there- 
fore we deal with the proprieties of the 
artificial state, of clothing the body, we 
must be regulated by nature’s suggestion : 
that which she has indicated to be left 
uncovered, we must so leave: that which 
she has covered, when we clothe the body, 
we must cover likewise. This is the argu- 
ment. vais is not sense of natural pro- 
priety, but NATURE,—the law of creation. 

kong] So Eustathius, Il. y. p. 288, 
in Wetst. xdéunv 5& Exew, Kal evxomov 
elvai, yuvaindtepdy eotiv. did Ka 6 Mdpis 
éveidiCerar ws Kduny eéxwv. On dios 
and koug Pool observes, ‘locus est vexa- 
tissimus doctorum sententiis ;? and givesa 
note of four folio columns; and Bengel 
has a long discussion on the lawfulness of 
wigs. The Apostle (see above) makes 
no allusion to the customs of nations in the 
matter, nor is even the mention of them re- 
levant. 15.] See on ver. 14: compare 
Milton, Par. Lost, iv. 304 ff. qTept- 
BéXaov, properly a wrapper, or envelop- 
ing garment: see reff., and Eurip. Here. 
fur. 549, and in a metaphorical sense, 
1269. “In this passage,” says Stanley, 
“the Apostle would refer to the ‘ peplum,’ 
which the Grecian women used ordinarily 
as a shawl, but on public occasions as a 
hodd also, especially at funerals and mar- 
riages.” See a woodcut in Smith’s Dict. 


ABCD 
HKLI 
acde 
ghkl 
0 17. ¢ 


1. X gun Oevav ovK Exouev, ove ai ¥* ExxAnoiat Tod * Oeod. 
17 Todto dé * rapayyé\Xw ovk ” éerrawdav, 6Tt ovK ° Els 


sf 
if 
m 
7 


12—18. 


IIPOS KOPINOIOTS A. 


569 


[avTn|* 16 ef dé Tis ¥ SoKe? © hidoverkos eivat, ucts ToLAavTHD + = Take xxii 
. al. u, 


6. Prov. ii. 
10 


w here only. 
Ezek. iii. 7 


\ ia > \ > LY e® L a only. (-Kia, 
TO “xpéiccoy adda “eis TO °HoTov ouvépyeabe. 18 Eqrpa- Luke xxii. 
24. -KELV, 
Prov. x. 12.) x John xviii. 39. ch. viii. 7 v. x. only +. Prov. xvii.9 Symm. (-@y5, 2 Macc. 
iii. 31.) y plur., Rom. xvi. 16 reff. z ch. i. 2 reff. a Acts i. 4 reff. 
b ver. 2. c see Rom. xiii. 4 reff. d ch, vil. 9 reff. e = here (2 Cor. xii. 15) 
only f. (Isa. xxiii, 8.) = Acts i. 6 reff. g (Rom. iii. 2.] 


17. rec mapayyeAAwy ovk eraivw (see vv. 2 and 22), with C3(appy) D3(and lat) FKLPX 
rel copt Chr Thdrt: -Aw ovr -vw~ D1137 sah: -Awy ove -vwy Bd: txt AC! 17 latt syrr 


zth arm Ambrst Aug Pel Bede. 
so ABCD'!N m1. ] 


of Antt. art.‘ peplum.’ 16.] Cuts off 
the subject, already abundantly decided, 
with a settlement of any possible difference, 
by appeal to universal apostolic and eccle- 
silastic custom. But if any man seems to 
be contentious (i. e. ‘if any arises who ap- 
pears to dispute the matter, who seems not 
satisfied with the reasons I have given, but 
is still disputations ;—this is the only ad- 
missible sense of 5oxe? in this construction : 
see reff. :—for the meaning, ‘7f it pleases 
any one,’ &c. would require ti Soxet: and 
“if any one thinks that he may, &c. would 
not agree with @iAovetkety, which isin itself 
wrong). mpets | declarative: let him 
know that ...; so, ef 5€ karakavxaoat, od 
ov Thy pi€av Baora ets, AAN 7 pila o€, Rom. 
xi. 18. We,—the Apostles and their im- 
mediate company,—including the women 
who assembled in prayer and supplication 
with them at their various stations, see 
Acts xvi.13. — roravtnv cvvyPerav | The 
best modern Commentators, e. g. Meyer 
and De Wette, agree with Chrys. in 
understanding this, rovavr. cvvi0., ste 
pidovercety Kk. epl(ew Kk. ayTiTaTTEcOaL. 
p- 235. And so Ambrose, Beza, Calvin, 
Estius, Calov., al. But surely it would be 
very unlikely, that after so long a treat- 
ment of a particular subject, the Apostle 
should wind up all by merely a censure of a 
fault common to their behaviour on this 
and all the other matters of dispute. Such 
a rendering seems to me almost to stultify 
the conclusion :—‘If any will dispute about 
it still, remember that it is neither our 
practice, nor that of the Churches, to dis- 
pute.’ It would seem to me, but for the 
weighty names on the other side, hardly 
to admit of a question, that the cvv7dea 
alludes to the practice (see ref. John) of 
women praying uncovered. So Theodoret, 
Grot., Michaelis, Rosenm., Billroth, Olsh., 
al., and Theophyl. altern. He thus cuts off 
all further disputation on the matter by 
appealing to universal Christian usage: 
and to make the appeal more solemn, adds 


[kpecaoov, so ABCD! F PX 17. ] 
[noooy, so ABCD'!§: 


[aAAa, 
edattov F Thdrt: icoy 17.] 


Tov Veod to af éxxA.,—the assemblies which 
are held in honour of and for prayer to 
God, and are His own Churches. Obs. at 
exkAnolar, not h exkAnola. The plurality 
of independent testimonies to the absence 
of the custom, is that on which the stress 
is laid. This appeal, ‘ to raz CHURCHES,’ 
was much heard again at the Reformation : 
but has since been too much forgotten. 
See, on the influence of this passage on 
the Christian church, the general remarks 
of Stanley, edn. 2, pp. 198—200. 
17—384.] Correction of abuses regarding 
the Agape and the partaking of the 
Supper of the Lord. 17.] Refers 
back to what has been said since ver. 2, 
and forms a transition to what is yet to 
be said. But this (viz. what has gone 
before, respecting the veiling of women; 
not, as Chrys., Theophyl., Grot., Bengel, 
al., that which follows: see below) I com- 
mand you (not ‘announce to you,’ nor 
‘declare to you from report, which are 
senses of mapayy. unknown to the N. T., 
where it only means ‘to command,’ — 
‘to deliver by way of precept: see reff., 
and ch. vii. 10; 1 Thess. iv. 11; 2 Thess. 
iii. 4, 6, 10, 12. This makes it hardly 
possible to refer todto to what follows ; 
for if so, some definite command should 
immediately succeed) not praising (refers 
to the erawv@ of ver. 2, and excepts what 
has been said since from that category) ; 
because you come together not for the 
better (so that edification results) but 
for the worse (so that propriety is 
violated, and the result is to the hinder- 
ing of the faith). These last words é7: 
. . guveépxX. are introduced with a mani- 
fest view to include more than the subject 
hitherto treated, and to prepare the way 
for other abuses of their assemblies to be 
noticed, 18.] wpétov—where is the 
second particular found, answering to this 
mpetov? Ordinarily, it is assumed that 
the cxtouara are the first abuse, the dis- 
orders in the Agape (beginning with ver. 





570 


h = ch. vy. 3. 
2 Cor. ‘aig 3 oe 
i w. acc. anc j 
inf, John xii.” TXLUTHATA EV U{LLV 
18 only. 
j ch. i. 10 reff. 
k Acts viii. 16 
reff. 
al. fr. 


k 


Job xxix. 24. n = Acts iv. 12 reff. 


IIPO> KOPIN@IOTS A. 


XI. 


gh \ h \ f / ig a b] > / i > 4 
tov ® pwéev yap * cvvepyouevwv tuov év exkXnola | aKovw 
: ¢ 
e , \ / 
UTdapyew, Kal | pépos TL ™ TiaTEVM. 
“ lal c 
19" Sef yap Kai ° aipéoes ev buiv elvar, iva [Kab] of ? d0- 


1=here only. Thucyd. ii. 64. iv. 30. = €k MEépous, ch. xiii. 9, &e. 


m = Matt. xxiv. 23, 26 


o Acts v. 17 reff. p Rom. xiv. 18 reff. 


18. ree ins 77 bef exxAnowa (the meaning being mistaken: see note), with g h 47 Ee 


Thl : om ABCDFKLPX rel Chr Damasc. 


umapxew bef ev vuiy D*3F vulg-ed arm: 


om ev vay am(with demid fuld harl) Orig Ambrst Bede. 
19. om Ist ev yuw D'F latt Orig-int lat-ff (not Orig Archel Jer Primas): ins aft esac 


D3 Archel. 


aft wa ins eat B D1(and lat) m 17 vulg sah Ambrst Pel Bede: om 


ACD3FKLPNR rel syrr copt «eth Orig Epiph Chr Thdrt Damase Cypr: kat wa kar m1. 


20), the second. But I am convinced, 
with Meyer, that this view is wrong. For 
(1) neither special blame, nor correction of 
abuse, is conveyed in vv. 18, 19: nor is it 
so much as intimated, on the ordinary 
hypothesis, what the character of these 
oxicuara was. And (2) the words of ver. 
22, erawéow buas ev To’Tm; ovK eTaLYa, 
plainly refer back to ver. 17, and shew that 
the whole is continuous. Again (3) the 
otv of ver. 20, as so frequently,—see ch. 
viii. 4, and Hartung, Partikellehre, ii. 22, 
—resumes the subject broken off by kar 
mépos ... yev. ev tuiv. The oxlopara 
before the Apostle’s mind are, specifically, 
those occurring at the Agapa,—but on the 
mention of them, he breaks’ off to shew 
that such divisions were to be no matters 
of surprise, but were ordained to test 
them,—and in ver. 20 he returns with the 
very words, cuvepxouevwv buayv,—to the 
immediate matter in hand, and treats it at 
length. See more on vy. 21 ff. But the 
question still remains, where is the second 
point, answering to this mp@roy? Again 
with Meyer (and Macknight) I answer,— 
at ch. xii. 1. The ABUSE OF SPIRITUAL 
Girts, which also created disorder in their 
assemblies, ch. xiv. 23 al., and concerning 
which he concludes, xiv. 40, madvra eboxn- 
pévws K. KaTa Tatw ywéeocOw,—was the 
other point before his mind, when he 
wrote this mp@rov. ‘That he takes no 
notice in ch. xii. 1, by any ére:ra 5€ or the 
like, of what has gone before, will be no 
objection to the above view to any one 
but the merest tiro in our Apostle’s style. 
There is a trajection of the dakovw, 
which, in the sense, precedes cuvepx., Ke. 
éx éx«A.| in assembly; not local, 

as E. V., ‘in the church,’ but = ém 7d 
aitd, ver. 20. oxlopata] of what 
sort, is specified below; viz. that he does 


not here refer to the party dissensions of 


ch. i. 10, nor could he say of them pépos 
mt motevw, but strictly to oxlopata 
which took place at their meetings toge- 
ther, viz. that each takes before other his 
own supper, &e. So Chrys. : ob Aéye:, dxodw 


yap wh Kowh buas cuvdermveiv? akovw Kar 
idtav buas éotiacOa, kal mh peTa TOY 
TEVTwY’ GAN dD uaAdtoTa ikavoy Hv avTay 
diacetoat Thy Sidvowav, ToUTo TébeKe, TH 
Tov oXiomatos bvoua, d Kal ToUTOU HY aiTLOY, 
Hom. xxvii. p. 241; and Theophyl., Gic., 
Est., Pise., Grot., which last remarks, 
‘Accidebat jam illis temporibus, quod 
nostris multo magis evenit, ut res in- 
stituta ad concorporandos fideles in vex- 
illum schismatis verteretur.’ K. épos 
qt. miot.| Said in gentleness: q. d. “I 
am unwilling to believe al/ I hear con- 
cerning the point, but some (hardly 
‘much, ‘in great part,’ as Stanley: nor 
do his testimonies from Thucyd. i. 23; 
vii. 30, bear out this meaning. It might, 
of course, lie beneath the surface, but is 
not given by mépos tt) I cannot help 
believing.” 19.] Sei, in the divine 
appointment, the va which follows ex- 
pressing Giod’s purpose thereby. Our 
Lord had said avayrn éAdety Ta oxdvdada, 
Matt. xviii. 7:—and Justin Martyr, 
Tryph. 35, p. 1382, quotes among His say- 
ings prophetic of division in the church, 
tcovra oxlouata kK. aipéoets. From the 
pointed manner in which 6? yap Kat 
aipéoets ...is said, I should be inclined 
to think that the Apostle tacitly referred 
to the same saying of our Lord: for there 
must be (not only dissensions, but) even 
heresies (not in the ecclesiastical or doc- 
trinal sense,—as Pelag., Est., Calv., Beza, 
—see reff., but indicating a further and 
more matured separation, where not only 
is there present dissension, as in the 
Agape, but a deliberate choice and main- 
tenance of party distinction. It does not 
appear, in spite of all that has been written 
in Germany on the supposed parties of ch. 
i. 10, that such separations had yet taken 
place among the Corinthians. Nor even 
in Clement’s Epistle, forty years after 
this, do we find any allusion to such, but 
only, as here, to a general spirit of dis- 
sension and variance, see chaps. iii. and 
xiv., pp. 218, 257. Chrys. would refer 
aip. only to the Agape: ov Tabtas A€yav 


19—22. 


q \ q , > Cs a 

Kyo * havepot 4 yevwvTar ev vptv. 

buov “émi TO avTO ovK éotw ‘Kuptaxoy “ detrrvov hayeiv" 
P iy 


~ \ fal 
21 Exaotos yap TO td.ov " Setmvov 


a \ \ = A é 

gayetv, Kal *0s pev Y rewda, Xs 5é * weOver. 
ee 3 a > ” b > \ > / \ / 

oiKias *ovK éxeTe Peis TO EoOiew Kal tively ; 


t Rey. i. 10 only +. 
xiv. 8. Gal. vi. 1 only +. 
8. Acts xxvii. 44. Rom. xiv. 5. 
xxv. 21) al. 
iv. 11 reff. 


Wisd. xvii. 17 only. 


z Acts ii. 15 reff. 
che kee. 


IIPOS KOPINOIOTS A. 


u John xiii. 2, 4. xxi. 20 al. 


2 Cor, ii. 16 al. 


571 


20 & gypyepyoMéev@V ODY 4 Mark vi. 14, 
PX. la Luke viii. 17. 
Acts vii. 13. 
ch, iii, 13. 
xiv. 25. Phil. 


Vv / Ww J A 
a € CYT 13. 9 
Tpor oe veep 2 i en 
2a Ty) aay t acc. XV. 
e 3 a Bs xiv. 23. 
1) TS d ex. ee 15 


Dan. i. 16 (vy. 1 Theod.) only. 
w Acts ix. 3 reff. x = Matt. xiii. 

y Matt. iv. 2. Rom. xii. 20 (from Proy. 

a Rom. x. 18, 19. ch. ix. 4,5 ae 1 b Rom. 


vy Mark 


d ch. i. 2 reff. 


om 2nd ev viv C eth Orig Chr Epiph Damasc-comm Jer. 


20. om ovy D}(and lat) F Clem Chr : 
21. mposdapBave: A 46. 106-8-22? Zon. 


de 17. 
om D-lat: jam non est vulg(and F-lat) lat-ff. 


for ecru, ert D! F(and G-lat) : 
gaye: XR}. 
for ev Tw, emt to DF: ad vulg(and 


F-lat) E-lat: ess tw (= 70) 17, in manducandum G-lat: in manducando D-lat. 
22. for ets To co 0. k. Tv., payew ka Tew FE. 


Tas Tov SoypdTav, GAAG TAS TOV TXITMG- 
Twy TovTwY, p. 242,—and so Theophyl., Ee. 
But this hardly justifies the climax, det yap 
ka) aip.) among you, that the approved 
[also] (i.e. as well as the other party, 
who would become manifest by their very 
conduct) may be made manifest among 
you; viz. through a better and nobler 
spirit being shewn by them, than by the 
contentious and separatists. 20. | 
The same subject—resumed from the 
cuvepx. of ver. 18: see notes on mpaTov. 
When then ye come together (are as- 
sembling, pres. and perhaps here, where 
he deals with particulars, to be pressed,— 
as their intention in thus assembling is 
blamed) to one place (reff. Acts) it is not 
to eat (with any idea of eating. But 
Mey er, Bengel, and many others, rendey 
ouK €oTw heres ¢ non licet,’ as in ovK éo7Tuv 
eimety and the like: De Wette, after 
Estius, al., as E. V., ‘ this is not,’ ‘ cannot 
be ealled,—‘id quod agitis, non est? 
But the greediness which is blamed, seems 
to refer ov« €or to the cuvvépxeoAa, and 
oayeiv to the motive = va payjre) the 
Supper of the Lord (emphasis on kupiaxdy, 
as opposed to Yd.0v below). Kup. 
Setmv.| ‘the Supper instituted by the 
Lord’ This was an inseparable adjunct, 
in the apostolic times, to their agapz or 
feasts of love. Chrys. on ver. 17, and 
Tertull. Apol. § 39, vol. i. pp. 474 ff., give 
an ample description of these feasts, which 
were of the nature of gpavo:, or mutual 
contributions, where each who was able 
brought his own portion,—and the rich, 
additional portions for the poor. See Xen. 
Mem. iii. 14, in which the circumstances 
bear a remarkable similarity to those in the 
Corinthian church. Not before this feast, 
as Chrys. (ueta Thy Tay pvoTnpiov Kowwviay 
em Kowhy mdvTes Hetav evwxiav, p. 240), 





al.,—but during and after it, as shewn by 
the institution, by the custom at the Pass- 
over, by the context here, and by the rem- 
nants of the ancient custom and its abuse 
until forbidden by the council of Carthage, 
—the ancient Christians partook of the 
Supper of the Lord. The best account of 
this matter is to be found in the note in 
Pool’s Synopsis on Matt. xxvi. 26. It 
was necessary for the celebration of the 
Lord’s Supper that all should eat of the 
same bread and drink of the same cup; and 
in all probability, that a prayer should be 
offered, and words of consecration said, by 
the appointed ministers. Hence cessation 
of the feast itself, and solemn order and 
silence, would be necessitated even by the 
outward requirements of the ordinance. 
These could not be obtained, where each 
man was greedily devouring that which he 
had brought with him: where the extremes 
were seen, of one craving, and another being 
drunken. This being their practice, there 
could be no intention of celebrating the 
Lord’s Supper,—no discernment of the 
solemnity of it. On the whole subject, 
see Stanley’s note. 21.] wpok., as in 
E.V., takes before another, viz. during the 
feast (ev Te p.), not, at home, before coming. 
Obviously the €xacros must be limited to 
the rich: the poor had no Zé:0v Setmvov to 
take, and were the losers by the selfishness 
of the rich. mew@ | one is craving 
(the poor), another is drunken (the rich. 
There is no need to soften the meaning of 
weOver: as Meyer says, “ Paul draws the 
picture in strong colours, and who can say 
that the reality was less strong ?”’). 

22.| For (a reason for the blame in the 
foregoing: this should not be: for) have 
you no houses, to eat, &c.: meaning, ‘ até 
home is the place to satiate the appetite, 
not the assembly of the brethren’ Or 


572 IIPOS KOPIN@IOTS A. AT. 
ase Lal n “ , \ 
e Matt, xviii. KNnolas TOV 4 Oeod * Katadpoveite, Kai  KaTatayUvETE TOUS 
a > Ke . » lal rn 4 
fibis'°” 8 pay Exovtas ; Th eit@ bpiv; “éerawéow vuas €v TOUT@ ; 
f ch. i. 27. > h 2 a Dhaene \ i s Fk nr ’ 
weiso.  ovk © émraive. é€ym yap ‘mapéXaBov amo Tod Kupiov . 
g = Luke ii. 11 y ‘ : 
wit. «8 Kat Irrapédwxa duly, 6Tt 0 KUptos “Inoods ev TH vuKTI 
10 (2). fs 
hver.2 4 * rapedideto EhaBev aptov, ** cai | ebyapioTtnoas ™ éxda- 
Bere! FA i a rn ¢ \ 
8, Gali gey Kal elev TodTd pov "éoTiv To cama TO ° UTrép 
j=ver.2ref. ¢« a a - DAP \ eae Oo 95 xr 
k—"Kom.iv. UOv" TodTO TovetTe Peis THY euny Iavapynow. * * ws 
25 reff. 


labsol., LUKE xxii. 19. Rom. i. (8 reff.) 21. ch. xiv. 17 al. + Wisd. xviii. 2 only. 
n=||M.L. Matt. xiii. 37. John xy. 1. ch.x.4. Gen. xii. 26,27. Exod. xii. 

o ellips., here only? p = Matt. viii. 34. Mark i. 4. xiv. 9. 
r\|L. Matt. xxi. 30. Luke xx. 31. Rom. viii. 26. Prov. 


Gospp. passim. 
m Acts ii. 46 reff. 
ll. Ezek. xxxvii. 11. 
q here bis. || L. Heb. x. 3 only. Ley. xxiv. 7. 
xxvii. 15, 


rec vuw bef evrw, with KL rel syr Thdrt: om vaw P eth-pl arm-ed: txt ABCDFX m 
17 vulg Syr coptt goth Damasce lat-ff. for eratvetw, emavw (conformation to 
the pres follg) BF latt lat-ff: txt ACDKLPR rel vss Chr Thdrt Damase. 

23. for amo, mapa D. om tov DF. for kuptov, @eov F (with G-lat, but not 
F-lat). om inoous B 44. ev n vukt waped. D1, in qua nocte latt lat-ff. 

rec maped:d070, with B2LP rel Chr Thdrt: txt AB!}CDF KR Damase. ins 
tov bef aprov DF. 

24. rec aft emev adds AaBete payee (interpoln from Matt xxvi. 26), with C3KLP 
rel syrr goth [Cyr-jer] Chr Thdrt Damase (ec Thl Ambrst,A. ka: . vulg arm Ambrst; 
AaBere (alone) 17 wth Sedul: om ABC!DFS 17 am(with fuld al) coptt arm(ed-1s05) 
Bas Cyr (Ath) Cypr Bede. rec aft viep vywy ins KAwpevoy, with CSD3FKLPN3 rel 
syrr goth Thdrty1,(elsw. S:douevoy 1 KAwmEvoY Kata TOY amtoot.) Damase (Ee Thi; @pu7- 
Towevoy D!; S:d0mevoy coptt; quod pro vobis tradetur vulg Cypr Ambrst-ed: om ABC!X? 
17. 672 Cyr Ath Fulg. om ryv I. 


do ye shew your contempt for (pres.) the 
congregation of God (@cov to express, as 
Bengel, ‘ dignitatem ecclesiz.’? This con- 
tempt was expressed by their not sharing 
with the congregation the portion which 
they brought),—and put to shame those 
who have not (houses to eat and to drink 
in, and therefore come to the daily @ydmar 
to be fed. There is no reason for rendering 
with the majority of Commentators tobs ui) 
€xovTas, ‘the poor ;’ the uy €xovras has a 
distinct reference to the €yere before. 
Meyer refers in support of the meaning, 
‘the poor,’ to Wetst. on 2 Cor. viii. 13, 
where nothing on the subject is found: 
De Wette, to Luke iii. 11, where the case 
is as here, the preceding €xwy being re- 
ferredto. The meaning is allowable, e.g. 
mpos yap Tov Exove’ 6 POdvos €pre:, Soph. 
Aj. 157: mpbs trav exdvtwy, PoiBe, ry 
vépmov 7lOns, Burip. Alc. 57: mére wey er’ 
jap elxov, clr otk elxov ty, where how- 
ever it is qualified by ew jap)? What 
must I say to you? Shall I praise you 
in this matter? Ipraise you not. (See 
ver. 17.) 23—25.]| ‘lo shew them 
the solemnity of the ordinance which they 
thus set at nought, he reminds them of 
the account which he had before given 
them, of its INSTITUTION BY THE Lorp. 
Marr. xxvi. 26—29. MArK xiv. 22— 
25. LUKE xxii. 19, 20. 23.) For I 
(see ch. vii. 28; Phil. iv. 11) received 


from the Lord (by special revelation, see 
Gal. i. 12. Meyer attempts to deny that 
this revelation was made to Paul himself, 
on the strength of a&ré meaning ‘indirect,’ 
mapa ‘ direct’ reception from any one: but 
this distinction is fallacious: e. g. 1 John 
i. 5, alrn eotly h emayyeAla hy axnkd- 
amev am avrov. He supposes that it was 
made to Ananias or some other, and com- 
municated to Paul. But the sole reason 
for this somewhat clumsy hypothesis is the 
supposed force of the preposition, which 
has no existence. If the Apostle had re- 
ferred only to the Evangelic tradition or 
writings (?) he would not have used the first 
person singular, but mapeAdBouey. I may 
remark, that the similarity between this 
account of the Institution and that in 
Luke’s Gospel, is only what might be ex- 
pected on the supposition of a special 
revelation made to Paul, of which that 
Evangelist, being Paul’s companion, in 
certain parts of his history availed him- 
self) that which I also delivered (in 
my apostolic testimony) to you, (viz.) 
that the Lord Jesus, &c. mraped{- 
Sero| the imperf.: He was being be- 
trayed. ‘‘ There is an appearance of fixed 
order, especially in these opening words, 
which indicates that this had already 
become a familiar formula.” Stanley. 

aprov] not, as Meyer, ‘a loaf,’ 
but bread: cf. the common expression, 


BE es ep Sad 


23—27. 


TIPO KOPINOIOTS A. 


573 


s \ yt / Xx s \ an / rn 7 
avT@s Kal TO ToTHpLoY peTa * TO SevTVjcat, A€yov TodTO s\\1,, Luke 


\ , Lo NT PS) 6 / bs] \ u2 Aes an 7 
TO ToTHptov 1) ‘Kawn 'duabnKn é€otiv “ev TO Eu@ aipate 
a a \ > \ 
TOUTO TrovelTe, Y OoaKis €av TivyTe, ? eis THY eury 4 avawvn- 


ow. 
here, aypis ob EXOD. 


v here bis. 
xi. 25.. Gal. iii. 19 al. 
ch, vi. 2.) 


21, 22 [8ce]) only, (Deut. xix, 10.) 


25. for euw aimati, awar: wov ACP m17: txt BDF KLPN rel. 


ooakis here and at beg of next ver. 


9G Vv c 4 \ 2X BI 61 \ ” a \ 
26 Y ogaKis yap éav éoOinte Tov apTov TovTOV, Kai 
TO ToTHpioy Tivynte, Tov Oavatov Tod Kuplov * KaTayyér- 
or 7 A Xx > O/. \ yy Xx 
~l @sTe os av eolin TOV apToV 1%) 
, lal / , Li 
Tin TO YToTHpLov Tov Y Kupiou *avakiws, * évoyos éaTaL 
Rey. xi. 6 only t. Xen. Mem. iii. 4. 3. 


y ch. x. 21. 
a = and constr., Mark iii. 29. xiv. 64 || Mt. 


Rey. iii. 20 
only. Proy. 
xxi. 1. 
Tobit viii. 1 
only. 

t ||. 2 Cor. iii. 6. 
Heb. viii. 8 
(from Jer. 
XXXVili. 
(xxxi.] 31), 
ix, 15. 

4 = Heb. ix. 
22, 25. x. 19. 
1 John y. 6. 
Zech. ix. 11. 

w = Acts xiii. 5 reff. x constr., Rom. 

z here only+. 2 Mace. xiv. 42 only. (-tos, 

Heb. ii. 15. Jamesii. 10, (Matt. v. 


homeeotel in A, 
rec (for cay) avy, with DFKL rel Chr Cyr: 


txt BCX 17 Orig Thdrt Euthal-ms. (om ooaxis av mynre PLappy] a d m.) 


26. om yap A (cf homeotel above) 238 goth eth arm. 


for Tovtov, TovTo N}. 


rel: txt ABCN a 17 Orig. 


rec av, with DEKLP 
rec aft mornpioy ins 


tovto (for uniformity), with D?-3KLPX% rel tol syrr copt goth zth Chr Thdrt Damasc, 
Cypr,: om ABCD'!F®! ¢ 17 latt sah arm Cyr Damasc, Cypr, Ambrst Pel Bede. 


axpt BIN}. 


rec aft axpis ov ins ay (to fill up the constr), with D3KLPR3 rel Thdrt : 


om ABCD!FRX! 17 Ath Bas Chr-ms Cyr Damase. 


27. acPemrar and myntar FE. 


rec aft Toy aprov ins rovroy (supplementary, or 


as above), with KLP rel copt goth eth arm-mss Chr: om ABCDFN 0 17 am(with 

demid fuld harl tol mar) syr sah arm-ed Clem Bas Ps-Ath Thdrt Damase Orig-int Cypr. 
for n, kat A 39. 46. 109 lect-1 vulg-ms syrr coptt ath Clem Ps-Ath Orig-int 

(Jer) Pel Cassiod: txt BCDFKLPR rel latt syr-mg goth Chr Thdrt Damase Cypr,. 
aft Tov kupiov avatiws add tov kupiov D3LN e 47 syr goth. 


gayeiv kptov. 24.] On edy. ekda- 
oev, see note, Matt. xxvi. 26. Meyer 
well remarks, that “the filling up of 7d 
brétp buay is to be sought in the foregoing 
éxAacey.” Hence the insertion of kAdmue- 
vor. ToUTO Tot... .]| See note on 
Matt. ut supra. 25.] See Luke xxii. 
20. @savt. Kal To w.] “viz. €Aa- 
Bev kal ebx. fdwkev avtots. These last 
words are implied in &Aacey above.” 
Meyer. q Kaw. 5. éotiv év TO eno 
aip.| is the new covenant in (ratified 
by the shedding of, and therefore stand- 
ing in, as its conditioning element) my 
blood: = eorly 7 kaw. 8. 7 ev TE Cue alu. 
The position of éoruy is no objection to this, 
nor the omission of the art. Meyer would 
render it, ‘is the N. C. by means of my 
blood :’ i.e. by virtue of its contents, which 
are my blood: and this solely on account 
of the position of éorw. But the meaning 
is as harsh, as the rendering is unrequired. 

écdnis éav tiv.] Not a general 
rule for all common meals of Christians ; 
but a precept that as often as that cup is 
drunk, it should be in remembrance of 
HTim : on these last words is the emphasis : 
see below. 26.] yap gives an ex- 
planatory reason for eis 7. euyv avdyy., 
viz. that the act of eating and drinking isa 
proclamation of the death of the Lord till 
His coming. he rendering of katayyéa- 


Aete imperative, as Theophyl.?, Luth., 
Grot., Riickert, is evidently wrong. He is 
substantiating the application of the Lord’s 
words by the acknowledged nature of the 
rite. It is a proclamation of His death: 
and thus is a remembrance of Him. It is 
so, by our making mention of in it, and 
seeing visibly before us and partaking of, 
His body broken, and His blood shed. 
&xpis ov €XOyq] The carayy. is ad- 
dressed directly to the Corinthians, not 
to them and all succeeding Christians ; 
the Apostle regarding the coming of the 
Lord as near at hand, in his own time, 
see notes on 2 Cor. v. 1—10. Thdrt. 
remarks, peta yop Thy avtod Tapou- 
clay, ovKéTt xpela Tov auuBdrAwy Tod 
THuaTos, avTod dawouevov ToD céma- 
Tos’ 51% TovTO elmer, &xpis ob [hy] ZAOy. 
The & has been inserted from not 
being aware that its absence implies the 
certainty of the event. See examples in Lo- 
beck on Phrynichus, pp. 15, 16, note. 
27.) A consequence, from the nature of the 
ordinance being, to proclaim the death of 
the Lord: the guilt of the unworthy partici- 
pation of either of the elements. The death 
of the Lord was brought about by the break- 
ing of His body and shedding His blood: 
this Death we proclaim in the ordinance 
by the bread broken—the wine poured 
out, of which we partake : whoever there- 


574 


r b , \ fal b v4 r b lo 
bseech.x.16. TQV " CWMATOS KAL TOU ~ ALLLATOS TOU KUPLOV. 


ec = ch. iii, 13 


IIPO> KOPIN@IOTS A. 


XI. 28—34, 
28 © Soxipa- 


reff. [7z4 be d BA fal ec / ‘ e ef 3 fal ” 
a ch.iv.1. G€T@ O€ “AaVUpWTrOS EaUTOV, Kab © OUTWS EK TOU apTOU 


Gal. vi. 1. 

e = Rom. v. 12 
reff. 

f= Rom. ii. 2, 
3 reff. 

g Acts xv. 9. 
James ii. 4. 


coud. 
Job xii. 11. ‘a 


> 6 , aS) fa / / 29 e \ > 6. \ 
éoOueTw Kal €x Tod ToTHpiov TIWéTw *9 6 yap éaBiwv Kal 
s a a / 
mivov !Kpiwa éavt@ eoOier Kat Tiver py *® dvaxpivayv TO 
3S fa al lal 
30 Sa TovTo év viv ToAXdol aabeveis Kai » appw- 


h Matt. xiv. 14. Mark vi. 5,13. xvi. 18 only. 3 Kings xiv. 5 A, Ald. &c. (see xii. 24sq. B). Mal. i.8. Sir. vii. 35 
only. (-Tétv, 2 Kings xii. 15. -TyMa, Sir. x.10. -Tta, Ps. xl. 3.) 


rec om Tov [ bef aimaros | (as unnecessary ?), with a! dhk 47(e sil) Thl: ins ABCDFKLPR 


rel Clem Ps-Ath Bas Chr Thdrt. 


for kupiov, xptcrov A 17 wxth-rom Jer. 


28. cavroy bef avOpwros CDFP latt goth Damase: eavrov exacros 17, simly 4 Orig : 


txt ABKLX rel syrr coptt «th arm Clem Orig Cyr.—ins o bef av@p. D!. 


ins mpwrov N%. 


aft eaur. 


29. rec aft mivwy ins avatiws (gloss from ver 27), with C3DFK LPN? rel vulg syrr gr- 


lat-ff: om ABC1N?! 17 sah eth-rom. 


rec aft To gwua ins Tov kupiou (gloss from 


ver 27), with C3 DEKLPN3 rel yss Chr Thdrt Ambrst: om ABC'X! 17. 67? am}!(with 


fuld harl!) sah eth. 


fore shall either eat the bread or drink the 
cup of the Lord unworthily (see below ver. 
29) shall be guilty of the body and blood of 
the Lord: i.e. “erimini et pene corporis 
et sanguinis Christi violati obnoxius erit :” 
Meyer. Such an one proclaims the death 
of Christ, and yet in an unworthy spirit— 
with no regard to that Death as his atone- 
ment, or a proof of Christ’s love: he pro- 
claims that Death as an indifferent person: 
he therefore partakes of the guilt of it. 
Chrysostom strikingly says, opayny 7d 
mpayna amepnvey, ovKéeTt Ovatay, p. 247. 
But the idea &s xa adds éxxéas Td aiua, 
Theophyl. (and Chrys., tl dqmote; Stt 
éféxeev até, kal opay., &e., as above), is 
irrelevant here, see ver. 29. The Roman- 
ists absurdly enough defend by this # (the 
meaning of which is not to be changed 
to «at, as is most unfairly done in our 
i. V., and the completeness of the ar- 
gument thereby destroyed) their prac- 
tice of communicating only in one kind. 
Translated into common language, and 
applied to the ordinary sustenance of the 
body, their reasoning stands thus: ‘ Who- 
ever eats to excess, ov drinks to excess, 
is guilty of sin: therefore eating, with- 
out drinking, will sustain life.’ 
28.] The 8€ implies an opposition to, and 
wish to escape from, the €voxos éorat. 
Soxip. éavt.} prove himself — 
examine 7)v didvoiay éavtov, as Theodor.- 
mops., in loc.: ascertain by sufficient 
tests, what his state of feeling is with 
regard to the death of Christ, and how far 
this feeling is evinced in his daily life— 
which are the best guarantees for a worthy 
participation. Kal oUTws | i.e. ‘after 
examination of himself” 'The case in 
which the self-examination ends in an un- 
favourable verdict, does not come under 
consideration, because it is assumed that 


such a verdict will lead to repentance and 
amendment. 29.| For he who eats 
and drinks (scil. of the bread and of the 
cup: certainly not, as Meyer, ‘the mere 
eater and drinker, he who partakes as a 
mere act of eating and drinking,’ which is 
harsh to the last degree, and refuted by the 
parallel, ver. 27. avatiws is spurious, see 
var. readd.) eats and drinks judgment to 
himself (i. e. brings on himself judgment 
by eating and drinking. kpiwa, as is 
evident by vv. 30—32, is not ‘damnation’ 
[kardxpiua },as rendered in our E. V.,a mis- 
translation, which has done infinite mis- 
chief), not appreciating (dijudicans, Vulg. 
ph ekerdov, uh evvody as xp, Td weyebos 
TOY TpoKEmevwr, 12) AoyiCduevos TY OyKoY 
THs Swpeas. Chrys. Hom. xxviii. p. 251) 
the body (scil. of the Lord: here standing 
for the whole of that which is symbolized 
by the Bread and the Cup, the Body and 
Blood. The mystery of these, spiritually 
present in the elements, he, not being spi- 
ritual, does not appreciate : and therefore, 
as in ver. 27, falls under the divine judg- 
ment, as trifling with the death of Christ. 
The interpretation of Stanley, “not dis- 
cerning that the body of the Lord is in 
himself and in the Christian society, and 
that it is as the body of the Lord, or as 
a member of that body, that he partakes 
of the bread,” is surely somewhat far- 
fetched, after rotréd pov éatly 7d oaua, 
ver. 24). 30.] Experimental proof 
of the kptua éavr@, from the present sick- 
nesses and frequent deaths among the 
Corinthian believers. Meyer distin- 
guishes ado@evets. weaklings, persons whose 
powers have failed spontaneously, from 
appworor, invalids, persons whose powers 
are enfeebled by sickness; und cites Titt- 
mann, Synon. p. 76. ao6. and app. 
refer to physical, not (as Olsh., altern.) 


eek 1; 


IIPO> KOPINOIOTS A. 


575 


oto, Kal ‘Kowpavtar *ixavol. 5! ef b& léavtods & Stexpi- i=b- vii.s9 


vomev, ovk av ™ éxpwopeba: *2™ kpivopuevor Sé v0 [Tod] * 
kupiov ” raidevoueba, iva pi) oly TH KOTLw ° KaTaKpLOd- 

Lcd an 
33 P @ste, adeAHoi pov, 4 cuvEepyYopevol * eis TO hayetiv 


bev. 
adAnAous § Exdéxeo Ge. 


Ew ¥ duataEopac. 


XII. 1 Wepi S€ trav *rvevpatixor, adergol, * ov Oérw 


ii.1. Esth. ii. 1. p = ch. v. 8 reff. 
xvii. 16 reff. $ t ver. 21. 

y ver. 17 reff. w ver. 29. 
xvi. 1 reff. z=ch. x. 3, 4 reff. 
iv. 13. 


34 ef Tus ‘ rewd, “ev “olkw éoOréTa, 
A Ne Pee w a q 4 
wa py ‘els “ Kptwa I ouvépynabe. 


= Acts xii. 12 

reff, 

11st pers., Rom. 
vill. 23 reff. 

m = Acts xiii. 
27. Rev. 
xviii. 8 al. 

n Luke xxiii. 
16. Heb. xii. 
7510. 3.2; Ee, 
exc. Rey. ili. 
19. 2 Chron. 
» Fi | 
xix. 18. 

0 Matt. xxvii. 

3. (John viii. 

10.) Rom. 


X A 
Ta 6€ AoLTA *@s av 


Proy. 


q ver. 17. r ver, 22. s Acts 
u_anarth., ch. xiv. 35. Deut. xi. 19. see Mark ii. 1. 
x = Rom. xv. 24. Phil. ii. 23. = che 


: “ y 
a Rom. i. 13. xi. 25. ch. x.1. 2Cor.i. 8, 1 Thess. 


‘31. rec (for de) yap, with CKLPR? rel syrr coptt arm Chr Thdrt Aug, : txt ABDFX! 


17 vulg goth eth Clem Aug,. 
32. azo F. 
Ces Chr Thdrt Damase, “ec Thi. 


eavtov F'(not G). 
ins rou bef kuvptov BCN m 17 Clem Damasc-txt: om ADFKLP rel 
aft Tw koopw ins Tovtw F, simly latt lat-ff. 


34. rec aft ec ins de, with D?“3KLPN% rel demid syrr arm Clem Thdrt Damase Bede: 


om ABCD!FN! 17 latt coptt eth Chr-comm Cypr Ambrst Pel. 


Siaratwuas ADF m 47. 
Cuap. XII. 1. ayvoew bef adeAgar ov 0. v. 


moral weaknesses. 31.] 8¢ contrasts 
with this state of sicknesses and deaths : 
it might be otherwise. This 8vexpivdpe8a 
(parallel with Sox:ua¢érw before) should be 
rendered by the same word as Siaxpivwv 
before, the idea being the same. ‘Appre- 
ciate, if etymologically understood, is the 
nearest to the meaning: in Latin dijudico, 
which the Vulg. has, is an excellent render- 
ing,—preserving also the ‘judico,’ so essen- 
tial to the following clause. In the E. V. 
‘If we would judge ourselves, we should 
not be judged,’ the tenses are wrong: it 
should be, ‘Jf we had judged ourselves, we 
should not have been judged ? ‘no such 
punishments would have befallen us.’ 

Thus I wrote in some former editions : and 
so also Stanley. But this collocation of the 
(imperfect) tenses may be rendered either 
way. Donaldson, Gr. Gr., p. 204, renders 
el tt cixev, edtd0u &v, ‘si quid haberet, 
daret: and so we have it in Adschyl. 
Suppl. 244, kal t%AAa W6AN? erreiKaoa 
dixaoy av, ei ph mapdvt. POdyyos Fv 6 
onuavev: Aschin. Ctes. p. 86, ef & Hv 
avaryKatoy pnOfjvat, ov Anmoabévovs Fv 
6 Adyos: and. other places (Bernhardy, 
p- 376). But as certainly, we find the 
other sense: e.g. Herod. iii. 25, of Cam- 
byses, ef . . . awaye omicw Toy oTpaTdy 
.... Hv dy copds avnp. So that the 
E. V. may ere be kept, if thought de- 
sirable. In John y. 46, our translators 
have adopted the other rendering : ‘ Had 
ye believed Moses, ye would have be- 
lieved me:’ but in ib, villi. 39, 42, have 


Kpiow K, 
D'F latt «th lat-ff. 


rendered as here. 32.] But now 
that we are judged, it is by the Lord 
(emph.) that we are being chastised (to 
bring us to repentance), that we may 
not be (eternally) condemned with the 
(unbelieving) world. 33.] General 
conclusion respecting this disorder. So 
then (‘que cum ita sint’), my brethren 
(milder persuasive: as has been the as- 
sumption of the first person, vv. 31, 
32), when ye are coming together to 
eat, wait for one another (contrast to 
Exaoros ... . mpodauBdver, ver. 21: as 
Theophyl.: ovd« efrev, GAAHAOLS peTadoTe, 
GAN, exdéxerOe? Seukvdwy bre Kowd ior 
Ta exeloe cispepdueva. kal Set avauévew 
Thy Kowhy ovvédcvow). 34.] The 
aydaa. were not meals to satiate the bodily 
appetites, but for a higher and holier pur- 
pose: let the hungry take off the edge of 
his hunger at home: see ver. 22. 

74 8 Nowra, | viz. things omitted (probably 
matters of detail) in the above directions. 
Perhaps they had asked him questions 
respecting the most convenient time or 
manner of celebration of the Lord’s sup- 
per: points on which primitive practice 
widely differed. ds Gv €AOa, see reff., 
whenever I shall have come. ds dy, as 
7° dv, implies uncertainty as to the event 
anticipated: see Kiihner, vol. ii. p. 535, 
§ 807. Capp. XII.—XIV.] ON THE 
ABUSE OF SPIRITUAL GIFTS: espe- 
cially PROPHESYING, and SPEAKING WITH 
TONGUES. The second particular requir- 
ing correction in their assemblies, see ch. 


576 IIPOS KOPINOIOTS A. XII. 
beh x lor judas "ayvoeiv. * oldate Otte Ste EOvn HTE, Tpos Ta AB 
eff. I 
i“ vakvi. Yeidora Ta “adova ws “dy ipyerOe °arrayopmevor. % 610 ad. 
56. Acts 1. 
45. iv. 35. Gen. ii. 19. e Matt. xxvi. 57 al. Epp., here only. Deut. xxviii. 37. 7 
4 


2. rec om ote (either a mistake, or a corrn to help the constr: the same of the omn 
of ort), with Fb d1 D-lat Syr copt Ambrst: om ots K m Thdrt Damase Gic-comm 


Augy: 


txt ABCDLPR rel vulg G-lat syr (sah) arm gr-lat-ff. 


for apwva, apoppa 


F, [avjyeobe B*G m: ascendebatis Aug. | 


xi. 18, note. Chrys. well says: tovro 
Gamay To xwplov opddpa eotly aoapes: Thy 
5& dodpeay ) TOY Tpayyatey tyvod TE 
kal €AAewis moe? TOY TOTE pey oUL- 
Bawédytwv, viv 5& ov ywouevwy. Hom. 
xxix. p. 257. XII.] ON THE NATURE, 
INTENT, AND WORTH OF SPIRITUAL GIFTS 
IN GENERAL. 1—3. | The foundation of 
all spiritual utterance is the confession of 
Jesus as the Lord: and without the Spirit, 
no such confession can be made. 1.] 
Sé transitional. Some have thought that 
the Corinthians had referred this “question 
to the Apostle’s decision: but from the 
od b\w Su. ayvoeiv, it rather looks as 
if, like the last, it had been an abuse 
which he had heard of, and of his own 
instance corrects. T. TVEVLATLUKOY | 
Most likely neuter, as ch. xiv. 1, spiritual 


gifts: so Chrys., Theophyl., c., Beza, 
Calov., Est., al., De Wette, and Meyer: 


—not mase., as ch. xiv. 37: so Grot., 
Hammond, al.,-and Locke, who maintains 
that the subject of this section is not the 
things, but the persons, quoting ch. xiv. 
5. But surely the things are the main 
subject, enounced here, vv. 4—11, and 
treated of through the rest of the chapter ; 
the inspired persons being mentioned only 
incidentally to them. Others, as Storr, 
Billroth, Wieseler cited by Meyer, and De 
W., limit 7a mv. to the speaking with 
tongues, which indeed is mainly treated 
of in the latter part of the section (see 
ch. xiv. 1): but here the gifts of the Spirit 
generally are the subject. ov Béw 
tp. ayv.| Theodor.-mops. cited by Meyer: 
OéAw Suas Kal Tay TvevUaTIKa@y XapI- 
opdrwv e«idévar thy tdéw, &ste BovrAo- 
pal rt kal wep) ro’Twy eimeiv. See reff. 

2.| Reason why they wanted instruction 
concerning spiritual gifts—because they 
once were heathen, and could not therefore 
have any experience in spiritual things. 
Thus Meyer, and so far rightly: but the 
stress of this reason lies in the words &pwva 
and as &y Hyeobe, which he has not suf- 
ficiently noticed: —Ye know (that) when 
ye were Gentiles (the construction is an 
anacoluthon, beginning with o%Sare ér1, 
and then as if ofSare 67: had been merely a 
formula for ‘ye know,’ passing into the 
construction so common, that of placing 6re 


after such verbs as méuvnua, olda, akotw, 
and the like, an ellipsis taking place of rod 
xpévov, as Lysias actually fills it up in one 
place, exefvou Tov xpdévov uynobevras, bre 
. .. + in Poliuch. (wep) Snucdoews k.7. A.); 

p. 151, 34. Thus Il. & 71, 7dea wey yap 
éte mpodpwv Aavaotow Euvvev: Plato, 

Menon, p. 79, wéuvnoa br’ ey oo kpre 
amrexpwaunv. See more examples in 
Kiihner’s Gr. Gramm. ii. 480) led about 
(adray. not necessarily, ‘led wrong ;? and 
the context seems rather to favour the idea 
of being ‘ led at will,’ blindly transported 
hither and thither,—and so De W., and 
Kstius, “ qualitercunque, temere, pro nutu 
ducentium, et hue illue illos cireumagen- 
tium, abductos fuisse”’) to idols which were 
without utterance (‘the God in whom you 
now believe is a living and speaking God— 
speaking by his Spirit in every believer: 
how should you know any thing of such spi- 
ritual speech or gifts at all, who have been 
accustomed to dumb idols ?’), just as ye 
happened to be led (scil., on each occa- 
sion: the force of & being to indicate the 
indefiniteness, i.e. in this case, the vepe- 
tition of the act : so Xen. Anab.i. 5. 2: of 
bey bvot, éemel Tis Sidkor [whenever any 
followed them] mpodpaudytes by ciorh- 

Keioay,—and Eurip. Phen. 401: more wev 
és juap elxov, elt” ovx elxov &v. See other 
examples in Kiihner, ii. 93, 94). These 
last words seem to me to imply the absence 
of all fixed principle in the oracles of Hea- 
thendom, such as he is about to announce 
as regulating and furnishing the criterion 
of the spiritual gifts of Christendom. This 
&s &y HyeoGe might take a man to contra- 
dictory oracles, the whole system being an 
imposture—their idols being void of all 
power of utterance, and they being there- 
fore imposed on by the fictions of men, or 
evil spirits, who led them. Chrys., Gc., 
Theophyl., make this refer to the difference 
between the heathen udyris, who was pos- 
sessed by an eyil spirit, and therefore efa- 
Kero Urd TOD TvEvmaTos Bedemevos, ovdev 
eldas Gy Aéyet, and the Christian rpopjrns, 
—which however is entirely unwarranted 
by the context. 3.] The negative and 
positive criteria of inspiration by the Spirit 
of God: viz. the rejection, or confession, of 
Jesus as the Lord. 816, ‘ because ye 


ras) 


—6. 


/ con 7 a lol 
‘yvapifo buiv Ore ovdels & ev & rvevuate Oeod Nadav AéyeEL 
? / > a a , 
'’Avadeuwa “Inootds: Kal ovdels Svvatat eimeivy Kuptos 


IIPOS KOPINOIOTS A. 


577 


f Luke ii. 15. 
John xv. WS 
Acts il. 
Rom. ix. 22, 
23 al. Ezek. 


’ a > \ b 4 ig U j / \ <liv. 22 
= i k liv. 23. 
Inaods, €¢ by Fev S rrvevpati aylo. 4 Siatpéoets € NQ~ 5 Matt. xxii. 43. 


/ > U ink be > \ fal 5 \ i / ] 
plo“aTov élolv, TO O€ avTO TrYEDMa’ » Kat‘ duatpécers | StaKo- 
~ > / \ c . 
wav elolv, Kat 0 avTos KUptos: § Kal ‘ dvatpécers ™ Evepryn- 


reff, i here (3ce) only. 
k= Tons, (v. 15. vi. 23. xi. 29) xii. 6 al 


3. om @eou P. 


1 Chron, xxvi. 1. 


om Aadwy DF lat-ff. (insd by F-lat Aug &c.) 


Luke ii. 27. 


iv.1. Rev.i 
10 al. Mic. 
ili. 8. 
h Rom. ix. 3 
2 Chron. viii. 14. Ezra vi. 18. (-petv, ver. 11). 
Acts i.17. vi. 1 al. + m ver. 10 only +. 
rec tnoovv 


(corrn to bring it into government by reve, whereas it is an oratio directa), with 


DKLP rel harl syr-mg-gr sah Orig, Chr Thdrt Damase Novat Hil-ed: 
vulg lat-ff: txt ABCN 17! syrr(appy) copt 2th arm Orig, Cyr-p, : 


inoov F 17? 
rec Kup.ov 


moouv (see above), with DFKLP rel syr arm Ath Mac Chr Thdrt Orig-int, Did-int Ruf: 


txt ABCN 17 vulg(and F-lat) Syr sah ath Orig 


4. for 5¢, 5 B. 


5 Cyr Did-gr Bas Epiph Gennad lat-ff. 


5. for kat 0, o Se 17. 41. 73. 115-9 vulg D-lat Syr arm Eus Ath Epiph, Cyr Iren-int 


Orig-int Jer: om o A!: 


have been hitherto in ignorance of the 
matter.’ év tv. Veod—ev trv. ay. | 
The Spirit of God, or the Holy Spirit, is 
the Power pervading the speaker, the Ele- 
ment in which he speaks. So Schéttgen, 
on Matt. xxii. 43, quotes from the Rabbis, 
‘ David saw wI777 M73, in the Holy Spirit.’ 
Aadkdy A€yer| On the difference of 
meaning between Aada@, ‘ to discowrse,’ ‘ to 
speak, and A€yw, ‘to say,’ the former of 
the act of utterance absolutely, the latter 
having for its object that which is uttered, 
see note on John viii. 25. In all the 
seeming exceptions to this, AaA@ may be 
justified as keeping its own meaning of ‘to 
discourse :’ we may safely deny that it is ever 
‘to say’ simply. ava. Ino. ] Jesus 
(not Christ, the Name of office, itself in 
some measure the object of faith,—but 
Jesus, the personal Name,—the historical 
Person whose life was matter of fact: the 
curse, and the confession, are in this way 
far deeper) is accursed (see ref. Rom. note). 
So «vp. *Inc., Jesus is Lord (all that is 
implied in k¥ptos, being here also implied : 
and we must not forget that it is the LXX 
verbum solenne for the Heb. JEHovVAn). 
By these last words the influence of the 
Holy Spirit is widened by the Apostle from 
the supernatural gifts to which perhaps 
it had been improperly confined, to the 
faith and confession of every Christian. 
It is remarkable that in 1 John iv. 1, 2, 
where a test to try the spirits is given, the 
human side of this confession is brought 
out,—"Inooty xpiotby év capri eAnAvddta, 
—John having to deal with those who de- 
nied the reality of the Incarnation. Or 
also, as Bengel: “ Paulus prebet criterium 
veri contra gentes: Johannes, contra falsos 
prophetas.” 4—6.] But (as con- 
trasted to this absolute unity, in ground 
and principle, of all spiritual influence) 
Vou. II. 


txt is cited by Orig Thdrt, Damasc (ic Iren-int-mss Aug. 


there are varieties (in reff. 2 Chron. and 
Ezra, used of the courses or divisions of the 
priests) of gifts (xaptopata = eminent 
endowments of individuals, in and by which 
the Spirit indwelling in them manifested 
Himself,—the gavépwois Tov mvevparos 
in each man:—and these either directly 
bestowed by the Holy Ghost Himself, asin 
the case of healing, miracles, tongues, and 
prophesying, or previously granted them 
by God in their unconverted state, and now 
inspired, hallowed, and potentiated for the 
work of building up the church,—as in the 
case of teaching, exhortation, knowledge. 
Of all these gifts, faith working by love 
was the necessary substratum and con- 
dition. See Neander, Pfl. u. Leit. pp. 282 
ff.), but the same Spirit (as their Bestower, 
—see the sense filled up in ver. 11): 

5.] and there are varieties of ministries 
(appointed services in the church, in which 
as their channels of manifestation the xa- 
plouara would work), and the same Lord 
(Christ, the Lord of the church, whose it 
is to appoint all ministrations in it. These 
diakovlat must not be narrowed to the ec- 
clesiastical orders, but kept commensurate 
in extent with the gifts which are to find 
scope by their means, see vv. 7—10): and 
varieties of operations (effects of divine 
evépyerat: not to be limited to miraculous 
effects, but understood again commensu- 
rately with the gifts of whose working they 
are the results), and the same Gop, Who 
works all of them in all persons (all the 
xapicuata in all who are gifted). Thus 
we have Gop THE Farner, the First 
Source and Operator of all spiritual influ- 
ence in all: Gop THE Son, the Ordainer 
in His Church of all ministries by which 
this influence may be legitimately brought 
out for edification: Gop THE HoLy Guost, 
dwelling and working in ne. church, and 

iE 


578 {I1PO> KOPIN@OIOTS A. XII. 
pare Bem: pares eiaiv, Kal 6 avtos Oeds 6 ™ évepyav °Ta °? TavTa EV AB 


o = ch. viii. 6 


FL! 
al. fr, Pradow. 7 éxdotw € OidoTat 7 7 q pavepwars Tou med paros be 
ch. xv. 25. 

(Gatien) mpos TOS cuudépov. 8*@ pev yap dua Tod TEvpaTos Sie an) 
2C 2° 
Vays” Borae ™ Noyos ** codias, t d\Nw O€ “ Noyos “* yvooews ¥ KaTA 


r=ch. vi. 5. 
vii. 35. x. 11 al. s Acts xx. 20 reff. 
u = and constr., Acts xiii. 26 reff. vy=ch. ii. 6 al. 
xi. 6 al. y = ka€ds B., ver. 11. 


t usage, here only. see Matt. xiii. 4 || Mk. ch. iii. ty yer. 28. 
w Proy. xxx. (xxiv.) 3 = 2 Cor. 


6. rec o de avtos (corrn to express contrast. It can hardly have been altered to nat 
o to conform to the precedg clause, the first remaining ro Se), with AKLPX rel latt syrr 
sah arm Eus Epiph, Cyr Iren-int Hil, deus hie idem est copt; 0 avros de DF: txt BC 


m Orig. 


rec ins eat bef Geos, with KLN? rel (syr) Orig Cyr Thdrt Damase ic ; 


aft evepywy B; ins xpiotos bef Geos c: om ACDFPN? m 17 latt (Syr) sah arm Eus 


Ath Bas Chr Thl Iren-int Orig-int Hil. 
8. homeotel aAAw to aAAw next ver K. 


effectuating in each man such measure 
of His gifts as He sees fit. 

%7—11.] These operations specified in their 
variety, but again asserted to be the work 
of one and the same Spirit. 7.| To 
each individual, however (the emphasis 
on EKaoT®, aS shewi ing the character of what 
is to follow, viz. individual distinction of 
gifts. Sé again contrasted with the 6 
avzds of the last verse; though the work- 
ings of One God, One Lord, One Spirit, they 
are bestowed variously on each man), is 
given the manifestation of the Spirit (not, 
as Meyer, al., the means of manifesting the 
Spirit which dwells in him [gen. obj.]}: 
but, as De W., the manifestation by which 
the Spirit acts [ gen. subj. ]; it is a general 
term including xapiopata, Siaxoviar, and 
evepyiuara) with a view to profit (with 
the profit of the whole body as the aim : see 
reff.). 8—10. | It has been disputed, 
whether or not any studied arrangement 
of the gifts of the Spirit is here found. 
The most recent and best advocates of the 
two views are Meyer and De Wette. Meyer 
gives the following arrangement: ground- 
ing it mainly on what he believes to be the 
intentional use of érép@ 8€ as distinguished 
from GAAq@ 8é, and pointing out a new cate- 
gory:—I. gifts having reference to intel- 
lectual power : (1) Adyos codlas. (2) Adyos 
yvéoews. II. (érépw 5é) gifts, whose con- 
dition is an exalted faith (glaubens-bherois- 
mus): (1) faith itself. (2) practical work- 
ings of the same, viz. (a) iduara. (b) du- 
vduers. (3) oral working of the same, viz. 
mpopntela. (4) critical working of the 
same, the Sidkpiois mvevudtwy. ILI. gifts 
having reference to the yA@ooa: (1) 
speaking with tongues: (2) interpretation 
of tongues. To this De Wette objects, 

(1) that ¢ wév, érépw 5é, érépw 5é, do not 
stand with any reference to one another, 
but érép 5¢ is in each case opposed to the 
&AAq be which immediately precedes it, and 
followed by an GAAw@ 4€ similarly opposed 


om ta D}. 


to it: therefore neither can the one betoken 
the genus, nor the other the species. (2) If 
any thing could be relied on as marking a 
division, it would be the repeated kara rd 
avTd my., ev T@ avtT. wy., and the con- 
cluding mayra 5€ tadra ver. 11: but even 
thus we get no satisfactory partition, for in 
yer. 10 dissimilar gifts are classed together. 
(3) We must not look for a classification, 
for the catalogue is incomplete, see ver. 28. 
(4) The classification given is objectionable. 
Speaking with tongues is plainly more 
nearly allied to mpodyrela than mpod. to 
gifts of healing: and the two, tongues and 
prophesying, are subsequently treated of 
together. Besides which, Kling (Stud. u. 
Krit. 1839, p. 482) rightly remarks, that 
both didxpiois wy. and Epunveta yA. have re- 
ference to the understanding. I am in- 
clined to think that De W.’s objections are 
valid, as applied to a rigorous arrangement 
like Meyer’s; but that at the same time 
there is a sort of arrangement, brought 
about not so much designedly, as by the 
falling together of similar terms,—Adyos 
gop., Adyos yv..—yévn yAwooav, Epu. 
yAwooav. Unquestionably, any arrange- 
ment must be at fault, which proceeding on 
psychological grounds, classes together the 
speaking with tongues and the interpreta- 
tion of tongues: the working of miracles, 
and the discernment of spirits. I believe 
too that Meyer’s distinction between érépw 
dé and GAA» dé is imaginary: see Matt. 
xvi. 14; Heb. xi. 35, 36. 8.) yap 
appeals. to matter of fact, as the ground of 
the assertion in ver. 7, both as to the 8/50- 
Tat and as to the zpbs 7d cuudépor. 

@ pév... GAA@ 8é, a loose construction, 
os in ver. 28. Adyos codias .. . 
Adyos yveoews | What is the distinction ? 
According to Neander, copia is the skill, 
which is able to reduce the whole practical 
Christian life into its due order in accord- 
ance with its foundation principles (see Pil. 
u. Leit. p. 247) ;—yveots, the theoretical 


7—11. 


XN \ ome -~ 
TO auto Tvebua, 9 Erépw [SE] miates * év TO * avT@ * TrvEv- 
” be b , ce? / z2 Ra fivg / 
Hart, ANw oe» yapiopata © \aatov * év TO * Evi *TrvEvpATI, 
- , 
10 arr Sé Tévepyipata * Suvdpewv, dX Sé ! rpodytela, 
Yi * be 
adrw 6é § Svaxpioess » rvevpatar, érépw Sé iyévn * yrwo- 
o@v, AdrAw Sé lépunvela *yAwoodv: llardvta 8 tadta 


6. ch. xiii. 2 al. g Rom. xiv. 1. 
h = ch. xiv. 32. 1 Tim.iv.1. 1 John iv. 1. i 
{|| Mt.]. ver. 28. ch. xiv. 10 only. 


IIPOS KOPIN@IOTS A. 


3 Kings xxii. 21. 
(Acts iv. 6al.) Gen. i. 11, &e. 
xiv. 26 only+. Sir. prol. & xlvii.17 only. (-evecv, Heb. vii. 2. 


579 


z ver, 3. 

a see yer, ll, 

b ver. 4. 

¢ vy. 28, 30 
only. Jer. 
xl. (xxxiii.] 
6. (tacts, 
Acts iv. 22.) 

d ver. 6 only t. 

e = Acts vili, 
13 reff. 

f = Rom. xii. 

Heb. v. 14 only. Job xxxvii.16 only. (-Kptvewy, ch. vi. 5.) 

i= Matt. xiii. 47. Mark ix. 29 

k Acts ii. 4 reff. lch, 

-€VTNS, ch. xiy. 28 y. r.) 


9. om Ist 5¢ BD!FN? latt Syr Clem Orig, Eus, lat-ff: ins ACD?-3LPX3 rel syr coptt 


Orig, Eus, Ces Cyr-jer, Chr Thdrt, Did, Damase Thl, Hil, Aug,. 


DF latt Syr Clem Eus lat-ff. 


om 2nd de 


rec for ev, avtw (conformation to foregoing), with 


C3DFKLPN rel (syrr) copt Clem Chr Thdrt : txt AB a 17 vulg(and F-lat, but over F-gr 
eodem is written) D-lat Did, lat-ff—om ev tw ev mv. C! Eus, Tert, Cassiod. 


10. om Ist Se D!F latt Clem Hil,. 
al). divamews DF. 


evepyeta DF, operatio latt lat-ff(ot Aug, 


om de (2nd, 3rd, and 4th) BDF latt Clem lat-ff: om 
4th S¢ PN11 Ces: ins ACKLN? rel syrr copt Chr Thdrt Damasc. 
C(?)D1F PN! 17 latt Syr Clem Orig Bas, lat-ff. 

om a@ddw de epunvera yAwsowy (homeotel) BK dk. 


Starpiots 
om 5th d€ D?! latt lat-ff. 
Stepunveia (mistake 


occasioned by 8«? Tischdf [ed7 | says “ cf xit. 30; wiv. 5, 13, 27, 28”) A D1(adds yevn) : 
txt CDF KLPR rel Clem Ces Cyr-jer Chr Thdrt Damase, 
11. ravta Se mavta DF latt copt Orig Hil,. 


insight into divine things: and similarly 
Olsh. and Billroth. But Bengel, al., take 
them conversely, yvéo. for the practical, 
ood. for the theoretical. Both, as De W. 
remarks, have their grounds in usage: 
copla is practical Col. i. 9, as is yraous 
Row. xv. 14, but they are theoretical re- 
spectively in ch. i. 17 ff. and viii. 1. Es- 
tius explains Adyos codtas, ‘gratiam de 
lis que ad doctrinam religionis ac pietatis 
spectant disserendi ex causis supremis,’— 
as ch. ii. 6 f.:—and Ady. yveoews, he says, 
“ gratia est disserendi de rebus Christian 
religionis, ex lis que sunt humane scien- 
tiz vel experientie.” Meyer says, “ copla 
is the higher Christian wisdom (see on ch. 
li. 6) in and of itself;—so that discourse 
which expresses its truths, makes them 
clear, applies them, &c. is Adyos copias. 
But this does not necessarily imply the 
speculative penetration of these truths,— 
the philosophical treatment of them by 
deeper and more scientific investigation, in 
other words, yv@o.s: and discourse which 
aims at this is Adyos yrdcews.” This last 
view is most in accordance with the sub- 
sequently recognized meaning of yvaous 
and yvwortcds, and with the Apostle’s own 
use of copia in the passage referred to, ch. 
li. 6. Kata T. av. mv.] according to 
the disposition (see ver. 11) of the same 
spirit. 9.] awtortis, as Chrys.: mloriv 
ov TavTHY Aéywv Thy TeV SoypaTwy, GAG 
Thy TOV onpelwy, Tepl 7s pnow “Edy éxnTe 
mloti os KéKKoow. k.7.A. (Matt. xvii. 
20): kat of GardoroAot 5 wep) adtijs Aklovy 
A€yovtes TpésOes quiv miorw (Luke xvii. 
5). aitn yap untnp Tay onpuelwy eoriv. 

Pp 


Hom. xxix. p. 263. This seems to be 
the meaning here; a faith, enabling a 
man to place himself beyond the region 
of mere moral certainty, in the actual 
realization of things believed, in a high and 
unusual manner. év tT. avr. mv.] in, 
i.e. by and through, as the effective cause 
and the medium. Xapiopata tapdrev | 
gifts of (miraculous) healings; plur., to 
indicate the different kinds of diseases, re- 
quiring different sorts of healing. év, see 
above. 10. évepy. Suv. ] operations of 
miraculous powers (in general). 

wpodyteia] speaking in the Spirit. 
Meyer gives an excellent definition of it: 
“discourse flowing from the revelation 
and impulse of the Holy Spirit, which, not 
being attached to any particular office in 
the church, but improvised,— disclosed the 
depths of the human heart and of the 
divine counsel, and thus was exceedingly 
effectual for the enlightening, exhortation, 
and consolation of believers, and the win- 
ning of unbelievers. The prophet differs 
from the speaker with tongues ....in that 
he speaks with the understanding, not 
ecstatically: from the d:ddcnados, thus : 
—6 piv mpopntedwy mdvta amd Tod mved- 
patos pbeyyerat’ 6 5 SiddoKwv early brov 
kat e& oikelas Siadéyerou, as Chrys. on ver. 
28.” (Hom. xxxii. p. 286.) Sia- 
Kptoets mv.| discernings of spirits: i.e. 
the power of distinguishing between the 
operation of the Spirit of God and the 
evil spirit, or the unassisted human 
spirit: see 1 John iv. 1, and compare 
Mposexovres Tvevmacw mAavo.s, 1 Tim. iv. 
1. The exercise of this power is alluded 

P2 


580 IIPOS KOPINOIOTS A. XII. 


ver. 6. om. lal a A ‘ r a“ m7 
mee em M éyenyel TO ™Ev Kal TO “avTO Tvevdpa, ° Siatpouv ” idia 


n ch. xi. 5 only. ¢ \ a 
sever. ExaoT@O IKabws *BovreTar. 12% KabaTep yap TO copa 


o Luke xy. 12 
oul lo &v €or, kal *wédn TrodAa Exel, TavTa be Ta * Edy TOD 
(-pEgts; vv. , Nan ist ” > a oy ‘eae 
5, 6.) TMMATOS, TOAAA OVTA, EV ECTLY BWLLA, OVTWS KAaL O YPpl- 
, 5 > a 
atos. 13 Kal yap “év évi Trevpate Tues TavTEs * Els EV 
rn 7 cal vo 
capa Y éBatrriaOnper, elite “lovdator cite “EXXnves, * elite 
r , ‘ lal / 
x odor Welre ** ENevOepon, Kai TavTes Ev TEDW Y erotic On- 
ee 
iii. 9 only. 
1 Kings 11. 25 


v Acts viii. 16 reff. 

16. xix. 18. 

xvi. 9. Ps, Ixviii. 21. 
om To [bef év] D'F arm Orig Chr. om 1d:a (D1)F latt Syr copt (Orig) Epiph Orig- 
int Did-int Hil.—for d:a:pouy sd1a, Siepovumeva D}, om tdia F arm. 

12. om yap K a arm eth; d has it in red. for kat weAn, weAn Se D)(and lat) F 
Hip Hil Tich. rec exet bef roAAa, with DF KL rel latt syrr goth Chr Thdrt, Hil 
Ambrst: txt ABCPX m 17 Hip Thdart, Jer. HeAnAr(sic) &. ins ex bef tov 
cwu. D}(and lat) goth Hil Ambrst Tich. rec aft cwuatos ins Tov evos (gloss), with 
DN? rel goth Chr, Thdrt, Damase @e Hil: om ABCFKLPR? d vulg syrr copt arm eth 
gr-lat-ff. (17 def.) for xp., Kuptos C. 

13. om ev F. rec ins eis bef €v mvevya (appy to conform to the first member 
‘of the sentence), with D?KL rel vulg(and F-lat) Thdrt Vig : om (A)BCD!FPR d 17. 47 
am(with demid harl tol) D-lat syrr copt goth «th arm Ps-Ign Ath, Did; Chr Thl-comm 
lat-ff. for mvevya eroticOnnev, gwua ecuev A: for mvevua, moua af g | syr-mg- 
gr: mv. epwticOnuey L 21. 39. 116. 


p here only. 
2 Mace. iv. 34 
only. Xen. 
Cyr. vi. 2. 34. 

q = Markiv. 33 
Acts xi. 29. 
Num. xxvi. 54. 

r of God, Heb. 
vi.17. James 


~ U / 
14 Kal yap TO TOpma ovK Eat Ev ' wédOS, GNA TOAAA. 


Acts i. 5. xi. 16. 
Rev. vi. 15. xiii. 
Heb. vi. 9. Rev. 


t Rom. vi. 13 reff. 
x as above (w). 
y Rom. xii. 20 reff. acc., see Mark x. 38. Luke xii. 47. 
Winer, edn. 6, $ 32.5 


u Matt. iii. 11. 
Gal. iii. 28. Col. iii. 11. 
2 Thess. ii. 15. 


s Rom, iv. 6 reff. 
w Eph. vi. 8. 


to ch. xiv. 29. yéevyn yAwooav]| kinds Him, see ch. vi. 15. The yap confirms 


of tongues, i.e. the power of uttering, in 
ecstasy, as the mouthpiece of the Spirit, 
prayer and praise in languages unknown 
to the utterer,—or even in a spiritual lan- 
guage unknown to man. See this subject 
dealt with in the note on Acts ii. 4, and 
ch. xiv. 2 ff. Eppnveia yAwoody] the 
power of giving a meaning to what was 
thus ecstatically spoken. 'This was not 
always resident in the speaker himself: see 
ch. xiv. 13. 11.] The Spirit is the 
universal worker in men of all these powers, 
and that according to His own pleasure : 
see above on vv. 4—6. tdia, ‘seorsim,’ 
respectively, or ‘ severally,’ asE.V. This 
unity of the source of all spiritual gifts, 
in the midst of their variety, he presses 
as against those who valued some and 
undervalued others, or who depreciated 
them all. 12—30.] As the many 
members of the body compose an organic 
whole, and all belong to the body, none 
being needless, none to be despised; so 
also those who are variously gifted by 
the Spirit compose a spiritual organic 
whole, the pyitical body of Christ. First, 
however, vv. 12, 13, this likeness of the 
mystical Christ toa body is enounced, and 
justified by the facts of our Baptism. 

12.) The organic unity of the various 
members in one body, is predicated also of 
CHRIST, i.e. the Church as united in 


the preceding €v x. Td avtd mvedua, by an 
analogy. By the repetitionn—rd cdya, 
...+.+T0U odépatos ...,o@pma, the unity 
of the members as an organie whole is 
more strongly set forth. 13.] This 
shewn from our being baptized into one 
body, and receiving one Spirit. For in 
(see on ver. 9) one Spirit also (the empha- 
sis on évl mv., to which words «al belongs) 
we all were baptized into one Body, 
whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves 
or freemen; and we all were made to 
drink of one Spirit (or, ‘all watered by 
one Spirit, viz. the water of Baptism, 
here taken as identical with the Spirit 
whose influence accompanied it). So (un- 
derstanding the whole verse of baptism) 
Chrys., Theophyl., Ee., Riickert, Meyer, 
De Wette. Luther, Beza, Calv., Estius, 
Grot., al., refer the latter half to the Lord’s 
Supper: and this is mentioned by Chrys. 
and Theophyl. :—Billroth and Olsh. to the 
abiding influence of the Spirit in strength- 
ening and refreshing. But the aor. éro- 
ticOypev, referring to a fact gone by, is 
fatal to both these latter interpretations : 
besides that it would be harsh to under- 
stand even eis €v mv. émoric@. (see var. 
readd.) and impossible tqunderstand év tv. 
éxot., of the cup in the Lord’s Supper. 

14.] Analogy, by which this mul- 
tiplicity in unity is justified : it is evenso 


12—21. IIPOS) KOPIN@IOTS A. 581 
15 gay eltrn 6 Tovs "Ort ovK eit yelp, ovK “eit * ex TOD * things — 

, ae) \ a ’ zw z2 a , only. of pers., 
TwO"ATOS, OV * Tapa TOUTO OVK * ETT *EK TOV THMATOS ; Matt, xxvi. 
ohn i. 


Acts xxi 


\ \ Oech > > 1 ui 
16 Kal éav eltrn TO” ods “Ort ovK Eli OPOarpos, OvK * eit B, dce>s- 
zw z2 a y a= here bis 
éoTw *€k TOD ow- 


> fal ‘ \ fal 
7€K TOU TWLATOS, ou “Tapa TOUTO OUK only. Polyb. 
er \ lol > “ fal 
patos; 17 ef OXov TO CHa OPOarpos, “70d “axon ; e€ 


i. 32. 4, 
Tapa Tt voV 


drov 4 axon, ° Tod H Pdadpnors ; 18! vdv SE 6 Beds % EeTO yon 

Ta mérn, *év © Exactov adtav ev TO copate ' KaOds 7OEXH- 8.2 
cev. et dé hv [Kta] * ravta ev pédos, rod TO cHpa ; Tbe 
20 fpdp S€ moda pev pérdn, Ev OE cpa. 7! od StvaTas Se FEE”. | 


\ 5) a aA \ / 3, 0 49 
6 dpGarpos elreiv TH yeupi | Xpevav cov ovx léyo Hv oA 
rad  Kehar} Tots tocly |Xpelav tuadv ov« 1 éyw cailips., Rom. 
z Pp In xX o 2 a Bitches 
20. 


= 2 Pet. ii. 8. Xen. Mem. i. 4. 6. e here only +. f = Luke xi. 39 al. 
g = Acts xx. 28. ver. 28. Gen. xvii. 5. h Acts xvii. 27 reff. i ver. 11 reff. k ver. 6. 
I Matt. vi. 8. Luke y. 31\|. Prov. xviii. 2. m = 2 Cor. x. 7. 


15. for cori, emut(?) N'(but corrd). 

16. om ka D!. om ot: P. 17. ins 6 bef of@aduos DP}. 

18. ree vu, with CD°KLPX rel Chr, Thdrt Damase He: txt ABD!F 1 Thl. 

19. om ta BF 17: ins ACDKLPX rel. 

20. vurt FP 32. 47. 67. 80. 114 Chr, Thl. om wey B D'(and lat) 73.114 goth Aug. 

21. om de (as being in the way ? but it brings out a contrast to the unity just in- 
sisted on) ACFP dm 17. 47 fuld(and demid) Syr copt (Orig) Bas (Thdrt,) Jer: ins 
BDKLN rel vulg syr goth Chr Thdrt Damase Thl (Ze Ambrst Aug, Pel. rec om 


6 (absorbed in the opbarpos follg?), with K eh o: ins ABCDFLPN rel Orig Bas Chr 


Thdrt Damasc (ec Thl-comm. 


in the natural body,—which, though onze, 
consists of many members. The object of 
the continuation of the simile seems to be, 
to convince them that their various gifts 
had been bestowed by God on them as 
members of the Christian body, and that 
they must not, because they did not happen 
to possess the gifts of another, consider 
themselves excluded from the body,—in 
which the weaker as well as the stronger, 
the less comely as well as the more comely 
members were necessary. The student 
will remember the fable spoken by Mene- 
nius Agrippa to the mutinous plebs in 
Livy ii. 32. The passage is also illustrated 
by Seneca de Ira, ii. 31, ‘Quid si nocere 
velint manus pedibus, manibus oculi ? Ut 
omnia inter se membra consentiunt, quia 
singula servari totius interest: ita homines 
singulis parcent, quia ad celum geniti 
sumus: salva autem esse societas nisi 
amore et custodia partium non potest ’°— 
and by Mare. Antonin. ii. 1, where in his 
morning meditations on the duty of re- 
pressing anger through the day, he says, 
yevovapev yep mpos ouvepylav, as ddes, 
as xEipes, @s BrA€papa, @s ot oTOtXOL TOY 
tive kal Tay KaTw OddyTwY" Td ody ayTI- 
apdcoew GAAHAS, Tapa piaw. See also 
id. vii. 13: Clem. ad Cor. ¢. xxxvii. p. 
284: and other examples in Wetstein. 

15.] The ore is rightly rendered in E. V. 
because. ov Tapa T. K.T.A.] These 


words are best taken as a question, appeal - 
ing to the sense of the reader: they thus 
have more of the vigour of the Apostle’: s 
style, than taken affir matively. Tapa, 
see reff. ek T. o., belonging to 
the body as an aggregate 5 SO eis ek TOV 
d4dceKa,—joay ex Tav dapioalwv. The 
double negation strengthens,—see Winer, 
edn. 6, § 55. 9 b (he takes the two, in this 
case, as destroying one another [?], see 
ib. a). 17.| The necessity of-the 
members to one another, and to the body. 
Understand jy in each clause, which is 


indeed expressed in ver. 19. 18. 
vov 8é, but as the case really stands: 
see Hartung, Partikellehre, ii. 25. Ta 


#éAn, generally,—ev €xacrov avtayv, seve- 
rally. Kaas 7OEX. answers to Kabcs 
BovAerau, ver. 11. 19.] The same 
‘reductio ad absurdum’ which has been 
made in the concrete twice in ver. 17, is 
now made in the abstract: if the whole 
were one member, where would be the 
body (which by its very idea péAn exer 
TOAAG: see vy. 12,14)? 20.| Brings 
out the fact in contrast to ver. 19, as ver. 
18 in contrast to ver. 17. 21—26. | 
And the spiritual gifts are also necessary 
to one another. This is spoken in reproof 
of the highly endowed, who imagined they 
could do without those less gifted than 
themselves, as the preceding to those of 
small endowment, who were discontented 


582 


n Rom. v. 9, 
10 reff. 

o = (1) Matt. 
xvii. 25 al. 
(2) ch. iv. 9 al. 

p Acts ii. 30 
reff. 

q Acts xiii. 46 
reff. 

rch. iv. 10 reff. 

s Esth. i. 20. 

t Mark xii. 40. 
Luke xii. 4+. 
Dan. iv. 33 
(36) Theod. 


TIPO KOPINOIOTS A. 


XII. 


¢ cal cal r / 7 
22 GANA TOAAG ™ wAAXrov Ta ° SoKodvTA MEAN TOD TwpaToS 
> , Dene a7 Fae ys 93 1 a o§ a 
acbevéctepa ? UTrapyew IavayKaia éotw, * Kai & ° doKod- 
‘ lal , / \ 
pev * aTLmoTEpa elvalt TOD TwpaTos, ToUTOLS * TLD * TEpLC- .. 
r > 
cotépav “ qrepitiMepev, Kal TAY AoxXnWoVa HuoV * EvaXn}LO- 
avvnv * mepiacoTtépay Exel. 


24 ra O€ * evoyTMoVvAa Nu@V Ov 


‘\ \ Lal r 
Yypelav Yéye. GANA 6 Oeos *auveEeKepacey TO THpa, TO 


at , t / bs A / 95 vA \ 3 
u = here (Matt. UO TEPOULEV® TTEPpLOGOTEPav OUuS TLV, wa pf) 1) 


xxi. 33 || Mk. 

Xxvii. 28 

|| Mk., 48 || 

Mk. J.) only. 

(Ruth. iii. 3.) 

(-Oects, 

1 Pet. iui. 3.) 
y here only. 


° wepipvacw Ta MEAN. 


Xiii. 50 reff. (-Ovws, ch. xiy. 40.) 
39 only. a ch, i. 7 reff. 


only+. 1 Kings xxii. 8 Symm. 
ii. 17,18 only. L.P. Gen. xxi. 6 only. 


lal 4 
oylcpa év TH THpaTt, Ga TO avTO UTEp addndwv 
26 nal elte MacxeL EV pedo, ° oUV- 
Taoxyer TavTa Ta pédn* Elite © So€alerar [Ev] pédos, ‘ ovy- 
Deut. xxiv. 1. (-povety, ch. vii. 36. -“oovvn, Rom. i. 27.) w here only +t. 


abs., Acts ii. 45 reff. 
b ch. i. 10 reff. 


ch. x. 1] reff. constr. act., ch. vii. 32, &c. reff. w. trrép, here only. Ps. xxxvii. 18. 
e = here only. 


Polyb. x. 18. 7. x Acts 
z Heb. iv. 2 only+. 2 Macc. xv. 
c Matt. vi. 25 al. fr. 2 Kings vii. 10. plur., 
d Rom. viii. 17 
f Luke i, 58. xv. 6, 9. ch. xiii. 6. Phil. 


23. ins pean bef Tov cwuatos DF latt Damasc lat-ff; bef ewat 1732 


24. aft exer ins Tyuns D F-gr Syr. 
ovverepacev bef o Geos A wth: om o 6. syr. 


[adaa, so ABCDLN b e g mo. ] 
om To XN}. rec votepouvte (appy 


corrn to more usual N. T. expression), with DFKLN% rel Orig Dial Chr Thdrt Ge 


Thl: txt ABCN! 17 Melet(in Epiph) Damasce. 


mepitaotepoy dovs B(see table). 


for mepiocotepay Sous Timny, TL 


25. cxicuata DF LX rel fuld arm Bas Antch Damase Thl Aug, Sedul: txt ABCD? 3K 


fhlmo17 vulg(and F-lat) D-lat syrr copt Orig Ambrst Aug). 
epymseva, DEF Thi-marg. 


avra DF arm Orig. 


for To avTo, Ta 


26. for Ist ere, ec 7: BF latt syr arm Ambrst Pel Cassiod Bede: txt ACDKLX® rel 


vss Chr Thdrt Damase Thl (ic lat-ff. 


with their gifts. 22, 23.] Nay, the 
relation between the members is so entirely 
different from this, that the very dis- 
paragement, conventionally, of any mem- 
ber, is the reason why more care should be 
taken of it. understand by the 7a 5o- 
KovTa séAN Tov odpaTtos aobeverTepa 
imdpxew, those members which in each 
man’s case appear to be inheritors of 
disease, or to have incurred weakness. 
By this very fact, their necessity to him 
is brought out much more than that of 
the others. 23.]| So also in the case 
of the parts & doxoduev aripdrepa elvar— 
on which usage has set the stamp of dis- 
honour. Perhaps he alludes (as distin- 
guished from 7a aox7u. below) to those 
limbs which we conceal from sight in 
accordance with custom, but in the ex- 
posure of which there would be no ab- 
solute indecency. So Chrys., «ad@s eime 
7a Soxovvta, Kal & Soxodpev (but I should 
draw a distinction between the two, in 
accordance with the above explanation of 
acbevéor., and render 7a doxovvrTa, which 
appear to be, and & doxoduev, which we 
think: notice also imdpxew and eiva, on 
which see Acts xvi. 20, note) denmvis Ort 
od Ts pioews TAY MpayUdTwY, GAAG TIS 
tay mwoAAGv wbrovolas 7 Wipos. Hom. 
xxxi. p. 278. Tip. Tepioo. TepiTid. | 
viz. by clothing (garments of honour, as 


om Ist év A Orig,. 


om 2nd évy ABN}. 


the Targ. of Onkelos on Gen. iii. 21): 
honouring them more than the face, the 
noblest part, which we do not clothe. 

kal ta dox.| Here there is no 
& Soxotpev, and no ambiguity. Chrys. 
(ibid.) says: . . GAA’? Suws mAclovos arro- 
Aaver Tings: Kal of opddpa wevnres, Khy 
7d Aowmrby yunydy Exwor cOua, odK by 
avaoxowTo eKeva Ta pean Settar yuurd. 

24.] The comely parts are in some 
measure neglected, not needing to be 
covered or adorned: but (opposed to 
xpelay €xer) God (at thé creation) tem- 
pered the body together (compounded it 
of members on a principle of mutual com- 
pensation),—to the deficient part giving 
more abundant honour, 25.| that 
there be no disunion (see ver. 21) in the 
body, but that the members may have 
the same care (viz. that for mutual well- 
being) for one another. The verb is plur., 
on account of the personification of the in- 
dividual members (Meyer). 26.] «at, 
and accordingly, in matter of fact: wesee 
that God’s temperament of the body has 
not failed of its purpose, for the members 
sympathize most intimately with one an- 
other. TECXKEL... TUVTacyeEL| Kal 
yap Th mrépyn modAdKis mposmaryelons 
axdvns, bAov rd capa aigbdvera Kab 
epiva: Kal v@ros Kdumretat, Kal yaorhp 
kal pnpol ovoréAAovTa, Kal xeipes Kabdmrep 


22—29. IIPO> KOPIN@OIOTS A. 583 


27 c a dé > fal A \ Sete 
“! UMELS OE EOTE TWLA XPlLaTOU Kat & =F) eg oe 
© hch. xiii. 9 bis, 


. e ig 
28 kal ‘ods pév * EOero 0 Geos ev TH 


Yaiper TavTa TA MEAD. 


UA b] , 
edn 8" ex © wépous. 10, 12 only. 
l 2K Xr / a b] aN 6 UA mn / Soret) xi. 
EXKANTIA TPATOVY aTroaTONOUS, SEevTEpoV Tpopytas, Pri) 


Tplrov ™ didacKaXrous, erecta? duvapets, Everta Iyaplopata ; 6. ga, 
see note. 


q? , r2 M4 s f £ A) = 
lawatov,  avTidjprpets, § KuBepyynoes, P yévn ? yXwooor. ee te 


9 \ / / \ 4 an \ ce 
29 wn TavTes amocToNoL; pr) TavTes ™ mpodHtat; pn Piz}, PPh 
m Acts 
1. Eph. iv. 11. n Acts xi. 27 reff. o1Tim.ii.7. 2 Tim. i. 11. are 10, 


q ver. 9 (reff.). rhere only. Ps. xxi.19. Sir. xi. 12. 2 Mace. viii.19. (-AauBaveo@at, Acts xx. 35.) 
shere only. Prov.i.5. xi. 14. (xx. 18 F: Prov. xx. 14—22 is omd in ABN.) xxiv. 6 only. 


27. cwua bef ecre F Ambry. for mepous, meAous (perhaps error: perhaps, as 
Mey, ex pep. was not understood) D‘(and lat) vulg syr(uep. mg) arm Orig, Eus, Nys 
Epiph Cyr, Thdrt, Procl lat-ff(om ex we. Hil Aug): txt is supported by Orig, (and int.) 
Eus, Chr Thdrt Damase @c Thl. 

28. aft Tpit. ins de D!. ree for 2nd eme:ta, e:ta (corrn as more usual, follg 
ereita: the omn may be accounted for by a desire to throw all into one catalogue), 
with KL rel Thdrt @e Thl: om DF Hil Ambr: txt ABCN a 17 Bas Cyr-jer Chr Cyr 


Damase. 


dopupdpar k. banpérar mposidytes aveAkovet 
7d Tayéy, Kal KepaAryH emikdTTet, Kal OPOar- 
pol eTa TOAATS SpGar THs ppovtibos. Chrys. 
" p. 282. Sofalerar .. . cvyxatper} 
Chrys. again with equal beauty instances, 
orTepavouTa 7 Kepadn, kal amas 6 &vOpw- 
mos SokdeTar’ Aéyer TO oTdua, Kal yeAOoW 
OpOadrpmod kal edppaivovra (ibid.). But 
perhaps the analogy requires that we should 
rather understand 60é. of those things 
which physically refresh or benefit the 
member, e.g. anointing or nourishment. 

27.| Application of all that has 
been said of the physical body, to the Co- 
rinthians as the mystical body of Christ: 
and to individuals among them, as mem- 
bers in particular, i.e. each according to 
his allotted part in the body. ach church 
is said to be the body of Christ, as each is 
said to be the temple of God (see ch. iii. 
16, note): not that there are many bodies 
or many temples; but that each church is 
an image of the whole aggregate,—a micro- 
cosm, having the same characteristics. 
Chrys. would understand éx pépovs—érr 
q ekkKAnola 7 map duty pépos eat) Tijs 
TavTaXoD Kemevns exKAnolas, Kal TOU TH- 
Haros Tov dia TacGy cuvictapévov Tay eK- 
KAnoiéy (Hom. xxxii. p. 285): but this, 
though true, does not appear to have been 
here before the Apostle,—only the whole 
Corinthian church as the body of Christ, 
and its individual components as members, 
each in his appointed place. 28. | 
The divine disposition of the members 
in the spiritual body. ods péev was 
apparently intended to be followed by ots 
(or &AAous) 8¢, but meanwhile another 
arrangement, mptov, Sevt., Tpit., occurs 
to the Apostle, and ois yey is left uncor- 
rected, standing alone. See Eph. iv. 11, 
where rods uev is followed by tots 5¢, 


om yev7 X1(ins above the line &-corr'). 


regularly. év Ty éxwA.] in the (uni- 
versal) chureh, a sense more frequently 
found in the Epistle to the Ephesians, than 
in any other part of St.Paul’s writings. 
ap. atootédous] Not merely the Twelve 
are thus designated, but they and others 
who bore the same name and had equal 
power, e.g. Paul himself, and Barnabas, 
and James the Lord’s brother: see also 
note on Rom. xvi. 7. apod. | See 
above, on ver. 10. SiSackddous | See 
reff. : those who had the gift of expound- 
ing and unfolding doctrine and applying it 
to practice,—the Adyos copias and the 
Adyos yvdoews. Suvdpers] He here 
passes to the abstract nouns from the con- 
crete,—perhaps because no definite class of 
persons was endowed with each of the 
following, but they were promiscuously 
granted to all orders in the church: more 
probably, however, without any assignable 
reason; as in Rom. xii. 6—8, he passes 
from the abstract to the concrete. 
avTudjpwers | i.e. avtéxerOat Tay aobevay 
and the like, as Chrys. forming one depart- 
ment of the d:akovia: of ver. 5: as do also 
kuBepvyoets, a higher department, that of 
the presbyters or bishops —the direction of 
the various churches. -yévn yAwoody | 
eldes mov TéOetke TovT) TH Xapicpa, Kal THs 
TavTaxov Thy eoxXaTHY avTe veuer Taki; 
Chrys. p. 287. There certainly seems to be 
intention in placing this /as¢ in rank: but I 
am persuaded that we must not, with Meyer, 
seek for a classified arrangement : here, as 
above, vv. 7—11, it seems rather suggestive 
than logical: the xap. iau. naturally sug- 
gesting the éyr:Ajuvers,—and those again, 
the assistances to carry out the work of the 
church, as naturally bringing in the kuBep- 
vhoets, the government and guidance of it. 
29, 80.] Zhe application of the 


554 


t Acts ii. 4. 
x. 46. xix. 6. 
ch. xiv. 2 &c. 

u Luke xxiv. 
27. Acts 1x. 
36. ch. xiv. 5, t Aarovcw 5 
13, 27 only +. 
2 Macc. i. 36 
only. 
(-veuTys. 
ch. xiv. 28.) 

v=ch. xiv. 1, 
39 (xiii. 4 al.) only. 

vii. 13 reff. 


81. om Ist Ta F. 


Sir. li. 18. 


zch.iv.17. 1 Kings xii. 23. 


TIPO> KOPIN@IOTS A. 


w ver. 4 reff. 


XII. 30, 31. 


mavTes ™° didacKanrot ; un TavTes ® Suvdpers ; 2° wr) TaVTES ABC 
Iyapicpata Exovow Vliapatov ; pa) TavTes *yA@ooais be 
pn Travtes “ Svepunvevovow ; 

31’ ZnrodTe 6€ Ta “Yapiopata Ta *pelfovar Kal Ere 
YKaO ¥ brrepBornv 7 ddov byiv Selkvume. 


XIII. } day tats 


x = ch. xiii. 13. xiy. 5. y Rom. 


see Acts xiii. 10 reff. 


rec for meova, Kpertrova, with DF KL rel (-ccova DF &e) 


latt copt(appy) arm Orig, Sevrn-c Chr Damase, Phot Thl(otv« eiwe 7a weiCova GAAG TH 
kpelrrova): txt ABCN m 17. 73 am Syr (syr ?) eth Orig, Thdor-cat Thdrt-comm 


Damasc, Phot Jers. 
deck. bef vu F. 


questions already asked vy. 17—19. 

29. Suvdpers| not, as Meyer, al., accusa- 
tive, governed by €xovow—which involves 
a departure from the parallelism, besides 
the barshness of construction :—but xomi- 
native, in apposition with mdvtes. The 
Apostle has above placed the concrete, 
anréaToAol, Tpop7rat, 5:ddcKaAol, in appo- 
sition with duvduers and xapiou. iau., and 
now proceeds with the same arrangement 
till he comes to xapiouara iaudtwy, which 
being too palpably unpredicable of persons, 
gives rise to the change of construction,— 
Mh mavTes Xap. €xovew iaudtwy; In the 
last two questions, he departs from the 
order of the last verse, and takes in again 
one particular from the former catalogue, 
ver. 10. Meyer compares Hom. II. v. 
726—734. See Stanley’s note and excur- 
sus. 31.] But (he has been shewing 
that all gifts have their value: and that 
all are set in the church by God: some 
however are more valuable than others) do 
ye aim at the greater gifts (ue/(. is ex- 
plained ch. xiv.5). This exhortation is not 
inconsistent with ver. 11: but, as we look 
for the divine blessing on tillage and care- 
ful culture, so we may look for the aid of 
the Spirit on carefully cultivated powers of 
the understanding and speech ;—and we 
may notice that the greater gifts, those of 
mpopnreta and d:dackaAla, consisted in the 
inspired exercise of the conscious faculties, 
in which culture and diligence would be 
useful accessories. ‘Spiritus dat, ut vult 
(ver. 11): sed fideles tamen libere aliud 
pre alio possunt sequi et exercere, c. xiv. 
26.” Bengel. Compare also xiv. 39. There 
is thus no need to explain away (naAoire, 
as Grot. (“‘agite cum Deo precibus ut ac- 
cipiatis”) and others: or to depart from 
the known usage of xapicuara, and explain 
it to mean faith, hope, and love, as Morus, 
or the fruits of love, as Billroth. Kal 
ért| And moreover: besides exhorting you 
to emulate the greatest gifts. 

xaé’ in. 68.) An eminently excellent 
way, viz. of emulating the greatest gifts: 


om kat F old-lat Syr. 


for ert, ett D!: evar F. 


—so Theophyl.: kal wera todtTwy (rodTo 
yap Sndot Tb kal Er), eav bAws CyAwTtal 
imdpxnte xapioudrwv, Selim suivy play 
6d0v Kal brepBoAny, TovTéctiv, brepexov- 
cay, Tis héper éwl wavra Ta Xapiopata’ 
Thy ayarny de A€yet. Kad’ drrepB. | 
must not be joined with the verb,—‘ est 
adhue via quam vobis diligentissime de- 
monstro’ (Pagnini’s version, and some 
mentioned by Estius): see reff. and ef. 7 
paAwwTa avaryvepiois, Arist. Poet. ii. 6,— 
pada otparnydv, Xen. Hell. vi. 2. 39,— 
ed mpatis, sch. Agam. 262,—ocddpa 
yuvakav, Plato, Legg. i. p. 639 co, and 
other examples in Bernhardy, Syntax, p. 
338. The explanation of Estius and 
Billroth, that the way which he is about 
to shew them is ‘ multo excellentiorem iis 
donis de quibus hactenus egit’ (Est.), is 
clearly wrong: the opening verses of ch. 
xiii. shewing, that he does not draw a com- 
parison between love and gifts, but only 
shews that it is the only Way, in which 
gifts can be made effectual in the highest 
sense. See also on ch. xiv. 1. 

Cuap. XIII. 1—13.] Tur PANEGYRIO OF 
Love ; as the principle without which all 
gifts are worthless (1—3): its attributes 
(4—7): its eternity (8—12) : its superior 
dignity to the other great Christian graces 
(13). Meyer quotes from Valcknaer, p. 
299: “Sunt figura oratorie, quae hoe 
caput illuminant, omnes sua sponte nate 
in animo heroico, flagrante amore Christi 
et huic amori divino omnia postponente.” 
“Tt may,” he adds, “without impro- 
priety be called ‘a Psalm of Love :’”—the 
nvr wd of the New Test. (see Ps. xlv. 
title). ‘On each side of this chapter the 
tumult of argument and remonstrance still 
rages: but within it, all is calm: the sen- 
tences move in almost rhythmical melody : 
the imagery unfolds itself in almost drama- 
tic propriety: the language arranges itself 
with almost rhetorical accuracy. We can 
imagine how the Apostle’s amanuensis must 
have paused to look up in bis master’s 
face at the sudden change of his style of 


L 
¢ 
h 


0 
4 


XII. 1—3. 


TIPOY KOPIN@OIOTS A. 


585 


tyrwoooas TOV *avOporav ‘Aad Kat TOV * ayYédoD, 2° °h. v.92 


= 2 Cor. xii. 


ayarny S& pi exw,» yéyova © yarKos “Hyd 7 © KUUBA- Mixx vi. 


Nov * adranralov. 


2 Kav éyw Sapopyntelav Kal €id@ Ta 


\| Mt. xii. 41. 
Rey. xviii. 12 
only. Gen. 


/ lal FY lal Vi fal » Oo 
h wvoTHpia TavTa Kal Tacay THY yvooW, Kav * Exo TATAD 4 ihre ‘Luke 


ty eee o 1» lm fa) , peel ee, Se S37 
TV ~ TWhOTLY WSTE 0p? HPEGCLOTAVELY, AYATNHV OE 17) EXO, 


> / ’ 
" ovOév elpt. 
e here only. 1 Chron. xiii. 8. 
xii. 10. xiv. 22 al. 


i=ch. viii. 1. xii. Sal. Prov. xxx. (xxiv.) 3. 


m -dvewv, here onlyt+. (Luke xvi. 4. Acts xiii. 22. xix. 26. Col.i.13 only. Judg. x. 16 A.) 
i o Rom. xii. 20 only. constr., here only. 


vii. 19 reff. 


xix. 21. xxiv. 47. Heb. x. 34 al. Gen. xii. 5. 


xxi. 25 v. r.) 
only. Jer. 
XxvVii. (1.) 42. 


ay pape f yi S DP ten-4 4, (-X0s, Acts 

KaV Wrapicw TAVTaA Ta UTTAPYOVTa (ps, cre 
f Mark y. 38 only. 
(Rey. i. 3.) see Sir. xxiv. 33. 


Josh. vi. 20. g = Rom. xii. 6. ch. 


h Matt. xili. 11. ch. xy. 51. Dan. ii. 18 al. 

k Acts xiv. 9 reff. 1 Isa, liv. 10. 
n ch, 

Num. xi. 4, 18 al. p = Matt. 


Car. XIII. 1. homeotel in X! from pn exw to wy exw next ver: supplied by 


N-corr!. 
E-lat G-lat spec) eth Augaiiq Pel Bede. 


for yeyova, év exut D! F (addg 4%), [in] unum sum ut old-lat(viz, D-lat 


adadavwy AD d. 


2. rec (for Kav) kat cay (twice in this ver and twice in next), with DF K(1st «a: av) 
L(X) rel(om 2nd cay exw 47) Chr Thdrt Damasce, Ist (4th ca: av) B, 4th 17: txt AC, 


2nd and 3rd B, 1st 2nd and 8rd 17. 
ins ta bef mayta F. 


rel Orig, Chr Thdrt Damase (ce. 


wpeAounat A Ambr. 


for e1dw, ovda (= oda) F: 18@ AD!17. 47). 
peOioravat. BDFX-corr! m 17 Clem Thl: txt ACKL 

elz ovSev, with D'FK Clem, Meth Mac, Chr 
Thdrt: txt ABCD3LX& Clem, Eph Bas Mac, Damase ec Thl-comm. 


for Eli, 


8. elz Ywuitw (corrn, the force of the aor not being perceived), with K: txt ABCD 


dictation, and seen his countenance lighted 
up as it had been the face of an angel, as 
the sublime vision of divine perfection 
passed before him.” Stanley. Ti} 
éav AadG supposes a case which never 
has been exemplified : even if I can speak, 
or as E. V. though I speak. So Isocr. 
Areop. p. 142,—aAX’ ay ev katopidcwor 
mepl twas mpaters, 7 dia TUXNY, H SC 
Gvdpds apethy, mixpdy Siadcmdévtes maAw 
cis Tas avTas dmopias KaTéoTnoav. See 
Matthie, § 523.1. Tats yA@ooats T. 
GvOp. k. T. ayy. | dpa rébev pxeTas" mpaTov 
amd Tod Oavuactod SoxovvTos elvat Tap 
avrots Kal weydAov, Tav yAwooav. Chrys. 
p- 289. It is hardly possible to un- 
derstand yA@ooat here of any thing but 
articulate forms of speech: i.e. languages. 
Meyer and De W., who deny that the 
speaking with tongues was ever in an 
articulate language, vehemently impugn 
such a rendering here. But their own ren- 
dering is to me undistinguishable from it, 
as far as the sense is concerned: ‘ tongues 
speaking in all possible ways,’ surely, in 
the common acceptation of words, must 
mean, tongues speaking all possible lan- 
guages, and the use of the word indif- 
ferently for the tongue and @ tongue (a 
language), when this very gift is spoken of, 
e.g. Acts ii. 4, compared with 11, and here 
as compared with ch. xii. 30, is one of the 
strongest proofs that AaAciy yAdooais is to 
speak in languages : see note on Acts ii. 4. 
Of men (generic) and of angels (ge- 
neric): i.e. ‘of ail men and aii angels,’ 
whatever those tongues may be. 
ayatnv | Love fo all, in its most general 


sense, as throughout the chapter: no dis- 
tinction being here drawn between love to 
man and to God, but the general principle 
dealt with, from which both spring. The 
‘Caritas’ of the Latin versions has oc- 
casioned the rendering ‘ charity’ in most 
modern versions. Of this word Stanley 
remarks, “ the limitation of its meaning 
on the one hand to mere almsgiving, or on 
the other to mere toleration, has so much 
narrowed its sense, that the simpler term 
‘Love,’ though too general exactly to meet 
the case, is now the best equivalent.” 

yéyova| Iam become; the case supposed 
is regarded as present: ‘if can speak... 
I am become’ xaAk. Hx-] Brass, of 
any kind, struck and yielding a sound: i.e. 
avalaOntév tt Kx. &puxov. Chrys. No 
particular musical instrument seems to be 
meant. KvpBadov] xkiuBadra jv mAa- 
Téa kK. meydAa xdAKea, Jos. Antt. vii. 12. 3. 
The Heb. name is most expressive, Dy>x. 
There appear to have been two sorts, men- 
tioned in Ps. cl. 5, pow “yds and myn “s, 
rendered by the LXX, kupBdros edjyois 
—and k. GAaAayuod, as here. Winer 
thinks the former answered to our cas- 


tagnettes, the latter to our cymbals. The 
larger kind would be here meant. See 
Winer, Realw. art. ‘ Becken.’ ada- 


AdLov] see Ps. cl. cited above. 2.] 
Ta pvoTyp. wavta are all the secrets of 
the divine counsel,—see Rom. xi. 25 (note) ; 
xvi. 25,—and reff. The knowledge of these 
would be the perfection of the gift of pro- 
phecy. The verb belongs to both uvor. 
and yvéow. The full construction would 
be €16@ pvot. and éxw yvaou. TAA 





586 TIIPO> KOPIN®@IOTS A. XIII. 
asAcsxv. wou, Kav Imapase TO copa pov wa KxavOjocwpat, 
eos, ayarnv &é pi eyo, ovdev S@pedodpar. * 7 ayaTn ™ pa- 


Matt. xvi. 26. 
Prov. x. 2. 
t Matt. xviii. 


KpoOupel, “” xpnateveras, ) ayarn ov “ Gproi, [n ayary} 


26, 29. Luke 2 Si / 2 a 5 > ae a ’ 
xyiil. 7. OU TIEPTIEPEVETAL, Ov pua.ovTat, OUK ATKNLOVEL, OU 
1 Thess. v. 14. a “ PASE = a , ae ’ es 
Hed. vile. 9 Entel Ta * éauTHs, ov » mapokvvetat, ov © doyifeTar “70 roy- 
bie 8. ‘3 Pet d f Gite “ 2. a 63 8 / f D \ nm GeTaL, 
Beams 5 KQKOD, OU Yalpel €77b 7) a LKLa, GUY KXALPEL ry TT?) ABCD 
Proy. xix. 1]. (-s@ta, Rom. ix. 22. -wéws, Acts xxvi. 3.) u see Rom. ii. 4. 2 Cor. vi. 6. v here KLP, 
only +. (not found elsewhere. Lexx.) w Acts vii. 9 reff. x here only T. see note. y ch. iv. 6 reff. a bee 
z ch. vii. 36 only. Deut. xxv. 3. (-~oovvn, Rom. i. 27. -pwy, ch. xii. 23.) ach. x. 24. Phil. ii. 21. f gh 
io d Rom. ii. 9 reff. 


b Acts xvii. 16 only (reff.). c = Rom. iv. 8, from Ps. xxxi. 2. 


e constr. 
Lukei. 14. Acts xy. 31. ch. xvi. 17. »1mo1 


f ch, xii. 26 reff. 47 
F LN rel. Tmapadwow F. kavncoua DEL b? ¢ d fh k 47 Mac Max-conf: 
kavxnowuae ABN 17 copt-ms «th Ephr Jer(from gr-mss asserts apud Grecos ipsos 
ipsa exemplaria diversa esse, but thinks, 0b similitudinem ravOnowpa et Kavxnowpmat 
apud Latinos errorem inolevisse) : txt CK rel vss Orig Chr Thdrt lat-ff Jac-nisib. 
ov@evy AN 17.73 Bas-ms: txt BCDFKL rel Chr Thdrt. 

4. om 3rd 7 ayarn B a 17-9. 55. 73-4. 118-22! lect-17 vulg copt arm Clem Ephr Chr 


Matt. xviii. 13. 2 Cor. vii. 13. Proy. xxiv. 19. 


Thl Orig-int, Tert Cypr Ambrst Ambr. 
5. for ta eavTns, To wn eavTns B Clem. 


why mlotw hardly, as Stanley, implies ‘all 
the faith in the world,’ but rather, ‘all 
the faith required to,’ &e.: or perhaps the 
art. conveys the allusion to our Lord’s 
saying, Matt. xvii. 20; xxi. 21: ‘all that 
faith,’ so as, &e. 3.] The double 
accus. after WwutCw is found in the reff. to 
LXX: but here the accus. of the person 
is omitted, and left to be supplied from the 
context: If I bestow in food all my sub- 
stance. See the quotation from Coleridge 
in Stanley’s note. mapas. TO cop. 
p. tva kav0.] So ref. Dan., kal rapedwoxay 
7a chara avtaeyv eis eumupioudy, LXX. 
mop, Theod.: see also 2 Mace. vii. 37. 
He evidently means in self-sacrifice : for 
country, or friends. Both the deeds men- 
tioned in this verse are such as ordinarily 
are held to be the fruits of love, but they 
may be done without it, and if so, are 
worthless. Stanley prefers kavxhowpyar— 
and Lachmann has edited it. The objec- 
tions to it seem to me to be, (1) It leaves 
mapad@ standing in a very vague and un- 
defined meaning—‘ deliver, to what ?” 
(2) It introduces an irrelevant and con- 
fusing element, a boastful motive, into a 
set of hypotheses which put forward merely 
an act or set of acts on the one side, and 
the absence of love on the other: and in- 
deed, worse still, (3) it makes an hypo- 
thesis which would reduce the self-sacri- 
fice to nothing, and would imply the 
absence of love; and so would render 
aydrnv be pi) Exw unnecessary. 
4—1.] The blessed attributes of love. 
4.) paxpoOupet is the negative 
side, xpynoreverat the positive, of a loving 
temper: the former, the withholding of 
anger; the latter, the exercise of kind- 
ness. ov {ydot, ‘knows neither envy 
nor jealousy :’ both are included under 


mepropeverat A Ephr. 
om Ist Ty F. 


the more general sense of (jAos. 
mepmrepevetar| The word occurs in Cicero 
ad Attic. i. 14: ‘Di boni! quomodo émep- 
mepevoduny novo auditori Pompeio!’ and 
Mare. Antonin. v. 5: aperxever@at, Kal 
meprepeverCai, K. ToadTa pimTaferOar TH 
Wyux7. Among the examples in Wetst. of 
méprepos and meprépera, is a good defini- 
tion from Basil: ri éor 7d weprepederbat ; 
mav & ph dia xpelav, GAAG 51a KaAAW- 
miopov mepirsauBaverat mepmepelas Exet 
katnyoptay. And the Etymol. Mag.,— 
avtt Tov, paraovTat, araKkTel, KaTeTal- 
perat petra BAakeias emaipduevos. The 
nearest English expression would perhaps 
be displays not itself. See Wetst. 
gvo., see, for a contrast, ch. viii. 1. 
5.] ovK aoxnpovet seems to be general, 
without particular reference to the disor- 
ders in public speaking with tongues. 7a 
éavt7s—Love is so personified, as here to 
be identified with the man possessing the 
grace, who does not seek 7a €avTod: see 
ch. x. 33. ov Aoyil. Td Kakov | 
imputeth not (the) evil: ovdév rovnpdy ob 
pdvov ov katackevacer GAA’ ovdE Swomrever 
KaTa& Tov piAoumevov, Chrys. Hom. xxxiii. 
p- 804: and so Theod. Theophyl., Estius, 
Riickert, Meyer: and this is better and 
more accordant with the sense of AoyfCe- 
rat, than the more general rendering 
‘thinketh no evil” Andwe must not over- 
look the article, which seems here to have 
the force of implying that the evil actually 
exists, ‘ the evil’ which is,x—but Love does 
not impute it. So Theodoret, cvyywaéoner 
Tois éemraiomevois, ovx em) Kak@ oxdmp 
ravta yeyevijcba troAauBavwv. 
6. ov x. éwl TH 48.] rejoices not at (the) 
iniquity, i.e. at its commission by others, 
—as is the habit of the unloving world. 
ovyxaiper Tq GA.] Most Commenta- 


4—10. 


TIPO> KOPINOIOTS A. 587 


> / , . aK ‘ 
8 adnGecia, 1 ravta * oréyer, Tavta ‘1 mioTEver, TavTa® 7Go35 


éermiver, wavta * 


( / 8 | 4 > / > / 
uiropéver. % 2 ayamn ovdéTroTE 


, 12. Rom. i. 
TlTTEL. 18. 2 Tim. 


iii. 8. 


1 


Yj lal / » nan r} 9 
o- ™ elite OE rpodyTetat, °KatapynOjcovrar ™ eire P yAOooaL, » ch. ix. 12 


1 Thess. iii. 1, 
5 only+. 


- s / lal 
PK 1 qavoovrary ™ cite “ yvaots, ° KatapynOnoetat. %* Ex sinew 


fg™ wépovs yap yweoKkopev Kat * éx 


only. 


™ wépous * mpodynTEevope’ i ace., Acts 


xiii. 41 reff. 


m ixd \ ra s 2T} 
47 10 Gray dé EXOn TO *TédNELOV, TO TEx *pépous ° KaTApYN- PIO He 


3. Jamesi.12. Wisd. xvi. 22. 
note, and Acts xii. 7. Rom. ix. 6. 


xz, i. Exod. ix. 93, 34. 


7. B1 repeats mavta orevyet. 
8. om 7 B. 


xX. 32. xii. 25 


1 = Luke xvi. 17. 1 Kingsiii.19. éxm., = Jamesi. 11. see 
m so ch. xiy. 7. xy. 11. 2 Cor. viii. 23. n ver. 
2 (reff.). och. i. 28 reff. 2 Cor. iii. 14. 
rch. xii. 27 reff. 
20. Rom, xii. 2. Jamesi.4 bis. 1 John iy. 18. 


p Acts ii. 4 reff. 


q absol., Acts 
s ch. xi. 4, 5 reff. 


t = ch. ii, 6. xiv. 


Ps. cxxxviii. 22. 


rec exmimret, with CDF KLPN3 rel Clem Orig, Mac Chr Thdrt, 


Damase Cc Thi lat-ff: txt ABC'N! 17. 47 Nys Orig-int Ambrst Aug. om de 


C'D!FKP latt copt arm Did lat-ff: ins ABC?D?3LX& rel syr goth gr-ff. 
Kkatrapynonoeta: B: mpopynria katapyndnoovrai(sic) A. 


TpOPyTEla 
yooes [or -ots | karap- 


ynonoovta (to conform to the preceding clauses) AD3EX 17. 47 (Tert) : yv. mavoerar P. 

9. for yap, 5¢ ( perhaps because this sentence was regarded not as rendering a reason 
Sor the last, but as another assertion of the imperfection of knowledge and prophecy) Ki 
rel Phot(in He: 6€ avr) tod yap. aitla yop eort Tod Sia TL weAAOVOL KaTapy. K. Tava.) 
(Ee: om 67? goth eth Orig, Eus Melet Chr: txt ABDFX m (17. 47, e sil) latt Orig, 


Thdrt Iren-int Hil. 


10. rec ins tote bef To ex pepous (for emphasis and precision), with D?-3KL rel syrr 
Orig, Melet Chr Thdrt: om ABD'FPR 17. 47 latt copt goth eth arm Orig, (and int,) 


Kus, Ath Damase Iren-int. 
Orig-int, Jer. 
tors, as the EH. V., altogether overlook 
the force of the verb and the altered 
construction, and render, ‘rejoiceth in 
the truth? others, who respect the verb, 
make 77 dAn0. = Tots ebdox.podor (Chrys.), 
those to whom, as in 3 John 12, peuap- 
TUpyTa om avTis THS GAnOelas. But 
Meyer’s rendering is the only one which 
preserves the force of both words: re- 
joices with the Truth, 7 da7é. being 
personified, and meaning especially the 
spread among men (as opposed to ddicia) 
of the Truth of the Gospel, and indeed 
of the truth in general,—in opposition 
to those who (ref. Rom.) rhv GaAndeav 
éy adixia Katéxove1,—who (ref. 2 Tim.) 
aybictayTat TH aAnoela. - 
mavta,—i.e. all things which can 
be borne with a good conscience. So 
Bengel, of all four: ‘videlicet, que te- 
genda vel credenda, quee speranda et suf- 
ferenda sunt.’ oréyer| bears: see 
note, ch. ix. 12. Hammond, KEstius, 
Bengel (above),—‘ covers :? but the varia- 
tion in sense from ch. ix. is needless. 
mcr. | viz. without suspicion of another. 
édmif.| viz., even against hope— 
hoping what is good of another, even when 


others have ceased to do so. trop. |. 


viz. persecutions and distresses inflicted by 
others, rather than shew an unloving spirit 
to them. 8—12.]| The eternal abiding 
of Love, when other graces have passed 
away. 8. winter | The exact word is 
that of the E. V., faileth: so Theod.: ov 


katapynOnoetatbef ro ex wepouvs D!3F latt Syr goth 
va ex mw. EF Tren-int. 


SiacpdAdAeTat, GAN ael péever BeBala ke. 
dodAevtos Kk. aklynros, és del diauévoved. 
TovTo yop dia Tay emaryouevwy edidater. 
Of the two readings, we may illustrate 
mimtet by Plato, Phileb., p. 22 E, dAAd why, 
@ Sdxpares, fovye Sore? viv mev Hdovh 
co. wemTwKEevaL Kabamepel TANYEtoa rd 
Tay vov 6) Adywy: and Polyb. x. 33. 4, 
kiy mote wéan TH BAa, “in case the whole 
plan should fail:” id. i. 35. 5: and éximrer 
by Plato, Gorg. p. 517, ef obrot phropes 
joa, ore TH GANOwH PnTopiKh expavTo 
(ov yap bv ée&€mecov) ovTe TH KoAaKiKT: 
where Heindorf,—‘ proprie usurpatur de 
actoribus, cithareedis, aliisque, qui a spec- 
tatoribus exploduntur et exsibilantur:’ and 
by the celebrated passage in Demosthenes 
mepl ored. p. 315,—erpitayavioress, eyw 
& ebedpouy. eéémimtes, eyo F eodpittov: 
where also, by the way, émimres is a va- 
rious reading. By etre, etre, etre, the 
general idea, xapiopara, is split into its 
species— be there prophesyings,—be there 
(speakings in) tongues,—be there know- 
ledge. Chrys., al., understand the two 
first futures, katapy., wavo., of the time 
when, the faith being every where dis- 
persed, these gifts should be no longer 
needed. But unquestionably the time al- 
luded to is that of the coming of the Lord; 
see ver. 12, and this applies to all these, 
not to the last (yv@o1s) only. The two 
first, mpop. and yAdoo., shall be abso- 
lutely superseded: yvects, relatively : the 
imperfect, by the perfect. 9, 10.] 


588 


u gospp. and 
Acts, passim. 
Paul, Gal. i. 
10, 22 only. 
Neh. ii. 15. 
7nue0a, Matt. 
xxiii. 30 bis. 
Acts xxvii. 
37. Eph. ii. 3. 

y ch. iii. 1 reff. b 
Gal. iv. 1, 3. 

w absol., here 
only. Isa. 
axliy. 18. 

x = Rom. ii. 3. 

y Rom. viii. 5 reff. 

xii. 8. Sir. xxxix. 3. 
i. 32. Matt. xi. 27 bis. Jer. v.5. 
vi. 22. vii. 6,17 al. Job xxx. 1, 9. 


11. aft 1st ore ins de D? fuld. 


Onoerat. 


3 / £ Vv if 
“édpovovy ws * vnTrLos, 


c ’ , d 0 \ 
eTLyvocouat ° Kalas 
z James i. 23 only +. 


(absol., 


rel fuld syrr goth arm Orig Epiph Chr Thdrt, Thl (ic lat-ff; 1st time, m: 
vulg copt eth Clem Bas Nys (Did) Thdrt, Damasc Orig-int, Jer Aug,. 


IIPOS KOPINOIOTS 


11 6te "8 Hunv 


, A a 
yova avnp, °KaTnpynxa YTa TOU 
\ ” } ’ Zz aias. oJ a Dio Ld be db / 
yap apts dv *ésomtpou év *aiviypatt, ToTe O€ » TposwTrov 
‘ , 
mpos »mposwiroy' apts ywookw *éKx 
Wisd. vii. 26. 


b Gen. xxxii. 30. see 2 John 12. 
Acts ix. 30 only.) 


XIII. 11—13. 


Y wjrios, e€XaXovv @s * 
*éroyiCounv ws * 


Y pnqriov. 


r / , BY: 
HEPOUS, «TOTE O€ 


Kat © éreyvooOnv. 1 © pi bé 


Sir. xii. 11 only. a here only. Num. 
3 John 14. Num. xii. 8. c = Rom. 
d ch. xii. 11 reff. e Rom. 


rec ws yvnmos bef the verb (3 times), with DEFKLP 


txt ABN 17 
rec aft 


2nd ore ins de, with D3FKLPN? rel syrr copt eth arm Oxi igatia Meth Epiph Chr Thdrt 
‘ert: om ABD1!(and lat) 8! am(with harl! tol, agst fuld al) goth Orig.;, Did Hil. 


for Le eyevouny B Orig,. 
int, lat-ff. (not F-lat Aug.) 


12. om yap D!FP latt goth arm Clem Cyr Tert Cypr Ambrst. 
esomtpov D-gr b g o Syr syr-w-ast arm Clem, Thdrt, Tert. 


LP f 63. 109-78 Origen ape Hil Gaud,. 
X-corr!. 


Ta Tov ynmiov bef katnpynka DF syr goth Bas Orig- 


ins ws bef & 
ins kat bef ev awiypare 
in 2nd rote, te is written over the line by 


ins ey bef ay F D-lat G-lat tol Cypr. 


18. for vu Se eves, ever de F (utver) Clem Hil. 


Reason given ;—that our knowledge, and 
our prophesying(utterance of divinethings) 
are but partial, embracing but a part: but 
when that which is perfect (entire —uni- 
versal) shall have come, this partial shall 
be abolished—superseded. See Eph. iv 

11—13, where the same idea is otherwise 
expressed. 11.] Analogical illustra- 
tion of ver. 10. vymtos and TéAeLos 
are used in contrast ch. ii. 6—iii. 1; xiv 

20. éA\ddour, éppdvouy, edoyLopnv 
—I spoke, I felt (was minded), I Judged. 
There can hardly be an allusion, as 
Theophyl., e., Bengel, Olsh., al., think, 

to the three gifts, of tongues (2ada.), pro- 
phecy (éppdv., which suits but very lamely), 
and knowledge (édoy:¢.). Ste yey. 
«.T.A. | Now that I am become a man, I 
have brought to an end the ways of a 
child: not, as E. V., ‘when I became a 
man, I put away... ., as if it were done 
on a set day, and as if yéy. and Karhpy. 


were aorists. For this use of 67e, cf. 
Demosth. Olynth. 1, init. dre tolyuy 


Tavd otrws Exel, mposhKet mpoOtuws ebé- 
Aew akovew: see Kiihner, § 813. 2. 

12.) Contrast between our present 
sight and knowledge,—and those in the 
Suture perfect state. yap justifies the 
analogy of the for mer verse: for it is just 
so with us. Gptt, in our present con- 
dition, until the Lord’s coming. be 
ésomtpov, through a mirror: i.e. as 
Billroth, Meyer, and De W.—according to 
the popular illusion, which regards the 
object, really seen behind the mirror, as 
seen through it. We must think, not of 
our mirrors of glass, but of the imperfectly - 


reflecting metallic mirrors of the ancients. 
The idea of the lapis specularis, placed in 
windows, being meant, adopted by Schétt- 
gen from Rabbinical usage (e.g. ‘ omnes 
prophetze viderunt per specular obscurum, 
et Moses doctor noster vidit per specular 
lucidum’ { Wetst.]: and see numerous ex- 
amples in his Hor. Hebr. i. 646 ff.), and 
followed by many Commentators, is incon- 
sistent with the usage of és0mtpov, which 
(Meyer) is always a MIRROR (Pind. Nem. 
vii. 20: Anacr. xi. 2; xx. 5. Lucian, Amor. 
xliv. 48: see also reff.): the window of 
lapis specularis being 8tortpa (Strabo, 
xii. 2, p. 540). év aivtypatt| There 
is a reference to ref. Num., ordua kara 
oTéua AaAhow ate ev eYSer, kal ov Be 
aiviyuatwy. Many take the words adverbi- 
ally,—‘ enigmatically’ (so E. V.,‘darkly’): 
but this cannot be, because aiviyua is ob- 
jective, not subjective : ‘adark hint given 
by words.” I agree with Meyer, notwith- 
standing De Wette’s strong objections, in 
believing év aiviyyar: to mean ‘in a dark 
discourse,’ viz. the revealed word, which is 
dark, by comparison with our future per- 
fect knowledge. So also Luther: in einem 
dunfeln Wort. Thus, as M. observes, év 
will denote, as év t@ kputr@, Matt. vi. 4, 
the local department, in which the BAérew 
takes place. Tote = Stay Abn Td 
TéXevov, ver. 10: ‘ at the Lord’s coming, 
and after. Tpdswr. Tpds Tpdswrr. | 
Face towards face, i.e. by immediate 
intuition : so Heb, in reff. I shall tho- 
roughly know even as I was (during this 
life: he places himself in that state, and 
uses the aor. as of a thing gone by) tho- 


viyT 10s, ABDF 
, LPRa 
vyTrLOS* OTE vye- cdef 


hkla 
12 Brérropev 017.4 


XIV. 1—3. 


IIPOS KOPINOIOTS, A. 589 


/ / n see 
"uwever miotis EATS ayaTn, TA Tpla TadTa ® pelGwv Oé fF; "ed xii. 


bi 
TOUT@Y 1) wyaTn. 


1. see note. 
g =ch. xii. 31. 
xiv. 5. com- 

parat., Matt. 


XIV. 1» Arwxete tHhv ayarny, ‘&rovTe Sé Ta * vev-_ xii. 3. 


Luke ix, 46. 


/ lal 7 / € a -— 
poatika, wadrov é twa 'apodntevnte. 2 6 yap ™DaAAOY py Ron's. 


30 reff. Ps. 


Myooon ovK avOpw@mols Nadel, GAA [TH] Dew: oOvdEis . vaiiii. U4. 
1 


= ch. xii. 31. 


yap  axover, °Tvevpats dé Nadel P wvaripia: 3 6 b€!arpo- MEE 


reff. l ch. xi. 4, 5 reff. 
o=vy. 14,15. Acts xvii. 16. 


m ch. xii. 30 reff. 
p ch. xiii. 2 reff. 


Sir. li. 18. 
k= chix, dye 
n = Mark iv, 33. Gen. xi. 7. xlii. 23, 


Cuap. XIV. 2. yAwooas D-gr F-gr b o G?-lat arm Chr, Cyr Aug. ovx & 


(see Acts ii. 7 digest). 


avOpwrovs F (so in yer 8). 


om Tw [bef dew] (for 


conformity with avép.?) BDF PX! 1 Chr-comm: ins AD3KLN3 rel Thdrt Damase ‘Thl 


(ic. ovOis &. 
Vig Bede. 


for mvevmati, mvevma F-gr G D-lat am? with(fuld flor) Pel 


3. for o Se, ec yap o F-gr G; nam qui vulg(and F-lat) D-lat. 


roughly known. In this life we ave known 
by God, rather than know Him: see Gal. 
iv. 9; ch. viii. 3, note,—and cf. Philo de 
Cherub. 32, vol. i. p. 159, viv dre Caper, 
Kpatovpe9a peGAAov 7) &pxomev, kK. yvwpi- 
CéueOa warAAov 7 yvwplComer. The sense 
of this aor. éreyvéoOny must not be forced, 
as in E. V., to a present, or to a future, as 
by some Commentators. 13.] Supe- 
riority of Love to the other great Christian 
graces. Some gifts shall pass away—but 
these three great graces shall remain for 
ever—FAITH, HOPE, LOVE. This is neces- 
sarily the meaning,—and not that love 
alone shall abide for ever, and the other 
two merely during the present state. For 
(1) vuvi 8€ is not ‘but now,’ i.e. in this 
present state, as opposed to what has just 
been said ver. 12,—but ‘rebus sie stanti- 
bus,’ ‘que cum ita sint,’—and the inference 
from it just the contrary of that implied 
in the other rendering: viz. that since 
tongues, prophesyings, knowledge, will all 
pass away, we have left but THESE THREE. 
(2) From the position of pever, it has a 
strong emphasis, and carries the weight of 
the clause, as opposed to the previously- 
mentioned things which katapyn@joerat. 
(3) From ra tpla tatta, a pre-eminence is 
obviously pointed out for faith, hope, and 
love, distinct from aught which has gone 
before. This being the plain sense of the 
words, how can faith and hope be said to 
endure to eternity, when faith will be lost 
in sight, and hope in fruition? With hope, 
there is but little difficulty : but one place 
has inscribed over its portals, “ Lasciate 
ogni speranza, voi ch’ entrate.” New glo- 
ries, new treasures of knowledge and of 
love, will ever raise, and nourish, blessed 
hopes of yet more and higher,—hopes which 
no disappointment will blight. But how 
can faith abide,—faith, which is the evi- 
dence of things ot seen,—where all things 
once believed are seen? In the form of 


holy confidence and trust, faith will abide 
even there. The stay of all conscious 
created being, human or angelic, is depen- 
dence on God; and where the faith which 
comes by hearing is out of the question, 
the faith which consists in trusting will be 
the only faith possible. Thus Hope will 
remain, as anticipation certain to be ful- 
filled: Faith will remain, as trust, entire 
and undoubting :—the anchor of the soul, 
even where no tempest comes. See this 
expanded and further vindicated in my 
Quebec Chapel Sermons, Vol. i. Serm. 
viii. pe(Lov +.] The greater of 
these,—not ‘greater than these” “The 
greater,” as De Wette beautifully remarks, 
“because it contains in itself the root of 
the other two: we believe only one whom 
we love,—we hope only that which we 
love.” And thus the forms of Faith and 
Hope which will there for ever subsist, will 
be sustained in, and overshadowed by, the 
all-pervading superior element of eternal 
Love. 

Cuap. XIV. 1—25.] Demonstration of 
THE SUPERIORITY OF THE GIFT OF PRO- 
PHECY OVER THAT OF SPEAKING WITH 
TONGUES. 1.] Transition from the 
parenthetical matter of the last chapter to 
the subject about to be resumed. Pursue 
after Love (let it be your great aim,—im- 
portant and enduring as that grace has been 
shewn to be): meantime however (during 
that pursuit ; making that the first thing, 
take up this as a second) strive for spiritual 
gifts, but more (more than 7». in general: 
i.e. more for this than for others) that ye 
may prophesy (se. (nAodre, va... as the 
aim of your (7Aos). 2—20.] Pro- 
phecy edifies the BRETHREN more than 
speaking with tongues. 2.] For he 
that speaks in a tongue, speaks not to 
men but to God; for no one understands 
him (so a@xovw in reff. and Athen. ix. p. 
382, Zrcyev phuata & ovdé eis rovcev 


590 


= Rom. xiv. 
19 reff. 

r = Rom. xii. 
8 reff. 

s here only t. 
Wisd, xix. 
12 only. 
'-O.ov, 
Phil. i. 1. 
-Geto bat, 

1 Thess. ii. 
11.) ee 

t = Actsix.31 Y Ey 
reff. 

u = ch. xii. 31. 
xiii. 13. 

v ch. xv. 2. 


1 Tim. v. 19 only. w ch. xil. 30 reff. 


4. for AaAwv, AaAe: F(G adds aut Aadwyv). 


TTPO KOPINOIOTS A. 


mV. 


pytevov avOpwTrois are VoiKkodounv Kai * TapaKkAnow ABDI 

\s bi. 46 ™)aro m ro e Ve ee 8 a aon 
kai* rapapv0iay. 46 ™dadrdv™ yAwoon EavTor * oiKodopel, oa & 
6 6¢! rpodntrevov éexxrAnalav * oikodopel. 
beads ™Dareiv ™yhoooas, “addov 6é iva 'rpopntednte 
« weiCwv b& 0! rpodyntevar 7) 6 ™ NaX@v ™ yAWaaaLs, Y ExTOS 
pn) “ Suepunvedy, va H éxxAnola 4 oiKxodounvy AaBn. 

rf , ’ \ ¢ lal , cal 

6 Xypp dé, adeAdol, av EANOw Tpos Vas ™yroOcaais ™ AaAOY, 


x ch. xii. 18 al. 


yAwooats D 46 arm Mae. aft 


exkAno.ay ins deov F-gr G vulg-ed(not am demid fuld tol F-lat) Pel Bede. 


5. vuas bef ravras A Ambrst. 


kk}, for wa mpopntevnte, mpopytevery D1 vulg Jer Pel Bede. 


yAwooats bef AaAey Aam Chr Thi: om AadAew 


rec (for de aft 


perCwv) yap, with DFKLN% rel vss Chr Thdrt Jer Ambrst: txt ABPR! 39 copt. 


add eorw F. 


diepunvever (the later mss confound « and n to a very great extent : 


see the original collations passim) Ku abe dfghk1lo47 Chr Thi: d:repunvevav 


D!, 7 o dcepunvevwy F-gr(and G-gr). 


6. rec vurt, with DKL rel Chr Thl Ge: txt ABD!FPX Chr-ms Thdrt Damase. 


tiv, i.e. as a general rule, the assembly do 
not understand him; some, who have the 
gift of interpretation of tongues, may, — 
but they are the exception), but (opposed 
to oddels yap akover) in the spirit (in his 
spirit, as opposed to in his understanding : 
his spirit is the organ of the Holy Ghost, 
but his understanding is unfruitful, see vv. 
14, 15) he speaks mysteries (things which 
are hidden from the hearers, and sometimes 
also from himself) : 3.] but (on the 
other hand) he who prophesies, speaks 
to men edification (genus) and (species) ex- 
hortation and (species) consolation. See 
the definition of prophecy given on ch. xii. 
10: and Stanley’s excursus introductory to 
this chapter. mapapv0ia occurs Plato, 
Axioch. p. 365,—d00ev7) tiv Wuxthy, wavy 
évde& mapauvilas: and ASlian, V. H. xii. 
1, fin., wapewv0hoaTto “Aptatéptny, x. 7d 
Tis UTS idoaTo TA90s, el~avTos TOU Bac. 
Th Kndcuovla, k. TH Tapapv0la weiaOEvTos 
ouvEeTa@s. 4.| éavr. oik. does not 
necessarily involve his understanding what 
he speaks: the exercise of the gift in ac- 
cordance with the prompting of the Spirit 
may be regarded as an oikodouh: the in- 
tensity of the feeling of prayer or praise in 
which he utters the words is edifying to 
him, though the words themselves are un- 
intelligible. This view is necessary on ac- 
count of what is said in ver. 5, that if he 
can interpret, he can edify not only himself 
but the church. éx«Anotay| not, as 
Meyer, a congregation, but = Thy éxkAn- 
olay: the art. being often omitted when a 
noun in government has an emphatic place 
before the verb: accordingly in ver. 5, it 
is 7 éxkA. which is edified. 5.] He 
shews that it is from no antipathy to or 
jealousy of the gift of tongues that he thus 


speaks: but (force of the 8é) that he wished 
them all to speak with tongues, but rather 
that they should prophesy. The distine- 
tion between the acc. and inf. after @éAw, 
as the simple direct object of the wish, 
and iva with the subj., as its higher and 
ulterior object, has been lost in the E. V. 
The second 6€ is opposed to the subordinate 
Aad. yA., as in ver. 1 to Ta mvevpaTiKd. 
petlov 82] dé is transitional. 

petCwav | see reff.,—superior in usefulness, 
and therefore in dignity. éxTos et py 
is a mixture of two constructions, éx7ds et, 
and ef uy. It is not a Hebraism, as Grot. 
supposes; Wetst. gives examples from 
Demosth., Aristides, Lucian, Sextus Empi- 
ricus: and from Thom. Mag., dauev, éxrds 
ei ur) T4de, Kal exTds Ei THde. Steppy- 
vevy) |] viz. 6 AaA@y yAdoon, not Tis, as 
suggested by Flatt. On the subj. with ei, 
giving a sense not distinguishable from the 
ind., see Winer, edn. 6, § 41. b. 2 end, and 
Herm., on Soph. Ant. 706. 6.) Hxram- 
ple of the unprofitableness of speaking with 
tongues without interpreting,—expressed 
in the first person as of himself. viv 
8] ‘quod cum ita sit’—viz. that there is 
no edification without interpretation. 

éav €AOw| Chrys. understands the first 
person to imply ‘not even Z myself should 
profit you,’ &e. But then airds éeyé or 
some expression similarly emphatic would 
have been used. The second édy is pa- 
rallel to the first, not dependent on awe- 
Ahow. It is the negative side of the sup- 
position, as éav €A@w k.7.A. was the affirma- 
tive. On this double apodosis Hermann 
remarks, Soph. Aj. 827,—‘ Est enim hie 
verborum complexio ex eo genere, cujus 
jam apud Homerum exempla inveniuntur, 
quod duplicem habet apodosin, alteram 


5 PéX\w 6€ Travtas 017. 


4—9, 


ig a > , XN a 
TL UMaS wheEdIjow, edv pr Duiv Nadjow 1) Y ev * atroKanv- 


IIPO> KOPIN@IOTS A. 


591 


y ch. ii. 7, 13. 
Matt. xiii. 3. 


Xx > a ’ Xv ’ f x an ny 26. 
ret ) Yev *yveOcer 1) Y ev * mpopnreia i) Y ev » dvdayh 3 * zor xii 


id X ” \ 
Tous Ta 1 auya dwvi ° Siddvta, felre & adrOs ‘elre 
h 0 / 2\ ig \ al k “ \ an fal a0 
KiGapa, éav idstactory Tots Boryryous 60, Tas *: 
~ ce head : hea pay © O@, 
yrwotnceTar TO “avNoupevov 7) TO ™ KLOapilopevov ; § Kab 
bt \ Yi , al 
yap €av "adyrov °dwviy °acdrmyE °8o, tis P Tapa- 
/ ¢ a n 
oKevadceTar els TOAGUMOV; 9 oUTwS Kal mets Sia THS 


Sir. xi. 
27 al.) 

. ach. xili. 2 
(reff.). 

b Acts ii. 42 
reff, 

e John xii. 42. 
Gal, iii. 15 
only. 2 Mace. 


, qa 2h as eet 2 t e an a 7 xv. 5. F 
yAwoons Ieav pn * evVonmov Aayov © OTe, TAS yvocGn- 4 here oulyit~ 


6 r 
GEeTAL TO NaAovVpEVoY; éceabe yap eis § aépa NadobvvTes. 


29. Isa. xiii. 10. xa SiSodoa OdpuBov, Eur. Hee. 1093. 
only. 1 Kings x.5al. (-An77s, Matt. ix. 23.) 


i Rom. x. 12 reff. 
17 || L. only +. 


1 Tim. vi. 17.) 
x. 10. 2 Cor. ix.2,3 only. Jer. xii, 5. 
only}. Ps. lxxx. 3 only. 


up P. om Ist # 8 ¢ 17 syr copt. 

om 2nd ev: am harl? F-lat D-lat om 3rd.) 
7. wn bef diaotoAny +. P0oyy. DIF. 

arm Ambrst. 


Chr Ce. yvroo0n (for -@ncera) DF, 


8. cadr. bef pwvny APN 17.119 coptt Orig. 


9. for evonuor, evexnpov D} 21-32. 80. 


premissam, sequentem alteram: que ratio 
ibi maxime apta est, ubi in magno animi 
motu, quasi non satis sit id quod preemissum 
est, aliud infertur secunda apodosi, quod 
gravius sit et fortius.’ 7 év Gtrox. .. ..] 
It seems best here, with Estius, to under- 
stand ‘duo juga, ut conjugata sint reve- 
latio et prophetia, ac rursus conjugata 
scientia et doctrina.’” So also Meyer, who 
observes that the ground of mpopnreta is 
amoxdAuis, and that of Sidax7, yvaors: 
the former being a direct speaking in the 
Spirit, and the latter a laying forth by the 
aid of the Spirit of knowledge acquired. 
Thus év, as referred to amok. and yvac., 
denotes the internal element :—as referred 
to mpop. and 8:5., the external element, of 
the spiritual activity. _ 7—11.] Instances 
to shew that unintelligible discourse profits 
nothing. And first,—7—9. | from musical 
instruments. 7.| Sp@s occurs here 
and in the two other places where it is used 
in the N. T. (reff.) at the beginning of the 
sentence, out of its logical order, which 
would be before éay diacToA}y . ., thus: 
Things without life which yield sound, 
whether flute or harp, yet, if they do not, 
&e. The renderings, ‘ even things with- 
out life’ (E. V.), or ‘ things which, though 
without life, yet give sound’ (Winer, edn. 
6, § 61.5. f), are inadmissible,— the former 
because of the usage of Guws, the latter 
because no such idea as any surprise at a 
thing without life yielding sound is here 
in place. dov. 818.| so di50u pevay 


k Rom. x. 18 only, from Ps. xviii. 4. 
m Rey. xiv. 2 only. x 
1. 6 [8]). 2 Mace. vii. 34 only. Polyb. viii. 3. 2, adyAoe éAmises, and al. 


o Matt. xxiv. 31. Rev. i. 10. viii, 13. 


Wisd. xiii. 
17. xiv. 29 
only. 

e = Matt. xxiv. 
f ch. xiii. 8 reff. g here 
h Rey. y. 8. xiv. 2. xv. 2 only. Gen. iv. 21 al. 
Wisd. xix. 18 only. 1 Matt. xi. 
n = here (Luke x. 44) only. (Ps. 
(-Aws, ch. ix. 26. -AdTns, 

Exod. xix. 16, 19. 
q arrangt. of words, 2 Cor, ii. 4 reff. 


Isa. xxiii. 16. 


p Acts 
t here 


s ch, ix. 26 reff. 


om last ev D1 FX? b tot harl?. (2m D-lat 


for trois pOoyyos, POcyyov B tol D-lat 


Sid D°FLP rel Thdrt Damase Thi: dwre K: txt ABDIX f Orig 


dey D}. mapackevaterar A Orig. 
for dwre, dw L. 


Pind. Nem. v. 93. éav Staor.] If 
they (the auxa ¢. 5.) shall not have 
yielded a distinction (of musical inter- 
vals) in their tones, how shall be known 
that which is being played on the flute 
or that which is being played on the 
harp (i.e. what tune is played in either 
case: the art. being repeated to shew 
that two distinct instances are contem- 
plated, not necessarily ‘one tune, either 
piped, or harped’? = 7d avdAotuevov 7 
KOapiCduevoyv;)% The observation of 
Meyer, that this example is decisive against 
foreign languages being spoken in the 
exercise of this gift, is shewn to be irre- 
levant by the next example, from which 
the contrary might be argued—the &yAos 
gwvy of the trumpet being exactly analo- 
gous to an unknown language, not to an 
inarticulate sound. But the fact is that 
all such inferences, from pressing analo- 
gies close, are insecure. 8.] adnAoyv, 
uncertain, in its meaning: for a particular 
succession of notes of the trumpet then, 
as now, gave the signals for attack, and 
retreat, and the various evolutions of an 
army. The giving the signal for battle with 
the trumpet is called by Dio Cassius 7d 7o- 
Acuikdoy Body, by Allian 7d mapopunrixdy 
éumveiv: see Wetst., where many examples 
are to be found. 9.] Application of 
these instances. Sua T. yAooons is 
most naturally understood physically, by 
means of your tongue, as answering to the 
utterance of the sound by the musical in- 


592 


tch. xv. 37. 
only. Philo 
de Mut. 
Nom. 26, vol. 
i. p. 600, 
MoUCLKGa EV 
yap, €t 
TUXOL, K. 
yPpawpar- 
Korea 

(Dion. Hal. 
iv. 19, pupiwv » Susmup., el THXOL...- 

u = ch. xii. 10 reff. v = here only. 


ovdev Y apwvov" 


€uot * BapPBapos. 


TIPOS KOPINOIOTS A. 


XIV. 


10 ee t * £ / u , lal ? ’ / A 
TooavTa, tei tTvyo1, “yévn hwvav eiow ev KOT, Kal 

ll 3\ Ss \ oa \ Ww Sy r 
€av ovv pn €l0@ THv * dvvapw TiS 

a ” lel a x / « \ e a ? 

dwrijs, €couart T® NadovvtTt * BapBapos, Kat 0 Nad@v ¥ ev 

12 ef \ c al b] d Z vw 

2 otTws Kat vpeis eet * &AwTal EaTE 

a u b ‘ \ be > } \ fol 3 ‘ 
mvevpatwv, »apos THY “oikodouny THs EexKAnolas &y- 


Galen. de mural part. vi., b€xa wev, et TUXOL. Wetst.) see ch. xvi. 6. 
(Acts viii. 32 re 


-) w = here only. Numb. vi. 21. Dion. 


Hal., Antt. i. 68, 700 7 uyjmw ypaupatos evpnuevou, TH § SnAody 7. exetvov Svvautv T. TaAatovs. Dio 


Cass. ly. 3, TOLOUTOV yap 7 SUvauts TOU OVOMaTOS TOVTOV SyAot. 
a = ch. xii. 10 reff. 


xi. 25. z Acts xxi. 20 reff. 


10. om rogavra D} F(with G-lat). 


note), with KL rel Chr Thdrt 2c: txt ABDFPN 47 Clem Damase Thl. 
bef koouw DF b o, hoe vulg-ed(and F-lat, not am) Ambrst Bede. 


= Rom. 
c Rom. xiv. 19 reff. 


x Acts xxviii. 2, 4 reff. 
b = Rom. xy. 2. 


ree (for evaw) eat (gramml corrn: see 
ims Tw 
rec aft ovdev ins 


autwy (addn for precision), with D?KLN% rel G-lat syrr Chr Thdrt : om ABD'FPR'd17 


vulg E-lat coptt arm Clem Damase Ambrst Bede. 
wo AD!Lam17: ywworw F. (si ergo nesciero F-lat, and 
om last clause (hom@ote!) L a’. 


ll. for cay, ex P. 
so vulg.) 


aft apwvoy ins ectw D'F yulg. 


om ev DF latt syrr copt arm 


Clem Chrexpr(o e401 Aad. Bap.) Damase lat-ff. 


struments. But the technical rendering, 
by means of the tongue (in the sense of 
yAdoon Aadetv), is allowable. éveobe 
. . . Aad.] This periphrasis of the future 
implies, ye will be, so long as ye speak, 
speaking, ... Oneis dépa, see ref.: it 
implies the non-reception by hearers of 
what is said. 10, 11.] Another ex- 
ample of the unprofitableness of an utter- 
ance not understood. 10.] ei tvxor, 
if it should so happen, i.e. peradventure: 
—it is commonly found with numerical 
nouns; but sometimes with hypothetical 
sentences in general, as in ch. xv.37. See 
reff. and examples in Wetst. It will not 
bear the rendering ‘for example,’ though 
in meaning it nearly approaches it. It 
belongs here to tooavra, itself represent- 
ing some fixed number, but not assignable 
by the information which the writer pos- 
sesses, or not worth assigning. See similar 
expressions, Acts v. 8,—and 2 Sam. xii. 8 
in E. V. yévn pwvev| kinds of lan- 
guages: the more precise expression would 
be yévn ¢wvijs, or gwvai: we can hardly 
say, with Meyer, that each language is a 
yévos pwvav. The use of dwvay, and not 
yAwooGy, is no doubt intentional, to avoid 
confusion, yA@ooa being for the most part 
used in this passage in a peculiar meaning : 
but no argument can be grounded on it 
as to the yA@ooa being languages or not. 

eioty (plur.), because it is wished to 
distinguish them in their variety. ov- 
Séy, scil. yévos. Bleek renders, ‘no ratio- 
nal animal is without speech ;? and Grot., 
reading as the rec. a’va@y, understands it as 
referring to men: others supply €@vos to 
ovdev. But the common rendering is both 
simpler, and better sense: none of them 
is without signification, as E. V.: or, is 
inarticulate. = 11.] otv, seeing that none 


is without meaning: for if any were, the 
imputations following would not be just. 
We assume that a tongue which we do not 
understand has a meaning, and that it is 
the way of expression of some foreign 
nation. BdapBapos,—a foreigner, 
in the sense of one who is ignorant of the 
speech and habits of a people. So Ovid, 
Trist. v. 10,—‘ Barbarus hice ego sum, quia 
non intelligor ulli: and Herod. ii. 158,— 
BapBdpous 5€ mavtas of Aiydmtio: Kadé- 
ovat Tovs uh ogiat duoyAdaaous. (Wetst.) 
The appellation always conveyed a certain 
contempt, and such is evidently intended 
here. So Ovid, in the next line,—‘ Et rident 
stolidi verba Latina Gete.’ év épot, in 
my estimation: so Eurip. Hippol. 1335, 
ov 8 &v 7 exelvm Kav euol palyn Kakds,— 
‘in his judgment and in mine:’ see Kiihner, 
li. 275. 12.] Application of the ana- 
logy, as in ver. 9. The otrtws is evidently 
meant as in ver. 9, but is rendered some- 
what difficult by the change of the construc- 
tion into a direct exhortation. It is best 
therefore to suppose an ellipsis; and give to 
otrws the pregnant meaning, after the 
lesson conveyed by this example. Meyer's 
rendering, stnce in such a manner (i. e. so 
as to be barbarians to one another) ye a/so 
are emulous, &c., is very harsh, besides 
making the second clause, standing as it 
does without a “@AdAov or any disjunctive 
particle, mean (and I do not see that it 
will bear any other meaning), seek this 
BapBapopwrvia to the edifying of the 
Church. Thus likewise ye (i.e. after 
the example of people who would not wish 
to be barbarians to one another,—avoiding 
the absurdity just mentioned), emulous 
as ye are of spiritual gifts (reff.), seek 
them to the edifying of the church, that 
ye may abound: or perhaps (but I can 


ABD 
LPR 
ede 


hk) 
017. 


10—15. 


Teite, iva ° Tepiooevnre. 


k , ? 
fou “axapTos €oTuy. 
i. 9. iv. 3. 2 Thess. i. 11. iii. 1. 


k Matt. xiii. 22\;Mk. Eph. y. 11. 
1 Acts xxi. 22. ver. 26. 


Tit. iii. 14. 


12. mvevuatixwy P 23-mg 73 spec sah ambr. (G-lat has both.) 


mpopntevnte A 73 Ambrst. 


IIPO> KOPINOIOTS A. 


ae > if / a 
Ti ovv €oTW; TposevEouar TO 


2 Pet. i. 8. 


593 


13 910 6 f XadOY f yrAdaon &2>sl Matt. 
g , Q g 7, h§ , 
mposevxyéabw % iva * Suepnvevy. 
fat ywoon, TO i mvedud jou TposevyeTat, 6 5é vods 


14 gay yap mposevyo- tv ié 
Tb win aoe by 
fs x Salt xxiv. 


20 || Mk. 
Mark xiv. 35. 
(Omws, Acts 
viii. 15.) 
Phil.i.9. Col. 
i = Acts xvii. 16 reff. 
Jer. ii. 6. Wisd. xv. 4 only. 


h ch, xii. 30 reff. 
Jude 12 only. 


for mepiooeunre, 


13. rec diomwep, with KLN? rel Chr Thdrt Th] Ge: txt ABDFPN! 17 Damase. 
14. om yap BF sah arm: ins ADKLPN rel vulg(and F-lat) E-lat syrr copt Chr Thdrt 
Damase (c Thi Orig-int, Ambrst Aug, Pel Sedul Bede. (17 def.) 


15. om tiovy ect K. 


find no instance of (776 iva thus used: 
ch. iv. 2 isno case in point, see note there) 
as in E. V. ‘seek that ye may excel 
(abound in them) fo the edifying of the 
church? 13.] Hortatory inference 
From the foregoing examples. There is 
some difficulty in the construction of 
this verse. mposevx. tva Stepp. is ren- 
dered by Chrys., Theodoret, Theophyl., 
Erasm., Beza, Calv., Grot., Estius, Wetst., 
Bleek, Riickert, Olsh., al., ‘pray that he 
may interpret. But the next verse shews 
that this is untenable. For the act of 
mposevxer0at yAdéoon is there introduced 
in strict logical connexion with this verse, 
so as to shew that the mposevxéc@w here 
must have the same meaning as there, viz., 
that of praying in a tongue, openly in the 
church. Seeing this, Luther, Rosenm., al., 
menderit, ‘let 22... so pray, that he may 
interpret: i.e. ‘not pray, unless he can 
interpret.’ But this rendering of iva is 
hardly allowable even where oftw is ex- 
pressed, see note on ch. ix. 24. The knot 
of the difficulty lies in the relation of iva 
to verbs of this kind. It may be doubted 
whether in such expressions as mposedxeo- 
Oat iva (see reff.), the conj. ever represents 
the mere purport of the prayer, as in our 
“to pray, that.” The idea of purpose is 
inseparably bound up in this particle, and 
can be traced wherever it is used. Thus 
mposevx. va seems always to convey the 
meaning, “to pray, in order that.” At 
the same time, prayer being a direct 
seeking of the fulfilment of the purpose 
on account of which we pray,—not, like 
many other actions, indirectly connected 
with it,—the purport and purpose become 
compounded in the expression. This 
will be illustrated by ypnyopetre k. mpos- 
evxerbe, iva uh elseAOnTe eis Teipacudy: 
where it is plain enough that fa uy re- 
presents the ulterior object of ypnyopeire, 
and, now that it is joined with ypnyopetre, 
of mposetxeoGe: but had it been merely, 
mposevxeabe iva uy K.7.A., the above con- 
fusion would have occurred. Now this 
Vou. II. 


mposeviwuat (twice) ADFP 47: -fwuar and -foua N: txt 


confusion it is, which makes the words 
mposevxéc0w iva diepunvedn so difficult. 
Obviously, the mposevxéo@w is not merely 
used to express a seeking by prayer of the 
gift of interpretation, on account of the 
sense in the next verse: but as plainly, 
there is in mposevxéo@m a sense which 
passes on to tva diepunvedn. The render- 
ing of Meyer and De Wette, ‘ pray, with a 
view to interpret (what he has spoken ina 
tongue),’ is unobjectionable, but does not 
give any reason for the choice of mposev- 
xéo0w, any more than evyapioreitw, or 
the like. I believe the true rendering to be 
pointed out by the distinction in the next 
verse. If a man prays in a tongue, his 
spirit prays, but his understanding is 
barren. his prayer of his spirit is, the 
intense direction of his will and affections 
to God, accompanied by the utterance of 
sounds to him unintelligible. ‘Let then 
him who speaks with a tongue, pray, when 
he does pray, with an earnest striving (in 
this prayer of his spirit) after the gift of 
interpretation. The meaning might be 
more strictly given thus in English: where- 
fore let him who speaketh with a tongue, 
in his prayer (or, when praying), strive 
that he may interpret. 14.] This 
verse has been explained above. It justifies 
the necessity of thus aiming at the gift of 
interpretation. To mv. pov, not as inver. 
32, and Chrys. (Hom. xxxv. p. 325) 7d xa- 
pioma Td d08ey mot Kal KWodY Thy yA@ooaY, 
—but as in reff., my (own) spirit, taking 
himself as an example, as above, ver. 6: a 
use of the word familiar to our Apostle, and 
here necessary on account of 6 vots pou 
following, ‘When I pray zm a tongue, my 
higher being, my spirit, filled with the 
Holy Ghost, is inflamed with holy desires, 
and rapt in prayer: but my intellectual 
part, having no matter before it on which 
its powers can be exercised, bears no fruit 
to the edification of others (nor of myself :? 
but this is not expressed in &apmos; cf. 
the usage of kapwés by Paul,— Rom. i. 13; 
vi. 21, 22; xv. 28; Gal. v. 22, al.). 
QQ 





594: 


m here bis, 
Rom. xv, 9, | 
from Ps. xvii 


IPOS KOPIN@OIOTS A. 


XIV. 


igrpetparti, MposevEouar S& Kal TO volé ™ark@ TH ‘ rvev- AnEe 


rn Y a +s \ xX -} lal j A 
fe yphy MaTL, ™ War@ de cat TO voi. 16 érrel €av ” evrAOYHs * mvev- cdef 


19. James ¥ 
13 only. 
n ch. x. 16 reff. 


Phil. 
ii. 30. 1 Thess. 
ii. 16) only $. 
(Gen. xxix. 
28 al.) Jos. : . : * 
B. J. vy. 2.5, OTPAaTLWTOV Taéw avarAnpour. 
Ann. ivy. 38, “locum principem impleam.” 


pos ovK * oixodopetrat. 


s = Rey. v. 14. 
v Acts xv. 24 reff. 
z Acts ix. 31 reff. 


r 2 Cor, i. 20. 
u Acts xxiv. 3 reff. 
y Rom. ii. 1 reff. 


BKL rel latt Orig, Eus, (see note). 


Neh. y. 13. viii. 6 al. 


lal / lal / rn Cal 
patl, 0 °avaTAnpov Tov ? TOTOV TOD 4 LOLWTOU TOS Epel 017.4 
‘ an an , \ 
‘Tro Sadun t él TH of “evyaptoria, ‘ érrevdn TL héyets ovKK 
~ - cr lal > 
oldev ; 17 od ev yap “ Karas * evyaploTets, GAN YO Y Ere- 


18 eiyapiste 76 OcG, Td 
x PploTo TO EO, TTAVT@V 


Philo, Flacc. 12, vol. ii. p. 531, mpeaBevTov 74k. exAjow. Tac. 


Sir. xii. 12. 
t = Acts xi. 19. 
w ch. vii. 37 reff. 


p = here only. q Acts iy. 13 reff. 
2 Cor. xii. 21. Heb. viii. 1. 
x abs., ch. xi. 24 reff. 


a Rom. i. 8 reff. 


om Ist « FKP 35. 46. 109-14 latt Syr sah 


arm Orig,(om «at also,) Damase Orig-int, lat-ff: ins ABDLN rel syr Orig, Eus, Chr 


Thdrt (ec 'Thl. 


om Tw [bef 2nd mvevpati| FP. 


om 2nd Se BF 46. 109 


latt Syr sah wth arm Orig,(where he has the 1st 5) Cas Ps-Ath, Max-conf Damase Thl 
Orig-int, lat-ff: ins ADKLPN rel syr copt Orig, Eus, Ath, Chr Thdrt Ge (homeotel 


and 47 vo. to vot). 


16. rec evAoynons, with FKL rel Chr Thdrt Be Thl; benedixeris latt: txt ABDPR 


b! 0 17 Damasce. 


rec ins tw bef mvevpari (to conform to last ver: but see note), 


with KL rel Chr Thdrt: ev B(sic: see table) DR?: ev Tt» P : om AFR!'17 Damase. 


om To F. for ere.dy, ever B. 
Jer Aug. 


17. adAAa Bl. 


ovk ovdev bef Tt Aeyers F(uot F-lat) E-lat G-lat 


18. rec aft Tw Sew ins pov (addn from such places as chi. 4, Romi. 8 Fe: 38 wth 
arm even further add rep:), with KL rel Thdrt Damase Ambrst Pel: om ABDFPR 17 
E-lat G-lat am(with tol, agst demid harl) syrr copt 2th arm Chr Thdrt-ms Jer Sedul 


Bede. (om 6ew F-lat.) 


15.| What then is (the case) (i.e. as our 
© What then?’ Cf. ti odv, Rom. iii. 9; 
vi. 15. ‘What is my determination there- 
upon?’)? I will pray (on the reading 
mposevéwuat, see note on Rom. vy. 1) with 
the (my) spirit: I will pray also with 
my mind (i.e. will interpret my prayer for 
the benefit of myself and the church), &e. 
This resolution, or expression of self-obliga- 
tion, evidently leads to the inference, by 
and by clearly expressed, ver. 28, that if he 
could not pray 7@ vol, he would keep 
silence. wade | hence we gather that 
the two departments in which the gift of 
tongues was exercised were prayer and 
praise. On the day of Pentecost it was 
confined to the latter of these. 16. | 
The discourse changes from the first person 
to the second, as De W. observes, because 
the hypothesis contains an imputation of 
folly or error. éav evA.| if thou 
shalt have blessed in spirit (no art. now: 
the df. is now merely of the manner in 
which, the element; not of the specific 
instrument, as in the last verse), how shall 
he that fills (i.e. is in) the situation of a 
private man (id:#r7s, in speaking of any 
business or trade, signifies a /ay person, i.e. 
one unacquainted with it as his employ- 
ment. Thus in state matters, it is one out 
of office—Anuoobéve byt idiéry, Thue. iv. 
2: in philosophy, one uneducated and rude 
—jets mv of (di@rat ob Sedolkapmer, jpuers 


ins ott bef ravtwy F latt syrr copt lat-ff. 


dé of Pirddcopor SeiArate, Diog. Laert. Aris- 
tipp. li. 71, &c. &e. See examples in Wetst. 
So here it is, one who has not the gift of 
speaking and interpreting. The word 
térov is not to be taken literally, as if the 
idi@7a1 had any separate seats in the con- 
gregation: the expression, as in ref., is 
figurative) say the AMEN (the Amen always 
said: see Deut. xxvii. 15—26 Heb. and 
E. V. (LXX, yévorro) ; Neh. viii. 6. From 
the synagogue,—on which see Wetst., 
Schéttg. in loc., Winer, Realw., art. Syna- 
gogen, and Philo, Fragm. vol. ii. p. 680— 
guvedpevouct . .. . of wev moAAOl oiwrh, 
mwAhv ef TL mposemipnuloa Tos avayiww- 
okouevois voulCerat,—it passed into the 
Christian church; so Justin Mart. Apol. 
i. 65, p. 82, ob (scil. tod rpoecr@ros) cuv- 
TeA€TayTOS Tas EvXaS Kal Thy ebxapioriar, 
mas ‘ mapwy Aabs Tavevpnucl Acywr, auhy. 
See Suicer, sub voc. and Stanley’s note 
here) to (at the end of) thy thanksgiving, 
since what thou sayest he knows not? 
This is, as Doddridge has remarked, deci- 
sive against the practice of praying and 
praising in an unknown tongue, as ridi- 
culously practised in the church of Rome. 

17. | kad@s is not ironical, but con- 
cessive: it is not the act of thanksgiving 
in a tongue that the Apostle blames, for 
that is of itself good, being dictated by 
the Spirit: but the doing it not to the edi- 
fication of others. 6 érepos, the idid- 


16—21. TIPO) KOPINOIOTS, A. 595 


Uuav UarNov” yrocon » AaB: 19 adAM ev ExxAnala © Oérw vv. 2 Ke. 


c here only. 


4 “4 a ae a 7 2 Macc. xi 
mTévTE NOyous TW Vol fou Nadal, iva Kal AdXovS 4 KaT-  {.M** 
, x s t ) , d Acts xviii. 25 
NXNTw, “7 *muplous Aoyous ev ywoooyn. 79 AdeAdoi, ri 
xviii, 8; 9 |] 5 


\ / an an ry / 
Mn Tradia yiveoGe Tais § ppeciv» adda TH” Kaxia' vyTia- ¥ 


Luke 
val \ \ ' 2 / xv. 7. xvii, 
Gere, Tais dé § ppeciv * rérevor yivecOe. 2! €v TA vomw ye- 2 Gen, 
¢/ > ¢ , > l XXXVili. 26. 
ypamrat” Ort ev 'étepoyAw@oaoss Kai év ™ yeldeow ” Erépeoy | Matt, siti. 
only. Esth. 
iil. 9. g here bis only. Proy. xviii. 2. h Rom. i. 29. ch. v. 8. Eph. iv. 3lal. Ps. li. 3 (5), 


Heb. y. l4al. 1 Chron. xxv. 8. 
m = Matt. xv. 8 || Mk. (from Isa. xxix. 13.) 
n= Actsii.4. Exod. xxx. 9. 


k = ch. ii. 6. 1 here 


ihere only +. (-7rtos, ch. xiii. 11.) 
Rom. 


only +. (Isa. xxviii. 11.) Ps. exiii. 1 Aq. 
iii. 13. Heb, (xi. 12.) xiii. 15. 1 Pet. iii. 10 only. 


yAwoon bef waddov F: om paddoy 41! D-lat Chr-ms.—omnium vestrum lingua loquor 
vulg(and F-lat). rec yAwooats, with BKLP rel syrr copt 2th Chr Thdrt Orig-int : 
txt ADFN 17 latt arm Damasc Ambrst Pel Bede. rec AaAwv (the bare present aft 
evx. was not understood, and thus some helped it with ott, some by turning rAadw into 
Aadwv. Or Aadwv was understood to belong to evxapiotw, ‘I give thanks, speaking,’ 
&e.), with KL rel Chr Thdrt Damase: om A: txt BDFPR ¢ 17 latt syrr copt arm Ge 
Orig-int lat-ff. 

19. [addAa, so ABD: om N?.] rec dia Tov voos (see note. If tw vor had come 
JSrom ver 15, wov would prob have been omd), with KL rel D-lat syr Mac Chr Thdrt 
Max-conf Phot Thl He: d:a tov vowoy (omg ov) Mcion-e, per legem Ambrst-txt ; in 
lege Paulin: txt ABD(F)N m (17) vulg Syr copt Nys Epiph, Mare-mon Damase lat-ff. 


— tw v.m. bef 7. Aoy. 17. — AaAn o perv (sic) bef Tw v. w. F. 
20. wa Tas pp. TEA. yevnode, omg de, F D-lat Orig-int Ambrst Aug Gaud. 


21. aft vouw ins 7s &'(N? disapproving). 
rec erepots, with DKLP rel vss Orig Constt Chr 


F lect-8 vulg copt goth Tert. 


for erepoyAwooots, eTepais yAwooats 


Damase Thi (He lat-ff: txt ABN 17. (Meyer thinks the dat a mere mechanical corrn to 


7ns spoken of before. 18, 19.] De- 
claration of his own feeling on the matter, 
highly endowed as he was with the gift. 
I thank God, I speak with a tongue (have 
the gift of speaking with tongues) more 
than you all. This juxtaposition of two 
clauses, between which ‘ ¢hat’ is to be sup- 
plied in the sense, is not unusual: BovAc 
ckoma@uev: ‘fac videas,—Eur. Hippol. 
567, émioxyer’, avdjy Tay 2owlev exudbw. 
Hom. Od. 8. 195, TyAcudxo 8 ev maow 
eyav sroOjcoua avtés, Mnrépa hy és 
TaTpos avwyéTw Gmovécoba. See Har- 
tung, Partikell. ii. p. 134. 19. | év éx- 
kAnoig, in (the) assembly, ‘in the congre- 
gation,’ —not ‘in am assembly,’ as Meyer. 
The art. is omitted after a preposition: so 
Middleton, ch. vi. § 1; the logical account 
of which is, that the prep. serves to cate- 
gorize the substantive following it, and 
so make it general instead of particular. 
@dXwo . . ., 4, aS BovAouat, fH, 

Il. a. 117: similarly émi@upéw, (ntéw,— 
see Hartung, ii. p. 72. 51a TOU vods has 
probably been a correction, because Aadeiv 
7@ vot was found harsh, the understand- 
ing being only the indirect instrument. 
20.] With this exhortation he con- 

cludes this part of his argument, in which 
he reproves the folly of displaying and being 
anxious for a gift in which there was no 
edification. ‘&SeApot suavem vim ha- 
bet,’ Bengel. tais peciv, in your 


understandings, as this preference shews 
you to be. TY kaxia—dat. of reference, 
as regards vice: see Winer, edn. 6, § 31.6. 
21—25.] By a citation from the 

O. T. he takes occasion to shew that 
tongues are a sign to the unbelieving only : 
and that even for them they are profitless 
in comparison with prophecy. 21.] 
év TO von, as John x. 34; xii. 34; xv. 25; 
—where the Psalms are thus quoted. The 
passage stands in the LXX: 81a davaicudy 
XelAewy, 51a yAdoons érépas Brit AaAH- 
govot TG Aa@ ToITMW... Kk. odK HOEANTAY 
axovew. The context is thus: The scoffers 
in Jerusalem (see ver. 14) are introduced 
as scorning the simplicity of the divine 
commands, which were line upon line, pre- 
cept upon precept, as if to children (vy. 9, 
10). Jehovah threatens them that, since 
they would not hear these simple com- 
mands, He would speak to them by men 
of other tongues, viz. the Assyrians, their 
captors. Here as in many other cases, 
the historical sense is not so much con- 
sidered, 1s the aptness of the expressions 
used for Ulustrating the matter in hand; 
viz. that belief would not be produced in 
the unbelieving by speaking to them in 
strange tongues. The d7. answers in the 
LXX tos, ‘for ;’ or ‘yea verily,’ as Louth. 
It forms part of the citation, not of the text. 
év étep.] in (in the person of) 

men of other tongues: Heb. with another 


QQ2 


596 


o=ch.y.1 


TIPO KOPINOIOTS A. 


XIV. 


tel A 4 
AaAjow TO AAD TOUT, Kal ° 0vd ? ovTwS 4 eisaxovcovTal ABI 


» = Rom, y. 12 , ¢ cg a n 
ret. ov, N€yer KUpLos. 72 wsTe ai 'yA@ooar * eis *onpetov c a 


q Matt. vi. 7. 
Luke i. 13. 
Acts x. 31. 
Heb. v.7 
only. Deut. 
i. 43 


23 €av 


. 43. z zi x ‘ , 
rActs iit reff: OD YX gyVENON 1) ¥ ExxAnola Y OAN ** etl TO AUTO KaL TAVTES 


5 so els ap- 
TUpLoy, &e. 
Matt. viii. 4 
al. fr. Jer. 
ix. 22. 

i. 3 reff. 

a ver. 16 


suit the other datives.) 
43. 113 lect-14. 
22. for (2nd) morevovow, motos F. 


t Rom. iv. 11 reff. 


x ch. xi. 20. Josh, ix. 2. 


23. om ovy F 67? old-lat goth Ambrst Ambr. 
rec mavres yAwooats AaAwow, with KL rel 


bef 7 exkAno DF latt goth lat-ff. 


u = ch. vi. 6 reff. 


for ovd ovtws, ovderrw F. 


cr , lal > 
AarGow yhooaais, eiseMOwow Fé * Sitar 7 * ATLTTOL, OUK *- * 


w = Acts 


v ch. xiii. 2 reff 
z Acts i. 15 reff. 


y Rom. xvi. 23 reff. 


etsakovoerat F(not lat) 


for cuveAOn, eAOn BG!. oA\n 


vulg(and F-lat) syrr arm Chr-txt Thdrt Damase (He Vict-vit Bede: Aad. may. yA. copt 


wth Chr-comm Ambrst: Aad. yA. tay. Dl goth: txt ABFPX Bas Thl. 


amiorot B Ambrst. 


tongue ;—and it is placed second. The 
Apostle personifies it and gives it the pro- 
minence. év. x. €r.] in (as speaking 
in using as the organ of speech) lips of 
others (strangers, see reff.): Heb. in (by) 
stammerers of lip: Louth, with a stam- 
mering lip. T® Aa@ TOVT | in Isa., 
the Israelites: here taken generally for 
the unbelieving world. ov8 ottws 
elsaxovo.| This is the point of the pas- 
sage for St. Paul’s argument : see ver. 23: 
—‘‘for them, and not for us: but even 
for them, profitless in the main :”—znot 
even under such circumstances will they 
listen to me: even this sign will be for 
them ineffectual. 22.] dste,—viz. 
according to the words of the foregoing 
prophetic passage. ai yA.| the 
tongues, in the then acceptation of the 
term. He is not interpreting the pro- 
phecy, nor alluding to the tongues there 
spoken of, but returns back to the subject 
in hand—the tongues about which his argu- 
ment was concerned. els onp. eloty | 
serve for asign: but there is no emphasis 
on the words,—the meaning being much 
the same as if eis onuetoy were omitted, 
and it stood &ste ai yA. eioly od Tots 7. 
Not seeing this, Commentators have dif- 
fered widely about the meaning of onuetov. 
So Chrys. (Hom. xxxvi. p.335): eis onuetov, 
Tovtéotiv, eis &xmAnkiv :—Bengel: ‘quo 
allecti auscultare debebant:’—Calvin: ‘lin- 
gu, quatenus in signum datw sunt :’ &e. 
&c. All dwelling on the word onpezov 
would introduce an element foreign to the 
argument, which is, that tongues are (a 
sign) for the unbelieving, not for the be- 
lieving. ov tT. mor.| not to men 
who believe, but to unbelievers, i. e. 
‘men who do not believe :’ not, as Nean- 
der, Billroth, Riickert, and in substance 


om 7 


De Wette, ‘men who will not believe :’ 
uimoros must be kept to the same sense 
through this whole passage, and plainly by 
ver. 23 it is not one who will not believe, 
but an unbeliever open to conviction. The 
mistake has been occasioned by regarding 
those to whom the prophecy was directed, 
and interpreting Paul by Isaiah, instead of 
by himself. 7 Sé mpod.] scil. eoriv, 
as Meyer, or eis onu. early, as De Wette: 
it seems to me to import little which we 
supply, secing that eis onu. is of so very 
slight weight in the preceding clause. If 
emphatic meaning had been attached to 
onuctov as belonging to ai yA., we must not 
have supplied it here: but if it be a mere 
indifferent word, to be interpreted accord- 
ing to the sense in which af yA. and 4 
mpop. were onueia, there can be no objec- 
tion to it here : and the uniformity of con- 
struction seems to require it. Both 
here and above, tots amior. and the other 
are datives commodi—for, not ‘to,’ the 
unbelieving. 7 mpopnrela was a sign to 
the unbelieving, see vv. 24, 25. Pro- 
phecy, i. e. inspired and intelligent expo- 
sition of the word and doctrine, was emi- 
nently for believers, but, as below, would 
be also profitable fo unbelievers, furnish- 
ing a token that God was truly among 
his assembled servants. 23—26. | 
Instances given of the operation of both 
on the ungifted or the unbeliever. 

23.) ovv, following up the axiom just 
laid down, by supposing a case = if then 
.... The first case put answers to the 
former half of ver. 22: the second, to the 
latter. The supposition is this: that 
all the (Corinthian) church is assembled, 
and all its members speak with tongues 
(not in a ¢umultuary manner—that is not 
part of the present hypothesis, for if it 


lal a Lm BY 
elaly ov Tols TiaTEvovTW AAA Tots * atriaToLs, H SE’ TPO- 017 
lal r / 
pytela ov Tois “atiaTols ara Tois TLIaTEVOVELW. 


é 
] 


22—26. IIPO> KOPIN@OIOTS A. 597 


épovow ore ” paivecbe ; * av b€ mavres ° rpodnTevwary, » Act xi.15 
ech, xi. 4,5 


elséXOn 5é Tis “ amriaTos 7) * ioumTns, 4 éAéyyeTaL UTO Tdv- “rein” 

Tov, “avaxplvetas UTO TavToV, * Ta ‘KpUTTa THs Kap- 2. Ps six 
dias avtod *havepa %yiverar, Kai “ovtws ‘teawy rl fiom ie 
‘arposwmov * mposkuvycer TO Oe@, \atrayyéAdwv TL ™ dv- g ch. x 19 reff. 


= ver. 21, 
e . cal 's 
Tws 0 Oeds “ev vpiv eat. 76 °'TL otv éotw, adedXgol; Rye’ 


i Matt. xvii. 

Rey. xi. 16. Num. xvi. 4, xx. 6. k Paul, here and Acts xxiv. 

Ps. xxviii. 2. 1 gospp. and Acts, passim. elsw., 1 Thess. 

m = Mark xi. 32. Luke xxiii.47. 1 Tim. 
o Acts xxi. 22. ver. 15. 


6. xxvi. 39. Luke v. 12, xvii. 16, 


ll only. dat., Matt. ii. 2 al. fr. : 
i.9. Heb. ii. 12. 1Johni.2,3 only. Gen. xiv. 13. 
y.5al. Num. xxii. 37 only. n = 2 Cor. xiii. 5. 


24. for 2nd 5e, re A Syr (eth). om avak. v. 3. (homeot) K. 

25. rec ins kot ovtw bef ta kpumra (from below,—the result being imagined better 
to begin here; the follg x. ovrws being by some omd, as Chr Ambr, by some carelessly 
left, or reintroduced without erasing this former. So Meyer), with D®KL rel syr 
Chrp., Thdrt: om ABD!FR 17 latt Syr copt goth (#th arm) Orig Bas Chr, Cyr lat-ff. 

avayyeAAwy F (not G). rec o Geos bef ovtws, with KL rel syr Chr Thdrt: 
om ovtws k 3. 32 Thdrt-comm: txt AB(DFR) h 17 latt Syr copt goth eth arm Orig- 
int lat-ff. — om o D'FX! | 1091 Orig, Chr,. p 


were, it must apply equally to ver. 24, 
which it clearly cannot :—but that all have 
the gift, and are in turn exercising it): 
—then iiia@7a, ‘plain believers,’ persons 
unacquainted with the gift and its exercise, 
come in. It is obvious that the hypothesis 
of all being assembled, and al/ having the 
gift, must not be pressed to infer that no 
such id:@rns could be found: no one hypo- 
thesizes thus rigidly. If any will have it 
80, then, as Meyer, we may suppose the 
iidtar to come from another congrega- 
tion: but the whole difficulty seems to me 
mere trifling. The i. plainly cannot be, 
as De W. maintains, an unbeliever, for his 
case is separately mentioned. Such plain 
men, or perhaps a company of unbelievers, 
have come in:—they have no understand- 
ing of what is going on: the yA@oou 
sound to them an unmeaning jargon; and 
they come to the conclusion, ‘ These men 
are mad;’ just as men did infer, on the 
day of Pentecost, that the speakers were 
drunken. 24.) But if all (see 
above) prophesy (i.e. intelligibly lay forth, 
in the power of the Spirit, the Christian 
word and doctrine) and there enter any 
(singular now, setting forth that this 
would be the effect in any case: plural 
before, to shew that however many there 
might be, not one could appreciate the 
gift) unbeliever or plain man (&moros 
Jirst now, because the great stress is on the 
power of prophecy in its greatest achieve- 
ment, the conversion of the unbeliever ; 
but id:@7a: was first before, because the 
stress there was on the unprofitableness 
of tongues, not only to the tmoarot, but to 
the idi@Ta), he is convicted by all (the 
inspired discourse penetrating, as below, 
into the depths of his heart,—by all, i.e. 


by each in turn), he is searched into by 
all (each inspired speaker opening to him 
his character), the hidden things of his 
heart become manifest (those things which 
he had never before seen are revealed,— 
his whole hitherto unrecognized personal 
character laid out. Instances of such re- 
velations of a man to himself by powerful 
preaching have often occurred, even since 
the cessation of theyprophetic gift): and 
thus (thus convicted, searched, revealed to 
himself :—in such a state of mind) having 
fallen on his’ face, he will worship God, 
announcing’ (by that his act, which is a 
public submission to the divine Power 
manifest among you: or, but not so well, 
aloud, by declaration of it in words) that 
of a truth (implying that previously he 
had regarded the presence of God among 
them as an idle tale; or, if.a plain Chris- 
tian, had not sufficiently realized it) God 
is among you (or in each of you: by His 
Spirit). In this last description the 
id.érns is thrown into the background, 
and (see above) the greater achievement 
of prophecy, the conviction and conversion 
of the &moros, is chiefly in view. “Fora 
similar effect of the disclosure of a man’s 
secret self to himself, compare the fascina- 
tion described as exercised by Socrates over 
his hearers by the ‘conviction’ and ‘judg- 
ment’ of his questions in the Athenian 
market-place. Grote’s Hist. of Greece, 
viii. 6(09—611.” Stanley. 26 —35. | 
Regulations respecting the ewercise of 
spiritual gifts in the assemblies. 

26.]| The rule for all, proceeding on the 
fact of each having his gift to contribute 
when they come together: viz. that all 
things must be done with a view to edi- 
fication. wt otv éativ | See ver. 15. 


598 TIIPO> KOPINGIOTS A. xiW. 
ys lal \ ” 
p= Ph. v.19. 6rav “ cuvépynabe, Exaatos [bwav] ? yarpov exer, % diba- 
2 ‘ Yj Yj a yy c / 
oes yay éyer, Tamoxdduiw Exel, YAOooav Evel, * Epynvelav 
sot ge ” i s s \ s,? 8 A t , 6 Q7 ” , 
xiii. 99) only. €yel* TavTa §mpos *otKodopny * ywérOo. elite YA@oon 
eee \ a fp \ A a \ pap 
aver FO) Tig NaXel, “Kata Ovo 7) * TO ‘ TAEloTOV TpEls, Kal * ava 
only+. Sir. \ \ \ 9? 
prol.€xlvi. W pépos Kab els * dvepunveveTa *° eav 5é pt) 7) Y Oveppnvev- 
ye lel \ nr 
(seve, THs, *ouydtw év éxKdyala, EavT@ O€ AadeiTw Kai TO Oe@. 
2 fol s lal Us \ e A 
«ver. 1, 29 agpodhtat de dvo % Tpels AadElTwCaV, Kal ot AAXoOL 
h. xvi. 14. me 
u= Marky. > Ssaxpuvérwoav: °0 day O€ GAXw °aTroKadupbn KaOnpévo, 
40. ava, F 6 & 
Luke ix. 3. 


x.1. Johnii.6. xaQ’ €va, Eph. v. 33. John xxi.25. Xen. Anab. iv. 7.8. vhere only. (Isa. ix. 3.) 
where only. ava p. ade, Polyb. iv. 20. 10, and al. freq. see Rom. xi. 25 reff. f _x ch, xii. 30 reff. 
y here only t. z Acts xii. 17 reff. change of subject, Luke xy. 15. xix. 4. Acts vi.6. Winer, edn. 

6, 3 67.1.c. a Acts xi. 27 reff. b ch, vi. 5. c ch. ii. 10 reff. 


26. om vuwy ABN! a17 copt: ins DF KL rel vss Chr Thdrt Damasc lat-ff. 
om didax. exer (homeotel) A k. rec yAwooay exer avoxaduipy exer (the clauses 
dropped out by homeotel, and were then confusedly reinserted), with L rel Chr Thdrt 
Damase: om amoxaduiiy exer I 35-9. 42-7. 63 arm Chr-mss: om yAwooay exer K 
35-9. 42-3. 57.911. 106-77. 238: txt ABDFN 17 latt syrr coptt eth Bas Th] @e-comm 


lat-ff. Stepunveray DF. 
Chr Thdrt &e. 


28. for Siepu., epunvevtns BD'F, pref 6 DF. 
avakpwetTwaay D'P, 


29. om o. DIFL 1D. 
80. om de D!F latt Orig-int Ambrst. 


rec yever@w, with Damasc: txt ABDFKLX® rel 


for cavtw, avtw F. 


[xa in kaOnuevw is written over the line, 


o m having been first written, and then marked for erasure by R?.] 


Sr. cuv.| whenever ye happen 
to be assembling together: the present 
vividly describes each coming with his gift, 
eager to exercise it. Wadpov | most 
probably a hymn of praise to sing in the 
power of the spirit, as did Miriam, De- 
borah, Symeon, &e. See ver. 15. 
Sidaxyv| an exposition of doctrine or 
moral teaching: belonging to the gift of 
prophecy, as indeed do also Wadp. and 
atmoxaX., the latter being something re- 
vealed to him, to be prophetically uttered. 

yAaooav| 2 tongue, i.e. an act 
of speaking in tongues: see vv. 18, 22. 

Eppnvetav| See below, and ver. 5. 

TavT. mp. olx. yiv.| THE GENERAL 
RULE, afterwards applied to the several 
gifts: and 27, 28.] to the speaking 
with tongues. etre begins the construc- 
tion, but is not carried on, ver. 29, where 
apopita 5€ answers to it. 27.| Kara 
Svo (scil. let it take place), by two (at each 
time, i.e. in one assembly: not more than 
two or three might speak with tongues at 
each meeting) or at the most three, and 
by turn (one after another, not together) : 
and let one (some one who has the gift,— 
and not more than one) interpret (what 
is said in the tongue). 28.) But if 
there be not an interpreter (Wieseler, in 
the Stud. und Krit. for 1838, p. 720, would 
render it, ‘if he be not an interpreter,’ viz. 
himself. But this wouid exclude the pos- 


sibility of others interpreting, which we 
know from ch. xii. 10 might be the case. 
And thus the preceding «fs could hardly 
bear its proper meaning. Wieseler tries to 
make it mean ‘one at a time” Besides, 
the emphatic position of 7} seems to require 
more stress than this sense would give, 
which would be better expressed by eay 5€ 
diepunvevt?s wh 7), let him (the speaker 
in a tongue, see reff.) be silent in the 
church: but (as if cvyarw had been ui Aa- 
Aelrw) let him speak for himself and for 
God: i.e. in private, with only himself and 
God to witness it. Chrys. ka@ éavrdy 
pbeyyéo8w: which Theophyl. enlarges to 
TovTéegtiv aWopnTl Kal jpéua Kal” éavtdy: 
which does not seem to agree with Aa- 
Aeltw, the speaking being essential to the 
exercise of the gift. 29—33.] Simi- 
lar regulations for PROPHECY. 29.] 
8é, transitional. Svo 4 Tpels, viz. at 
one assembling ;—not together; this is 
plainly prohibited, ver. 30. There is no 7d 
wAeictov as in the other case, because he 
does not wish to seem as if he were limit- 
ing this most edifying of the gifts. 

ot GAAot, scil. rpopjrat,—or perhaps, any 
person possessing the gift of Siaxploes 
mvevuatwy, mentioned ch. xii. 10 in im- 
mediate connexion with mpopnrefa. Such 
would exercise that gift, to determine 
whether the spirit was of God: see ch. xii. 
3; 1 John iv. 1—3. 30.} But if 


ABD 
LN a 
def 
klr 
17. 


27—34. 


€ lal 
0 TPATOS *alyaTw. 


7 a i / a 
Jeipnvns, @s év “macau Tals 


IIPOX KOPINOIOTS A. 


> / lal pas / 
exKAnolals TOY ' ayiov. 


599 


31 Suvacde yap * Ka? &va Tavres ich, xi.4,9 
, / ; 
‘podntevew, va Tavtes pavOavwow Kal TayTes ° Tapa- 
Kahavta * Kai avevpata *s rpopyntav *rpopytats » bTro- 
/ . 83 > / > i > / € i@ 4 b] \ 
TacceTau' *3 ob yap éotw ‘axatactacias 6 | Beds, adda 
k 


e = Rom. xii. 
8 reff. 
= ch. xii. 10 
reff. 
Rev. xxii. 6. 
Luke ii. 51. 
Rom. viii. 
7, 20 al. 
1 Chron. 
xxix. 24, 


e lal lal . 
34 AG yuvaixes év tals éxKkdXnolalts *ovydTwoay: ov yap ‘Ike? 


iii. 16 only. Prov. xxvi. 28. Tobit iv. 13 only. (-oTatos, James i. 8.) 
2 Cor. viii. 18. xi. 28 only. 1R 


k Rom. xvi. 16. ch. vii. 17. 


xii. 20. James 


j Rom. xv. 33 reff. 


om.i.7. Acts ix. 13 reff. 


31. mayvres bef ka? eva DF h! latt Syr arm: om mayres17 Ambrst: exaoro 6. 672: 


exactot mavtTes 38. 72. 


32. for mvevpara, mvevwa DF 1. 43. 52. 67%. 213 Syr eth Orig, (and int) Thdrt lat-ff: 
txt ABKLN rel vulg(and F-lat) syr copt Orig,,(and int,) Epiph Did, Chr Thdrt-ms 
Damase (Ec Thi Tert. (Zhe plur was corrd to the sing because, One Spirit inspiring 


all the prophets, mvevpata was not understood.) 
33. o Geos bef akatactacias A 57 Syr copt: om o F. 


umotascovTa Li. 


[aAAa, so ABDN e gk 47.] 


at end ins didacxw (from ch iv. 17) F b o 2.10. 39 vulg(not am) syr-w-ast 


Chr,: d:ataccomar Chr-ms, Damase. 


Vv. 34, 35 are placed aft ver 40 in DF 93 fuld Ambrst Sedul. 

34. rec aft yuvaires ins vuwy, with DFKL rel Syr syr-w-ob Chr Thdrt @e Ambrst 
Ambr Sedul: om ABN 17 vulg(and F-lat: vestre is written over vawy in the gr column) 
coptt «th arm Mcion e Epiph Dial Orig, Nys Damase (Cypr) Pel Bede. 


a revelation shall have been made to 
another (prophet) while sitting by, let 
the first (who was prophesying) hold his 
peace (give place to the other: but clearly, 
not as ejected by the second in any dis- 
orderly manner: probably, by being made 
aware of it and ceasing his discourse). 
The rendering of Grot., al., ‘let him (the 
second) wait till the first has done speak- 
ing, q.d., ‘let the first have left off, is 
ungrammatical. See also vv. 28, 34. 
31, 32.] He shews that the 6 
Tp@Tos sryatw is no impossibility, but in 
their power to put into effect. For ye 
have the power (the primary emphasis of 
the sentence is on dévacGe, which is not 
merely permissive, as E. V., ‘ye may,’ but 
asserts the possession of the power ; —the 
secondary on xaé@ éva) one by one all 
to prophesy (i.e. you have power to bring 
about this result—you can be silent if you 
please), in order that all may learn and 
all may be exhorted (or, comforted) : 
$2.] and (not, for: but a parallel assertion 
to the last, ‘ye have power, &c. and’) 
spirits of prophets (i.e. their own spirits, 
filled with the Holy Spirit: so Meyer, and 
rightly: not, as De Wette, the Spirit of 
God within each: and so ver. 12: the 
inspired spirit being regarded as a 
arvedpa in a peculiar sense—from God, 
or otherwise. See the distinction plainly 
made 1 John iv. 2: év tottw ywadonete 
To Tvetpa TOU Geod. may TvEedpa K.T.A. 
The omission of the art. generalizes the 
assertion, making it applicable to all 
genuine Christian prophets) are subject 


to prophets (i.e. to the men whose spirits 
they are. But very many Commentators, 
e.g. Theophyl.(alt.), Calvin, Estius, and 
more recently Bleek and Riickert, take 
mpopjtas to signify other prophets— 
7) & cot xdpioua, nal 7 evepyera Tod ey 
cot TYEUMaTOS, UNOTATOETAL TH XaplopaTe 
Tov éTEpov Tod KivnOevTos eis TO Tpopy- 
tevely (Theophyl.). But the command 
6 mp@tos ovydtw would be superfluous, 
if his gift was in subjection to another). 

33.] Reason of the above regula- 
tions. The premiss, that the church is 
God’s church, is suppressed. He is the 
God of peace, not confusion: therefore 
those assemblies which are His must be 
peacefully and orderly conducted. And 
this character of God is not one depen- 
dent for its truth on preconceived views 
of Him :—we have a proof of it wher- 
ever a church of the saints has been 
gathered together. ‘Jn all the churches 
of the saints, God is a God of peace: let 
Him not among you be supposed to be 
a God of confusion.’ I am compelled 
to depart from the majority of modern 
critics of note, e.g. Lachmann, Tischen- 
dorf (ed. 7), Billroth, Meyer, De Wette, 
and to adhere to the common arrangement 
of this latter clause. My reason is, that 
taken as beginning the next paragraph, 
it is harsh beyond example, and super- 
fluous, as anticipating the reason about to 
be given od yap x.7.A. Besides which, 
it is more in accordance with St. Paul’s 
style, to place the main subject of a new 
sentence first, see 1 Tim. ii. 8, 11, 12; 


600 TIIPO> KOPINOIOTS A. XIV. 35—40. 
m= constr, ™ ErryrpémreTat avTals Nanelv, GANA *} UrroTda ced Bat, Kaas ABD 
Acts vi. a ‘i x a 
nGre iii. Kal O “vopos Aéyet. 35 ef SE Te pabeiy OérXovow, ° év det 
o ch. xi. 34 reff. if kiln 
pMatt.xi 10° ola TOs (lous avdpas PerEepwTdTwaav: “Yaiaxpov yap 17. 
foe §«6€OTL YyuvalKt Nadeiv év ExkrANola. %% h ad bwov 6" dovos 
Ixy. 1) only. 


q ch. xi. 6 reff. 

r Acts xi. 1 reff. 

s = Rom. x. 18 
reff. 


Tov * Beod § €&jOev, 7) ‘eis Huds povovs  KatHvTnGEV ; *7 et 
lal >. , 
Tis * SoKxel * rpopytys eivar 7) ¥ TVEvwAaTLKOS, “ eTUyWaTKET@O 


t Acts xxvi. 7 A 7 Rr we , > \ > , 38 > , 
i OTL KuUplov éaTi ToAn|: 38 et dé Te 
sie 2 YPapo vei, pu vy [evTods | L 0€ TUS 
reff. vch. ii. 15 reff. w constr., Acts iii. 10. iv. 13. 2 Cor. i. 14. xiii. 5. 


rec emretpamrrat (‘the sense of the perfect, permissum est, was more familiar to the trans- 
cribers.” Meyer), with K rel syrr Mcion-e, Chr Thdrt, emirerperra: L: txt ABDFR 17 
vss Mcion-e, Damasc lat-ff. [aAdAa, so ABD!RN. | * brrotaccéacbwoav 
ABR 17 Svr coptt 2th Mcion-e Damase: vrotaccec Oa: DFKL rel latt syr arm Dial Chr 
Thdrt Th! ec lat-ff. add trois aySpacw A. 

35. ex Ti de st quid autem DF vulg Ambrst. pavOavery A2X! 17. 23-6. 31. 73 
Nys. (A? doubtful.) @eAwow A 73 Damase. om eotyw B. rec 
yuvakiw (to agree with plurals preceding), with DFKLN3 rel syrr Orig, Chr-mss Thdrt 
Ambrst: txt ABR! 17 valg(and F-lat : mulieribus is written over yuvatw in gr column) 
coptt 2th arm Orig, Chr Damase Pel. rec ev exkAnowa bef AaAew, with D(F)K(L) 
47 syrr Orig, Chr Thdrt Ambrst: txt ABN m 17 vulg coptt 2th Orig, Damase Bede. 


—exkaAnoiwms FL 49. 69. 106-8 D-lat syr Thdrt. 


86. katnvt. bef novovs F copt. 


87. emytyywoneTw D: ywwoKerw B Chr(addg ravra). 
with Thl: om ABDFKLNX rel Orig, Chr Thdrt Damase Cc. 


copt Origy. 


rec ins tov bef kupiov, 
for kuptov, Beov A 


rec ecw evtoAa, with D?3KL rel vulg(and F-lat) syrr basm Chr 


Thdrt Ambrst-ms: evtroAat evoty mM: evToAn cotw XN): eorw, omg evtoAn, D}(and lat) 
F G-lat Orig,(and int,) Hil Ambrst-ed: eorw evtoAn ABN? 17 copt eth Orig, Aug. 


and we have an example of reference to 
general usage coming in last, in aid of 
other considerations, ch. xi. 16: but it 
seems unnatural that it should be placed 
first in the very forefront of a matter on 
which he has so much to say. 34, 35. | 
Regulation prohibiting women to speak 
publicly in the church, and its grounds. 
If as ...ayiwv be placed at the begin- 
ning of this sentence, we must not, as 
Lachm. absurdly does, put a comma be- 
fore tév ayiwy, which would throw the 
emphasis on it and disturb the sense: and 
which besides would then be expressed 
aylwy yuvatkes, or even aylwy ai yuvaikes, 
but certainly not raév aylwy af yuvaikes. 

34.] adda troragcecGat, scil. 
KeAeverat a’tats. The same construction 
where a second verb must be supplied 
from the context, occurs 1 Tim. iv. 3. 
So Soph. Cid. Tyr. 236, roy &vip’ aravda 
TOUTOY unr eisdéxerOar whtre mpos- 
wveiv Tia, BOciy B® am’ olkwy maytas: 
Lucian, xdpwy 7) éemioxorodvres, line 49 
from beg.,—oeé 5 Kal abroy KwAtvoe evep- 
yelv Ta TOU Bavdrov epya, kal Thy TIAov- 
Twvos apxiv (nuovy. See other examples 
in Kiihner, § 852 k. 6 vop.os — 
ref. Their speaking in public would be 
of itself an act of independence; of teach- 
ing the assembly, and among others 


their own husbands. 35.] This pro- 
hibits another kindred irregularity—their 
asking questions publicly. They might 
say in answer to the former ovydtwcay, 
‘But if we do not understand any thing, 
are we not to ask?” The stress is on 
pabety. iSiovs, confining them to 
their own husbands, to the exclusion of 
other men. aioxpdév| See ref.: 
indecent, bringing deserved reproach. 
86—40.] GENERAL CONCLU- 
sion: the unseemliness and absurdity of 
their pretending to originate customs un- 
known to other churches, as if the word 
of God first went forth from them: and 
the enforcement of his apostolic authority. 
Then, @ summary in a few words of the 
purport of what he has said on the spiritual 
gifts, and a repetition, in another form, of 
the fundamental precept, ver. 26. 
86.] I cannot agree with Meyer in refer- 
ring this only to the regulation concerning 
women which has preceded. It rather 
seems to refer to all the points of church 
custom which he has been noticing, and 
to be inseparably connected with what 
follows,—the recognition of his apostolic 
orders, as those of God. 37.) amvev- 
patikds, one spiritually endowed: not 
quite as in ch. ii. 15. & ypade | 
the things which I am writing, viz. 


Ave-~ 


my. I. IIPOS KOPINOIOTS A. 601 
39 Y @sTe, aderpoi [ov], 7 &nrovTe x =2Pet ii. 12. 
(pass., 2 Cor. 
vi. 9.) 


bees ox > / 
ayvoel, * ayvoeita. 
\ A \ a 

TO * mpodntevev, Kai TO » Nadeiv 7 © KwrUVETE ev >yAwWO- 


, y= ch. vy. 8 
cas, 1° raya dé * evoynpmoves Kal Kata ° Taéw f ywécOo. | A. 
/ eee i > , \ man ak 
XV. 18 Tvwpifo dé wuiv, aderdoi, To evayyértov 6 3B anh 
(ch. xii. 30 


reff.). ec = Matt. xix. 14, Luke xxiii. 2al. Exod. xxxvi. 6. d Rom. xiii.13. 1 Thess. iy. 12 
only+. (-Mwyv, ch. xii. 24.) e Lukei.8. Col. ii. 5. Heb. vy. 6, 10 & vi. 20 (from Ps. cix. 4), vii. 11, 
&c. only. L.P.H. Job xxxviii, 12. f = ver. 26. ch. xvi- 14, g ch. xii. 3 reff. 2 Cor. viii. 1. 


38. for ayvoeitw, ayvoertat D1(-re) F(nyv-) 8! 17 Origs and perhaps Al(w is written 
secunda manu, the original letter being erased): ignoratur D-lat: ignorabitur vulg 
G-lat Orig-int lat-ff: non cognoscetur Hil: txt A7BD3K LN? rel syrr copt ath arm Orig 
Chr Thdrt Damase Thl ic. (There appears no reason why the indic should have 
been altered to the imperat; but the form of exprn in ch viii. 2, 3 may perhaps have 
occasioned an alteration of the imperat into the indic, esp if, as Meyer supposes, in 
writing ayvoetw wste, one w had dropped out, and left’ the last letter of ayvoet. to be 
supplied.) 

39. aft adeApo: ins pov AB!D*?:38 ¢ g mo syrr copt Chr Thdrt Damase: om B%(sic: 
see table) D!F KL rel latt basm arm Ambrst Pel. om Ist To F. om 2nd to B 
48. rec yAwoous bef un kwAvere, with DFKL rel latt syrr eth arm Chr Thdrt 
Ambrst: txt ABP m 17 Damasc.—rec om ev (Aad. yA. being the more usual exprn?), 
with AD3KLX rel vulg(and F-lat) syrr Chr Thdrt Ambrst: ins BD\(and lat) F G-lat 
coptt. (P ?) 

40. rec om de (because there appeared to be no contrast ?), with KL rel basm Th] @c 
Orig-int, Ambr: ins ABDFPX 17a m vulg Syr copt arm Chr Thdrt Damase Pel Bede. 


Cuap. XV. 1. [aft yywpi¢w XN}! has written a, but erased it.] 


‘these regulations which I am now mak- 
ing,’ kuptov, emphatic: the Lord’s 
[commandment]: carrying His authority. 
No more direct assertion of inspiration can 
be uttered than this. ‘ Paul stamps here 
the seal of apostolic authority : and on 
that seal is necessarily Christ.’ Meyer. 
38. dyvoeitw| implying both 
the hopelessness of reclaiming such an 
one, and the little concern which his op- 
position gave the Apostle. The other 
reading, dyvoeita, gives a passable sense 
—‘he is ignored,’ scil. by God: ef. ch. 
vill. 2, 3; xiii. 12; Gal. iv. 9. 
39.] {yAodre and ph Kodvere express 
the different estimations in which he held 
the two gifts. 40.] 8, only pro- 
vided, that .... kata Taécy | 
i.e. in right time, and due proportion.— 
Meyer compares Jos. B. J. ii. 8. 5, of the 
Essenes: ote kpavyn mote Tov oikoy ote 
@dpuBos moAvver, Tas Be AaAtas ev Taker 
mapaxwpovaw aAAhAos. See Stanley, 
edn. 2, pp. 293 f. 

Cuap. XV.] Or THE RESURRECTION 
OF THE DEAD; WHICH SOME IN THE 
CoRINTHIAN CHURCH DENIED. For 
the enquiry, wHo they were that denied 
the Resurrection, see note on ver. 12. 
1—11.], The Apostle lays the founda- 
tion of his intended polemical argument 
in the historical fact of the RESURREC- 
TION OF CuHRIsT. But he does not alto- 
gether assume this fact. He deals with its 
evidence, in relating minutely the various 


appearances of the Lord after His Resur- 
rection, to others, and to himself. Then, 
in ver. 12, the proclamation of Christ’s 
Resurrection as the great fact attending the 
preaching of the gospel, is set against the 
denial of the Resurrection by some of them, 
and it is subsequently shewn that the two 
hang together, so that they who denied the 
one must be prepared to deny the other; 
and the consequences of this latter denial 
are pointed out. But it by no means 
follows, as De W. (in part) and Meyer 
have assumed, that the impugners were 
not prepared to deny the Resurrection of 
Christ. The Apostle writes not only for 
them, but for the rest of the Corinthian 
believers, shewing them the historical cer- 
tainty, and vital importance of Christ’s 
Resurrection, and its inseparable connexion 
with the doctrine which they were now 
tempted to deny. 1, 2.] 8€ transi- 
tional. yopilw, not, as most Com- 
mentators, aft. Cc., ofoy broumyvhoKe, 
nor as Riick., ‘ I direct your attention to’ 
(both which meanings are inadmissible, 
from the usage of the word: see reff.),— 
but as E. V. I declare: i.e. ‘deciare 
anew :’ not without some intimation of 
surprise and reproach to them. TO 
evayy.] the (whole) Gospel: not merely 
the Death and Resurrection of Christ, 
which were év mpérois parts of it; the 
reproach still continues; q. d. ‘I am con- 
strained to begin again, and declare to you 
the whole gospel which I preached to 


602 


h constr. acc. & h 

dat., Luke i. 4 ey Z eS x 
. Li. 10. ie 

19. i 9p JéoTnKaTe, 2 Ot ov Kal 
(xvii. 18). 
Gor. kisike 

i = ch. xi. 23. 
Gal. i. 9, 12 
al. see John 
rey BE 


44 om. ; 

y.2. (2 Cor. i. 24.) Col. iv. 12. 

1 ch. xi. 2 reff. m ch. xiv. 5. 
xiii. 11. ch. iii. 5. Eph. i. 13. 

r Heb. vy. 1. vii. 27. x.12. Ezek. xlv. 22. 


1 Tim. vy. 19 only. 


evayyeAtcaunv D Orig-catn. 


IIPO KOPINOIOTS A. 


k pres., Acts ii. 47, ch. i. 18. 


p = ch, xi. 2 reff. 
5 PsA. xxi. 16. 


XV. 


> U Lee le) a \ i aN / j bl e a 
ernyyedtoaunv vpiv, 0 Kal ‘i mapedaBete, J ev @ Kai 
k oalerOe, Tint AOYH EvNyyEIod- 

c lal >] / m 2 \ m > \ n 7 A o >) wf 
pny vpiv ec KatéxeTe, ™ ExTOS ™ EL un ” ELKH ° EmTLTTEVTATE. 
na j / 
3 Prrapéowxa yap vty Iév Impewtos 0 Kat ‘mapédaBor, 
3 nA a a \ 
éTL xpioTos aréVavey *iTép THY * dwapTiav Nuav * KaTa 


2 Cor. ii. 15. 1 Pet. iii. 21, iv. 18. Isa. xlv. 20. 
n Rom. xiii. 4 reff. o = Acts xix. 2. Rom. 
q here only. see note. Gen. xxxiii. 2. 


Isa. lili. 5. Dan. ix. 24. Zecu. xiii, 7. 


for eatnkate, ornxete DF Jatt copt Ambrst. 
2. aft Aoyw ins xa D!(and lat); quod et sermone Ambrst. 


for et KaTEXETE, 


operAere katexetv D}(and lat) F G-lat lux Ambrst. 


you.’ & «al wap.| Thee thrice re- 
peated «af indicates a climax :—which ye 
also received (see especially ref. John), in 
which moreover ye stand, by means of 
which ye are even being saved (in the 
course of salvation). tive Ady.]| if 
ye hold fast, with what discourse (not, 
as Moulton supposes me to interpret 
[in his Winer, Gr. Gr. p. 211, note 2, | 
= the discourse with which) I preached 
to you: the clause tim: Ady. being pre- 
fixed for emphasis’ sake. Adyos, of the 
import, not the grounds of his preaching : 
for of this he reminds them below, not of 
the arguments. Some Commentators take 
zi Adyw K.T.A. aS a mere epexegesis of 
evayyéAtov,— the gospel. . . ., with what 
discourse I preached to you, as olda ce, 
tts ef. But as Meyer has remarked, in 
that case,—(1) od(ecbe and et Kkaréxete 
being altogether severed from one another, 
ei katéxete becomes the conditional clause 
to yvwpi(w buty, with which it has no 
logical connexion: (2) ei karéxere would 
be inconsistent with év & kal éorhkare, 
which would thus be an absolute assertion : 
(3) the words éerds et wy ik] emior. would 
have to be referred as a second conditional 
clause to ei Karéxere (see below). 

éxrds el py eikq emer. | The only chance, 
if you hold fast what I have taught you, of 
your missing salvation, is the hardly sup- 
posable one, that your faith is vain, and 
the gospel a fable; see ver. 14, of which 
this is an anticipation :—unless (perchance) 
ye believed (not as E. V. ‘have believed,’ 
which confuses the idea: it is, ‘became 
believers,’ see reff.) in vain (els Kevdv, as 
ver. 14). So Chrys., who remarks: viv 
piv bmectaduevws aitd pnoi, mpoiwy be 
Kal diabeppawvduevos’ yuurn Aomby TH 
Keparf Bod Kal Aéyer Ei be xpiords ovK 
eyiryepTat, K.T-A., ver, 14. Hom, xxxviii. 
p- 352. This explanation of the words 
appears to me the only tenable one. 
Meyer, and in the main De W., under- 
stand them of a vain and dead faith, 
which the Apostle will not suppose them 


to have. But surely if the previously ex- 
pressed condition of katéxere were ful- 
filled, their faith could not be vain or dead ; 
and again the aorist is against this inter- 
pretation: unless ye became believers in 
vain, not, ‘unless your faith has been a 
vain one.’ A still further reason is, the 
parallelism of eix® émioredocare here and 
oUTws émiotevoare, ver.11: leading to the 
inference that efx here relates, not to the 
subjective insufficiency of their faith, but to 
the (hypothetical) objective nullity of that 
on which their faith was founded. (iZc., 
Theophyl., Theodoret, Luther, Calv., Es- 
tius, and De W. connect éxrds ef uh (see 
above) as a second conditional clause to 
ei kat €xeT€, Supplying between, cat éxeTe Se 
mdavtws (Theophyl.): but this is arbitrary 
and unnatural. 38—11.] A detail of 
the great fucts preached to them, centering 
in THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST. 

3.év wpatous | in primis, with relation not 
to order of time (as Chrys.: e apxijs), 
but to importance (as Theophyl.: ofovel yap 
Oeuerdids éott maons THs mloTews). So 
Plato, Rep. vii. 6, p. 522: totro 7d Kowdy 
-.-.0 Kal mavtl éy mpdtos dvdyKn 
pavOdvewy. 6 kat tapéAaBoy]| viz. 
(see ch. xi. 23 and note) from the Lord 
himself, by special revelation. Before his 
conversion he may have known the bare 
fact of the death of Jesus, but the na- 
ture and reason of that Death he had to 
learn from revelation :—the Resurrection 
he regarded as a fable,—but revelation in- 
formed him of its reality, and its accord- 
ance with prophecy. On the following 
clauses, ‘the earliest known specimen of 
what may be termed the creed of the early 
Church,’ see Stanley’s notes, and disserta- 
tion at the end of the section. trép 
T. Gp. Hp.] ON BEHALF OF OUR SINS: Viz. 
to atone for them. Meyer makes.the im- 
portant remark, that this use of érép with 
TOV GpapTLov ju. shews, that when Paul 
uses it in speaking of Christ’s sufferings 
with qpav only, he does not mean by it 
‘loco nostri.’ He also quotes from Butt- 


2—7. 


IIPOS KOPIN@IOTS A. 


603 


/ 
tas typadds, * kat dre * érady, Kab Ore Y eyiyepTas TH Nwépa *Vr,Acts 


an \ ‘ 4 a 
TH Tpitn “ Kata Tas typadas, ® Kal dre * HhOn Kya, eira 
6 érevta * HhOn Y érrayw TevTaKoc lots adEed- 
hots * ebamak, €& ay * oi * 1deloves ” wévovory ° Ews © apTt, 


TOls OWOEKA. 


SYVii. 2. 

u Matt. viii. 21, 
22 |) L. xiv. 
12. Luke 
Xvi. 22. Acts 
ii. 29. y. 6, 

9, 10 only. 
Gen, xxiii, 4. 
= Matt. x. 8. 


v 
ties 5é [Kal] *éxouunOnoav 7 erecta * dPO0n “laxwoPo, xiv.2 x. 


w Psa. xy. 10. 
1 Tim. iii. 16. 
Exod. xxx. 14 al. 


xxv. 19; 
x Acts ii. 3 reff. 
y = Mark xiv. 5 only. 
(Rom. vi. 10. 


23. Phil. i. 25. ech, iv. 13 reff. 


4. rec Tn TpiTn ne. (see Matt xvi. 21; xvii. 23. 


Isa, liii. 9, 10. 
in this ref., = €avy or efavepwOn, (Mk. xvi. 9—20) John. 
elsw. of place or authority. 
Heb. vii. 27. ix. 12. x. 10) only +. 


2lal, Isa. 
Jon. i. 17 (ii. 1). see Matt. xii. 40. 
See Stanley. 
z= here 
= John xxi. 22, 


Hosea vi. 2. 
See Winer, edn. 6, $ 37. 5. 


ach. ix. 19 reff. 
d= ch. vii. 39 reff. 


Here Tn nu. Tn Tp. is solemn and 


emphatic), with FKLP rel vulg Syr basm goth Mcion-e Dial Eus Chr Thdrt Iren-int 
Tert: txt ABDN m 17 syr copt Cyr-jer Cyr, Hil. 


§. ewerra AN m 17 Eus Cyr-jer Chr: kat wera tavta DIF am goth. 


for dwdeKa, 


evdexa D1F nonnulli-condices-in-Aug latt syr-mg goth arm-use Archel Damase Phot Jer. 
6. rec mAciovs, with KLP rel Orig, Eus, Chr Thdrt Damase: txt ABDFX k m 17 


Orig Eus, Cyr. 


aft de ins ef avtwy K. 


om Kau (not perceiving its force or 


confusion from € kat exot) A'(perhaps) BD'FX! latt syr coptt goth arm lat-ff: ins 
A2D°KLPR3 rel Syr eth Orig Archel Kus Chr Thdrt Damasc. 
7. for Ist eweita, ecta D copt: txt ABFKLPRS 17 rel Orig Cyr-jer Chr Damase. 


mann (Index to Meidias, p. 188), on the 
distinction between tmép and mepi: “id 
unum interest, quod epi usu frequentis- 
simo teritur, multo rarius usurpatur b7ép, 
quod ipsum discrimen inter Lat. prep. 
de et super locum obtinet.” It may 
be noticed, that in 8 Kings xvi. 19, where 
it is said that Zimri ame@avey trip tay 
GpapTiav avtod ay éemolnoer, it is for his 
own sins, as their punishment, that he 
died. So that trép may bear the meaning 
that Christ’s death was the punishment of 
the sins of that our nature which he took 
upon Him. But its undoubtedly inclusive 
vicarious import in other passages where 
brép juay and the like occur, seems to 
rule it to have that sense here also. 

Kata tas yp.| This applies to Christ’s 
Death, Burial, and Resurrection on the 
third day: see reff. 4. éyyyeprar | 
the perfect marks the continuation of the 
‘state thus begun, or of its consequences : 
so Herod. vii. 8, GAN? 6 wey TeTEAcUTHKE, 
kal ove égeyéeveTd of Tiwwphoacdar: see 
Kihner, § 441. 6. 5.| That the fol- 
lowing appearances are related in chrono- 
logical order, is evident from the use of the 
definite adverbs of sequence, «ira, &re:ta, 
@rxatov S& mdvrwy. See examples in 
Wetstein. Wieseler, Chron. Synops. der 
vier Evv. pp. 420 f., attempts to disprove 
this, but certainly does not succeed in get- 
ting over écxatov mdvTwr, ver. 8. 

@b0m Kyoda]| See Luke xxiv. 34. 

Trois §HSexa] used here popularly, as 
decemviri, and other like expressions, al- 
though the number was not full. The 
oceasion referred to seems to be that in 
John xx. 19 ff.; Luke xxiv. 36 ff. Clearly 
we must not with Chrys., suppose MWat- 


thias to be included as possibly having 
seen Him after His ascension: for the 
appearance is evidently one and the same. 
6.| He drops the construction with 
ér1, dependent on mapédwxa, and pro- 
ceeds in a direct narration. But evidently 
the sense of the former construction con- 
tinues: he is relating what he had re- 
ceived and preached to them. 
émdvw mevtak. ad. é¢am.| From Matt. 
xxviii. 17, it appears (see note there) that 
others besides the eleven witnessed the 
appearance on the mountain in Galilee. 
But we cannot say that it is the appearance 
here referred to :—nor indeed is it likely 
that so many as 500 believers in Jesus 
would have been gathered together in Gali- 
lee : both from its position in the list, and 
from the number who witnessed it, this 
appearance would seem rather to have 
taken place at Jerusalem, and before the 
dispersion of the multitudes who had as- 
sembled at the passover: for we find that 
the church of Jerusalem itself (Acts i. 15) 
subsequently contained only 120 persons. 
épamaé| not here in its commoner 
meaning of ‘once for all,’ but at once, 
at one and the same time; as Theodoret, 
ov Kal eva, GAN 6pov maow. 
pevovoerv | survive; see reff. The circum- 
stance of most of them remaining alive is 
mentioned apparently by way of strength- 
ening the evidence: q. d. “and can attest 
it, if required :’—hardly for the reason 
suggested by Stanley, that the dead among 
them would have been worse off even 
than others, if there were no resurrection, 
having been “ tantalised by the glimpse of 
another world in the vision of their risen 
Lord.” 7. “IaxnwBo] Probably, 





604 


e ady., here 
only. Numb. 
xxxi. 2. 

f neut., see 
Mark xii. 28, 
and note, 

g here only +. 


re only +. Nee 

wi Died” ATOoTOAOS, OvoTe J ediw~a THv 

10 if; \ lal SUN sek , Ue ] / , A .€ ] > > \ 
yapiTe b€ Oeod eit 6 etpt, Kai 7) 1yapis abTod 7 ‘els Ewe 
> m \ > 40 > x n / > lal , 

ov ™ Kevyn eyevnln, adda ™ TEplocoTEpoy avT@Y TavT@Y 


Sic. iii. 39. 
h here only. 
Job iii. 16. 
Eccles. vi. 3 
only. 
i = Matt. iii. 
ll. 2 Cor. iii. 5. 
k ch. i. 2 reff. 
xxxii. 47. 


Exod. iv. 10. constr., 2 Tim. ii. 2. 
11 Pet. i. 10, 
n ady., Mark vii. 36. 


TIIPO> KOPIN@IOTS A. 


m = Acts iv. 25 (from Ps. ii. 1). vv. 14, 58. 
Heb. vi. 17. vii. 15. 


XV. 


r , a \ / 
émeita Tos atroaToNos Tacw. 8% °éryatov dé ! zavToV ABI 
id \ an h b} , x »” > 7, 
8 wstrepeL TO " Extpwmatt *ohOn Kapol. 
t Qn > 7, aA >, -) \ i e 4 r fa} 
EXAYXLTTOS TOV ATOTTONWY’ OF OVK Eiml * LKaVOS Kaela aL o17 


Kk éxxAnolav tov * Oeod: 


j = Matt. v.10, ll al. fr. Ps. vii.1. 2 Macc. y. 8. 


1 Thess. ii. 1. Deut. 


rec (for 2nd eme:ra) eta, with BDLPR® rel Chr Thdrt: txt AFKN!'aceg17 Orig 


Eus Cyr-jer Damase. 
8. wsmep (for -meper) D! Eus?. 


10. om 2nd 4 D'F, gratia ejus in me latt lat-ff. 


om tw F lect-19 sah. 


kar enor F, 
for ov kevn eyevnOn, TTwWXN OVK 


eyevnon D1: rrwx7 ov yeyovey EF: pauper(a] non fuit D-lat G-lat lat-ff(not Jer Aug: 


from no distinguishing epithet being added, 
the celebrated James, the brother of the 


Lord: see Gal. i. 19. So Chrys. : €uol 
doKel, TS GDEAPG TE EavTov, p. 355. See 


notes on ch. ix. 5, Matt. xiii. 55, and the 
Prolegg. to the Epistle of James. On 
Wieseler’s view that this is the appearance 
on the road to Emmaus, see note on Luke 
xxiv. 13. This appearance cannot how- 
ever be identical with that traditional one 
quoted by Jerome (from the Gospel ac- 
cording to the Hebrews), Catal. Script. 
Eccles. ii. vol. ii. p. 831 f.: “ Juraverat 
enim Jacobus, se non comesturum panem 
ab illa hora qua biberat calicem Domini, 
donee videret eum resurgentem a mortuis.” 
This would imply that the appearance was 
very soon after the Resurrection, and be- 
fore any of those to large collections of be- 
lievers, in which James would naturally 
be present. amroot. tact | This is 
decisive for the much wider use of the term 
améoroXos than as applying to the Twelve 
only: and a strong presumption that 
James, just mentioned, and evidently here 
and Gal. i. 19, included among the amdéc- 
Todo, was not one of the Twelvé. Chrys. 
(ubi supra) extends the term to the Seventy 
of Luke x. and others: joav yap kal 
Bardot ardoTodot, ws of EBdounKovTa. 

8.] But last of all (not masc., as Meyer, 
who refers it to tay amooréAwy,—for 
others than the Apostles have already been 
mentioned,—but nevt., as in ref. and in 
the expression mdytwy uddiora [ Plato, 
Protag. p. 330]), as to the abortively 
born (r@ pointing out the Apostles as a 
family, and himself as the abortion among 
them,—the one whose relation to the rest 
in point of worthiness, was as that of the 
immature and deformed child to the rest 
of the family. That this is the meaning is 
evident from ver. 9, which drops the figure. 
On &Tpwua, see examples in Wetstein. 


It is not, as ties in Theophyl., 7d brrepoy 
yévynua, ‘a weakling child of old age, 
The grammarians find fault with the term, 
and prefer a@uBAwua or é&duBAwua: but 
it occurs in Aristotle, de generatione ani- 
malium, iv. 5,—ov ddvarat TeActodv, GAAG 
Kuhpat exninte: mapamAnoi Tos ka- 
Aouuévois extTpapacy. The suggestion 
of Valcknaer, al., that 76 is tT@ for Tit, is 
equally inconsistent with usage and the 
sense of the passage), He appeared to me 
also: viz. on the road to Damascus. This, 
and this only, can here be meant ; as heis 
speaking, not of a succession of visions, but 
of some one definite apparition. 
9, 10.] Digressive, explanatory of éxtpd- 
part. 9. éyé | The stress is on eye, ‘ Z, 
and no other.’ os] ‘ut qui: assigns 
the reason. ixavos] see reff. 
kadeioGar| ‘to bear the honourable name 
of an Apostle.’ 10. xdp. 8 Beod] 
“With the humiliating conviction of his 
own unworthiness is united the conscious- 
ness of that higher Power which worked on 
and in him,—and this introduces his chas- 
tened self-consciousness of the extent and 
success of his apostolic labours.” De Wette. 
The position of xdpiti 5€ Geov, and the re- 
petition of 7 xdpis ad’rod afterwards, shew 
the emphatic prominence which he assigns 
to the divine Grace, 6 eiwe) viz. in 
my office and its results. The church has 
admirably connected this passage, as Epistle 
for the 11th Sunday after Trinity, with 
that other speech of a Pharisee, Luke xviii. 
11,—6 Oe6s, ebxapioT@ oor br ovK ei ds- 
mep of Aotrol Tay avOpeérwy: see note there. 
# els eué| which was (manifested) 
towards me: see ref. and Rom. viii. 18. 
GAA opposed to Kev) ey.,—‘ by means of 
God’s grace’ being understood after aAAd, 
as afterwards explained. TEPLOTOTE- 
pov} adverbial, as in reff.: or perhaps 
neut. accus. governed by éxotlaca. 


9 > \ / ? e 
e€y@ yap eupl O cde 


8—12. 


IIPOZ KOPINOIOTS A. 


605 


b] / e fal a + 
°exoTiaga, ovc éyw Sé, AAA 7 yapls TOD BEod P ody © Matt. vi.28. 


b] / 
emo. 


\ - wh , 5 , 
Kal ovT@s émuctevoate. | ef O€' ypioTos * KnpvoceTat * ex 


1h) q v 5 BN q ” > a 4 r , 
€lLTE OVV EYW *ELTE EKELVOL, OUTWS KN PVG OC OMEV, 


Acts xx. 35. 
Rom. xvi. 6, 
12. Phil. ii. 
16. Ps. 
exxvi. 1. 


p Acts xiv. 4. 
u a ve Rye ttt w a , Ee te a er ch, xiii. 8 reff. 
veKpwV ort “Y EynyepTal, ’ TwS AEYOVOLW EV UpLLY TLVES OTE Oe srt, 
ili. 1, and 
passim. Exod. Xxxii. 5. Ss = ver. 2 reff. t see Acts viii. 5 reff. u Matt. xvii. 
9. (NY. a0 7, v., Matt. xiv. 2 al. not in Mk., who has €« Vv, avaoT., vi.14.) Lukeix.7. John ii.22. xii.1, 
9,17. xxi. 14. Acts iii. 15 al2. Paul, passim. Heb. xi. 19. 1 Pet. i. 21. v = ver. 4 al. fr. 


w = Rom. vi. 2. Gal. ii. 14. iv. 9. 


egena Hil). 


erased) &. [adAAa, so ABD!8 17. ] 


om avtwy Dl-gr L!: maytwy bef avtwy a. 


anavtwy (but a 
rec ins 9 bef ovy (see note), with A 


D-corr(? ot 3?) KLPN* rel sah eth arm Ath Chr Cyr Thdrt, Damasc, Thl Ge Orig- 
int, Jer,: om BD!FN? latt goth Orig(gr and int,) lat-ff. 


11. for ovv, 5¢ autem D'F goth Iven-int: enim vulg Tert Pel. 


TigTevoate RN), 


12. *rec OTL €k veKp@V, with ABD?KLPX rel vulg(and F-lat) Iven-(gr and int) 


Chr Thdrt: ¢« vexpwy or: D'-3(and lat) F G-lat Orig,. 


rec tTwes bef ev vai, with 


DFKL rel goth arm Epiph Chr, Thdrt Ambrst Promiss: quidam dicunt in vobis latt 
Tert: txt ABP a 17 syrr Orig(gr and int) Chr,(and 2-mss) Damase. 


avTGvy mwavtwy| either, ‘than any of 
them,’ or ‘than them all,’ scil. together. 
Meyer prefers the latter, on account of 
Tots am. macw, ver. 7. But it seems 
hardly necessary, and introduces an element 
of apparent exaggeration. éxoTriaca | 
Spoken of his apostolic work, in all its 
branches ; see reff., especially Phil. 

ovK éy@ $é€] explanatory, to avoid misap- 
prehension: it had been implied (see above) 
in the aAAd:—not I, however, but the 
Grace of God with me (see var. readd.) : 
scil. éxomlacevy k.T.A. That is,—the 
Grace of God worked with him in so over- 
whelming a measure, compared to his own 
working, that it was no longer the work 
of himself but of divine Grace. Augus- 
tine, de Grat. et Lib. Arb. § 5 [12], vol. 
x. p. 889, hardly expresses this: ‘* Non 
ego autem, i.e. non solus, sed gratia Dei 
mecum: ac per hoc nec gratia Dei sola, 
nec ipse solus, sed gratia Dei cum illo :’— 
for he overlooks the entire preponderance 
of Grace, which Paul asserts, even to the 
exclusion of his own action in the matter. 
The right view of this preponderance of 
Grace prevents the misunderstanding of 
the words which has led to the insertion 
of the article, 7 civ éuol, whereby Grace 
becomes absolutely the sole agent, which 
is contrary to fact. On the coagency of 
the human will with divine Grace, but in 
subordination, see Matt. x. 20; 2 Cor. v. 
20; vi. 1, and ch. iii. 9, note. 11.] 
He resumes the subject after the digression 
respecting himself :—it matters not whe- 
ther it were I or they (the other Apostles) 
—suvcu is the purport of our preaching — 
sUCcCH was your belief:—oirws, after 
this manner, viz. that Christ died, was 
buried, and rose again, as vv. 3, 4. 

12—19.] On the fact of Christ's Resur- 
rection, announced in his preaching, and 
confessed in their belief, he grounds (nega- 


tively) the truth of the general Resurrec- 
tion :—If the latter be not to happen, 
neither has the former happened :—and 
he urges the results of such a disproof 
of Christ’s Resurrection. 12.] intro- 
duces the argument for the resurrection, 
by referring to its denial among a portion 
of the Corinthian church. 8€ belongs 
to the whole question, and is opposed to 
ovTws Knp. and ott. émor. of the fore- 
going verse. The position of xpiords be- 
fore the verb gives it the leading emphasis, 
as an example of that which is denied by 
some among you: But if Curisr is 
preached that He is risen from the dead 
(if an instance of such resurrection is a fact 
announced in our preaching), how say some 
among you (how comes it to pass that some 
say) that a resurrection of the dead does 
not exist (ox éor. as ver.13)? If the 
species be conceded, how is it that some 
among you deny the genus? Ties | 
It is an interesting question, WHO these 
tTwes were; and one which can only be 
answered by the indications which the argu- 
ment in this chapter furnishes. (1) Were 
they Sadducees? If so, the Apostle would 
hardly have begun his argument with the 
fact of the Resurrection of Jesus. And yet 
we must remember that he is arguing not 
with the deniers, but with those who being 
as yet sound, were liable to be misled by 
them. But the opposition between Sad- 
duceism and Christianity was so complete, 
that we have little reason to think that any 
leaven of the Sadducees ever found its way 
into the church. (2) Were they Epi- 
cureans? Probably not for two reasons : 
(a) the Epicurean maxim, “ Let us eat and 
drink,” &e., is represented as a legitimate 
consequence of adopting their denial of the 
resurrection, not as an accompaniment of, 
much less as the ground of it: and (8) had 
the Epicurean element entered to any 


. 


606 


x Matt. xxii. 
31 only in 
gospp. Acts 
xvii. 32 al4. 
Paul, Rom. i. 
4. here &c. 
4 times only. 
Heb. vi. 2. 
see Acts iv. 2 
reff. x. 41 reff. 

y ver. 4. 

z ver. 10. 

a 2 Cor. v. 15. 


paptupes TOD Oeod, OTe 


Gal. iii. 29. see Rom. vii. 3, 25. 


d Matt. xxvi.60 only +. see Acts vi. 13. (-pety, Mark x. 19. -pia, Matt. xv. 19.) 


15. Acts xxiii. 11 al. 


IIPO> KOPIN@IOTS A. 


XV. 


fal > / 

* qvactacis *vexpav ovK éotw; | ef bé * avactaats * ve- 
tal > ” WY: \ y pape 4 Pee Ei > oe \ 
Kp@V OvK EaTW, OVE yYplaTos ¥ éyiyyepta’ 14 Et dé ypLaTOS 

\ , e lal 
ovK Y éynyeptar, *Kevov *apa Kat TO ” Kipvyya Huon, 
“Kevn Kal } tictis Lua | ° etpicxomeba b€é Kat *Yevdo- 
° éuaptupyjcapev ‘Kata Tov Beod 


b Rom. xvi. 25 reff. ce = ch. iv. 2 reff, 


e = John i. 7, 8, 


= here only. Xen. Cyrop. i. 2. 16, TavTa péev 5& kara mavtwv Mepoav 


€xouwev A€yew. Arist. Eth. Nic. i. 10.7, aAnOevoerat kar’ avT7ov. 


13. om et de to eotiv(homeotel) N1(ins N-corr') a d 17. — for «, cay FP. 


14. om ec to eyny. (homeotel) D!. 


rec om Ist Kat (as superfluous), with BLN% 


rel Ps-Ign Constt Epiph Cyr-jer Chr Thdrt Damase Jac-nisib: ins ADF KPN? d (e) f2 
1m 17. 47 G-lat basm goth Dial (ec Tert. (D-lat lat-ff express neither «a: nor apa.) 
rec aft xevy ins de, with D3KL rel (am) syr Ps-Ign Constt Chr Thdrt Thl Ge: 


om ABD!FPR a! m 17. 47 latt coptt Cyr-jer Dial Damase lat-ff. 


quov BD! 


672. 73. 91. 106 sah goth Ps-Ign-2-mss Dial Cyr-jer dic Ruf Arnob Bede. 


extent into the Corinthian church, we 
certainly should have had more notice 
of its exceedingly antichristian tenets. 
It is possible that the deniers may have 
been, or been in danger of being, cor- 
rupted by mixture with Epicureans with- 
out, from the warning of ver. 33. (3) 
Were they Jews? If not Sadducees, 
hardly Jews at all, or Judaizers: a strong 
tenet of Pharisaism was this very one of 
the Resurrection, see Acts xxiii. 6: and 
we know of no tendency of Essenism which 
should produce such a denial. (4) They 
must then have been Gentile believers, 
inheriting the unwillingness of the Greek 
mind to receive that of which a full account 
could not be given, see vv. 35, 36: and 
probably of a philosophical and cavilling 
turn. Meyer argues, from the antimate- 
rialistic turn of the Apostle’s counter-argu- 
ments, vv. 35 ff.,—that the objections were 
antimaterialistic also: De W. infers the 
very opposite, which certainly seems to me 
more probable. No trace whatever is 
found in the argument of an allegorizing 
character in the opponents, as was that of 
Hymeneus and Philetus, who maintained 
that the resurrection was past already, 
2 Tim. ii. 17, 18,—as Olsh. after Grot. sup- 
poses. Whether the Apostle regarded 
the resurrection of the body as inseparably 
bound up with a future existence of the 
soul, does not very clearly appear in this 
chapter. From the use of the word ar- 
édovTo, ver. 18, which must refer, not to 
annihilation, but to perdition, it would 
seem that he admitted an independent ex- 
istence of the soul; asalso from Phil. i. 23. 
But from ver. 32, ei vexpol odk eyelpovrat, 
odyouevy x. tlapev, atfpiov yap amobvi- 
ckouerv, it would seem that the Apostle re- 
garded the denial of the resurrection as in- 
volving that of the future state and judg- 
ment. On the question, to which of the 
(supposed) Corinthian parties the oppo- 


* 


nents belonged, I have nothing to say, not 
recognizing the divisions into the Pauline, 
Apollonian, Petrine, and ChriStine parties 
as having any historical foundation; see 
note on ch. i. 12. 13.} 8€ is the but 
argumentandi, frequent in mathematical 
demonstrations. Gv. VeK. OUK —_ 
the words (ov«) of the deniers. ovd 
Xptot. éynyeptat| This inference depends, 
as Grot. observes, on the maxim, “ Sublato 
genere tollitur et species ;” the Resurrec- 
tion of Christ being an instance of the 
rule, that dead men rise; inasmuch as 
He is man. This is enlarged on, vy. 
20—22. 14.) 8€, again introducing 
a new inference. ovK éy.| Again 
repeating and using as matter of fact 
(ovx) the inference of the last verse ; 
q-d. ef 5& xp. ovdK-eyhyepra. 
xevoév| idle, ‘empty,’ ‘without result :’ 
placed first for emphasis. apa | then: 
‘rebus ita comparatis’ (Meyer). 
kat] also, q.d. “If Christ’s Resurrec- 
tion be gone, then also our faith is gone.” 
Without the copula 6¢, the clause is much 
more forcible :—idle also is our preach- 
ing, idle also is your faith. Thus kai 
both times refers to the hypothesis, ei xp. 
ovK eyhy. 15.| Not to be joined 
with the former verse, as Lachm., al., and 
Meyer: for it does not depend on ef 8 
xp. «.7.A., but has its reason given below. 
Se kai, moreover. Wevd. 
tov §.| false witnesses concerning God 
(gen. obj.), not ‘belonging to God’ (gen. 
subj.), as Billroth: and false witnesses, 
as bearing false testimony (see below), 
not, as Knapp, as pretending to be wit- 
nesses, and not being :—there is no such 
distinction as Miiller attempts to lay down 
(Diss. Exeget. de loco Paul. 1 Cor. xv. 
12—19, cited by De Wette) between wWev- 
Seis udprupes, ‘qui falsum testimonium di- 
cunt,’ and Yevdoudprupes, ‘qui mentiuntur 
se esse testes :’ see reff., and compare (De 


15—20. 


ITPO> KOPIN@IOTS A. 


607 


= Rom. viii. 


o y ” \ , a b) y ” g yy ” fe 
OTL YELPEV TOV XPLITOV, OV. OUK NYELPEV elTreEp apa 9 (reff.), 17. 


vexpol ovK Y éyeipovtat. 


1 Pet. ii. 3. 


16 €L yap VeKpol OUK Y éryeipov- h ch. iii. 20 reff. 


i John yiii. 24 
bis. ix. 34. 


Tal, ouvoe os YY éyn - 17 @& 8é 0 ) 
; xptotos Y éynyeptat ef 8€ XploTOs OVK x Manian 


y > hh h / ( / c A ” > \ 
eynyeptat, "pataia 1) mictis vpov, étt éoTe 
Kouunbévres 
19 meee An fal / 02 DP Ar, BE ag, 
et ev TH "Con TavTy ° €v-yploT@ P HATTL- n= Phil. i.20. 
KoTes 4 éoev povov, * EheewoTEpor TavT@V avOpwTrwY éopéer. 


i e ‘ c cal 18 v \ e 
aLapTlats UL@Y" apa Kat Ob 

mm oA 
ATT@AOVTO. 


k 


ye $e 1 = 1 Thess, 

ae OO te eee 
A 13. 

€vV XploTo 7 Rom. xiv. 


15 reff. 


1 


James iy. 14. 

1 Pet. iii. 10, 

from Ps. 
xxiii. 12. 


90 s i oe \ Sage ener 4 ee fal u2 x a XXX naa 
VUVt € XPLaTos EYNYVEPT AL eK VEKPW), aTvTTapy”) TOY o4 Kings xviii. 


1,12. 
Acts xxy. 10 reff. 


t ver. 12. u Rom. viii. 23 reff. 


15. om xa D! goth arm Tert. 


Damase: er: yap Orig lat-ff. 


p perf., John y. 45. 2 Cor.i.10. 1 Tim. iv. 10. v. 5. vi. 17 only. 
r Rey. iii. 17 only +. compar., ch. xiii. 13 reff. 


5. see Eph. 
q constr., 
8 = ch. xiil. 13 reff. 


aft xpioroy ins avrov €1(N3 disapproving). 

om exrep to eyetpovta: D 43 harl! Syr sah goth Iren-int. 
16. om e to eyerp. (homeotel) P am(with fuld). 
17. aft vuwy ins ect BD! (vss [mot arm]). 


ins ot bef vexpor F. 
ins o bef xp. P. 
ins ka bef er: AN! Syr sah eth 


19. rec nAmixotes eouev bef ev xpiorw, with D3KLP rel (vss) Orig, Chr Thdrt Ee: 


txt ABD!FN m 17 latt goth (Orig,) Chron (Thl) Iren-int Ambr Ambrst. 
eonev bef mavtwy avOpwrwy D latt goth Orig 


20. for vu, vuy F Dial. 


Wette) Wevdod:ddocKnadros, Wevdoxariyopos. 
Kata Tov Geod | not, as commonly, and 
even Meyer, ‘against God: but asE. V., 
of, or concerning God: see, besides ref., 
Plut. de Liberis Educandis, § 4:—é kara 
TOV TEXVGV K. TOY eTLIOTHU@Y EéyeLY cid- 
Bapev, TavTdy Kal KaTa Tis apeTHs paréov 
eoTly. ws els Thy mayTEAH Sikaompaylay 
tpla det cuvdpametv, piaow, K. Adyor, kK. 
00s. eimep dpa| if in reality, as 
they assert, ..., compare Plato, Protag. 
p- 319 (§ 27), 4 Kardy, jy 8 eyed, Téexvnwa 
apa KekTnoat, eimep KéexTH OGL, and see Har- 
tung, Partikellehre, 1.343. 16.] Re- 
petition of the inference in ver. 13, for 
precision’s sake, 17, 18.] Repetition 
of the consequence already mentioned in 
ver. 14, but fuller, and with more refer- 
ence to its present and future calamitous 
results. 17. pataia] from udryy, 
and thus more directly pointing at the 
JSrustration of all on which faith relies 
as accomplished,—e- g. the removal of 
the guilt and power of sin ;—and of all 
to which hope looks forward, e. g. bliss 
after death for those who die in Christ. 
This is so, because Christ’s Resurrection 
accomplished our justification (Rom. iv. 
25), and, through justification, our future 
bliss, even in the disembodied state 
(for that seems here to be treated of). 
18. dpa xoi} then also. ot 

xous.| those who fell asleep in Christ, 
perished (i. e. passed into misery in Hades) 
He uses the aorists, speaking of the act of 
death, not of the continuing state: the act 
of falling asleep in Christ was to them 
amé)eta, év xp-, in communion with, 
membership of Christ. On Koipnbévtes 


2nd 


, lat-ff: omnibus sumus hominibus Tren-int. 
ins twv bef vexpwy F Damasc-comm. 


Meyer quotes a beautiful sentence from 
Photius (Quest. Amphiloch. 168 [al. 
187 or 197], vol. i. p. 861, Migne): ém 
Bev ovv TOD XpioTod Odvatov Kade?, Wva Td 
mdfos moTwonTat’ em) dt judy Kolpnow, 
ta thy odtv_qv mapayvOhonra. eba wey 
yap mapexdpnoev 7) avdoracis, Oappay Ka- 
Act Oavatov. eva Sé évy eAmtow er meévet, 
Kolunow Kader. 19.] Assuming this 
amréde of the dead in Christ, the state 
of Christians is indeed miserable. It has 
perhaps not been,enough seen that there 
are here two emphases, and that udvoy be- 
longs to the aggregate of both. According 
to the ordinary interpretation, ‘If in this 
life only we have hope in Christ .. .,’ it 
would be implied that in reality we shall 
have hope in Christ in another state also, 
which would not agree with the perfect 
namikétes eouev. The right arrangement 
of the Greek gives the key to the sentence : 
ei [ev ti Cwm tabtyn ev xpiord HAmuKédTES 
éouev| udvov,—‘if all we have done is 
merely having hoped in Christ in this life,’ 
‘if it is there to end, and that hope have no 
TESWUG ee The perf. #Amukdtes éop. 
implies the endurance of the hope through 
our lives, éXeetv. mavt.| We are 
most to be pitied (most miserable) of all 
men; viz. because they, all other men, live 
at ease,—we on the contrary are ever ex- 
posed to danger and death: because our 
hope is more intense than that of all others, 
and leads us to forego more: and to be 
disappointed in it, would be the height of 
misery. 20—28.] Reassertion of 
the truth that Christ 1s RISEN from the 
dead,—and prophetic exposition of the 
consequences of that great event. 


608 TIIPO> KOPINOIOTS A. XV. 


s L \ ' 
vactsxv.2t EK xexouunpévav. 1 ¥ erred) yap Sv avOpwTrov [6] Pavaros, 
ver. 13 reff. \ aes? , nm ‘ 
rN hew ie, Kall 60’ avOp@tov “avactacis “ vexpav. * asmep yap 

ch. vii. 14. a ‘ 4 > 
2Cor.v.19. Xéy Tm Ada Travtes aTroOvynaKkoucw, ovUTwS Kal * ev T 
Col. i. 16. a ’ @ 
Gal. ii. 17. A G y Ay 93 ¢f BA: ie n 
Ehud §=©6XplcT@ tavtes ¥ CworrounOjcovtar. 3 Exaotos b€ ev TO 
iil. 11. As A , > \ , ” ¢ rn rn 
7 ym. iv. Zz We) a 
yRomiv.7 (Ol *Taywate “ arapyy XploTos, erevta *ol TOD ypLiaTod 


z here only. 1 Kingsiv.10. 2 Kings xxiii. 13. a w. gen., see Rom. xvi. 10,11. ch. i. 11. 
rec at end adds eyeveto (supplemental gloss), with D3KL rel syrr goth Orig-int, 
Thdrt Damase: yevouevos 80: om ABD!FPR 17 latt coptt arm Orig,(and int,) Dial 
Tren-int Hil. 

21. dia (twice) F. om o [bef @avatos} ABD'!KN 17 (appy) Orig, Dial Ath, 
Ps-Ath Damase (appy to conform to avact. below: this is more prob than to suppose 


with Meyer that it has been introd from Rom v.12): ins D§FLP rel Orig, Eus, Ath, 


Cyr-jer(but 7 (wn afterwards) Chr(but 7 avagr. also) Thdrt Eucher. 


23. 5 is written over the line by N'. 


20.| vuvi, ‘as matters now stand :’ see 
reff. Gmrapx. T. Kekoip.| (as) (the) 
first-fruit of them that sleep (anarthrous, 
because categorematical). For the con- 
struction Meyer compares Eur. Or. 1098 : 
‘EAevny Krdvamev, Meveréw A’mny mikpav. 
The sense is, ‘Christ, in rising from the 
dead, is but the firstling or earnest of 
the resurrection of the whole number of 
those that sleep.’ There does not appear 
to be any intended reference to the legal 
ordinance of the first-fruits (Lev. xxiii. 10, 
11): but however general the application 
of the analogy may be, it can hardly fail to 
have been suggested to the mind of a Jew 
by the Levitical ordinances, especially as 
our Lord rose on the very morrow after the 
Paschal Sabbath, when (1.c.) the first-fruits 
were offered. TOV KekolLnpevwyv, from 
the logical connexion, should mean, not 
the dead in Christ, but all the dead ; see 
next verse: but it is the Christian dead 
who are before the Apostle’s mind, when 
he calls our risen Lord arapy} tay kek. 
21.| Man the bringer-in both 
of death and life : explanation (uot proof) 
of Christ being the amapxh T. Kekou.: 
and (1) in that He is Man: it being 
necessary that the first-fruit should be as 
the lump. The verity lying at the root 
of this verse is, that Jy MAN ONLY can 
general effects pervading the whole human 
race be introduced. 8. avOparrov, 
se. éoriv. 22.| (2) In that He is 
(and here the fact of His being the Lord of 
Life and Righteousness, and the second 
and spiritual Head of our nature, is as- 
sumed) to us the bringer-in of LIFE, as 
Adam was the bringer-in of DEATH. 
év TO AB., €v TO XptoTe | in community 
with, as partakers in a common nature 
with, Adam and Christ: who are respec- 
tively the sources, to the whole of that 
nature (wavtes), of death, and life, i.e. 
(here) physical death, and rescue from 


rec om Tov [bef xpiorou | (by a mistake 


physical death. The practice of Paul to 
insulate the objects of his present atten- 
tion from all ulterior considerations, must 
be carefully here borne in mind. The an- 
tithesis is merely between the bringing in 
of death by Adam, and of life (its oppo- 
site) by Christ. No consequence, whether 
on the side of death or of life, is brought 
into consideration. That death physical 
involved death eternal—that life eternal (in 
its only worthy sense) involves bliss eternal, 
is not so much as thought of, while the 
two great opposites, Death and Life, are 
under consideration. This has been missed 
by many Interpreters, and the reasoning 
thereby marred. But the ancients, Chrys., 
Theophyl., Theodoret, Zcum., and Olsh., 
De Wette, and Meyer, keep to the wniver- 
sal reference. Theophylact’s note is clear 
and striking: aitlay mposri@no 5¢ Hs mo- 
TOUTaL TH Eipnucva’ edet yap, Pow, ad’Thy 
vikjoa Thy ATTnOEtcay iow, Kal Toy 
kataBAnbévra, avToy éexvinjoa Kal yap 
év TG "Addu, Toutéoti Sia Td Tod "Adau 
TTatcua, TwavtTes TH Oavdtw wbmrerecor" 
oTws oby ev XploT@ TavTES GvacTHTOVTaL 
TouTéatt dia Td EdpeOjvar Tov XpioToY ava- 
Maprntoy k. avévoxov TG Bavara, kal ExdvTa 
bev aroGaveiv, dvacriva dé, Kabd ovK Fv 
duvatdy adtoy kpareic@a iad Tis Pbopas, 
Tov apxnyoy Tis Cwns. See on the great 
antithesis, Rom. v. 12 ff., and notes. 

23.| But in this universal Resurrection, 
ALL SHALL NOT HOLD THE SAME RANK. 
Chrys. rightly, «fra, iva ph thy Cworol- 
now Kowny akovous, kal Tos auapTwArods 
voulons obec@u, emiyayey Exaatos Se 
k.7.A. Hom. xxxix. p. 367. 

Taypa is not order of priority, but rank, 
or ‘troop in an army, so Plut., Otho, p. 
1072 (Wetst.): Aeye@ves, oftw yap Ta 
Taypata ‘Pwuator Kadovow éxlkAnow. 
The three ranks are mentioned in order of 
priority, but this does not constitute their 
distinctive character:—Christis the amapxq 





AB 
LP 
cd 
I 
ol 


21—24. 


IIPO>, KOPINOIOTS A. 


609 


lol - E +s 
>éy tH * mapovcia avtod, 2 cita TO 4 réXos, Grav © Tapa- >| 1Thes. ji 


a \ f , = hal Lead h te 
did02 Ti ‘Bacielav tO Ged Kal & watpi, Grav» Katap-_ iis 


19. iii. 13. v. 


c — Matt. xxiv. 


8, &e. James y. 7,8 al. (ch. xvi. 17 reff.) d = Matt. xxiv. 6, 14. 1 Pet. iv. 7. e = Matt. 
xi. 27. f = Acts xx. 25 al. g see Rom. xv. 6 reff. h ch. i. 28 reff. 
appy). ins ot bef ev Tn mapovora and add eAmoaytes F G-lat vulg-ed lat-ff. (que 


in adventu[m] ejus crediderunt demid fuld, sperantes is written over «Am. in the gr 
column of F: on the other hand, am D-lat F-lat have in adventu ejus; fri Aug, im 


presentia ejus.) 


24. rec mapadw (alteration to conform to xatapynon, the propriety of the pres being 
~ overlooked : see note), with KL rel Orig, Eus, Chr Fhdrt Damase: apadiio ADPR 


Hip Eus, Ath Did Bas Nys: txt BF. (17 def.) . 


—this is His YS:ov tdyua, see Col. i. 18 :— 
oi Tov xpiorod follow at His coming, who 
are the @vpayua (as understood by the con- 
text, and implied by arapx7), in the proper 
and worthiest sense, made like unto Him 
and partaking of His glory; then (after how 
long or how short a time is not declared, 
and seems to have formed no part of the 
revelations to Paul, but was afterwards re- 
vealed,—see Rev. xx. 4—6: compare also 
1 Thess. iv. 15—17) shall come THE END, 
viz. the resurrection of the rest of the dead, 
here veiled over by the general term 7d 
7éAos,—that resurrection not being in this 
argument specially treated, but only that of 
Christians. Zhe key to the understanding 
of this passage is to be found in the pro- 
phecy of our Lord, Matt. xxiv., xxv., but 
especially in the latter chapter. The re- 
surrection and judgment of of tov xpicrod 
forming the subject of vv. 1—30 there, 
and 7d TéAos,—the great final gathering 
of ravta Ta €Ovn, of vv. 31—46. 
amapxy, therefore necessarily the first 
7Taypa: and hence the word stands first. 
ot Tov xp.] =o! vexpol ev xpioTe, 
1 Thess. iv. 16. No mention occurs here of 
any judgment of these his %:0: 500A, as in 
Matt. xxv., for it does not belong to the 
present subject. év TH Tap. avt.]| év 
as forming part of, involved in, His appear- 
ing,—which, as the great event of the time, 
includes their resurrection in it. It ought 
to be needless to remind the student of the 
distinction between this mapovola and the 
final judgment ; it is here peculiarly impor- 
tant to bear it in mind. 24. cita | 
then, next in succession, introducing the 
third tayua,—see above. Td TE)os | 
the end kar’ etoxyy: not the end of the 
resurrection, as Meyer, after Theodoret, 
Ccum., Bengel, al. :—nor, of this present 
world, as Chrys., al.,—which properly hap- 
pens at the mapovola: nor exactly, of the 
Kingdom of Christ, as Grot. and Billroth : 
but generally, THE END, when all shall 
be accomplished, the bringing in and ful- 
ness of the Kingdom by the subjugation 
of the last enemy, the whole course of 
mediatorial work of Christ, the salvation of 
Vou. II. 


tov @uv &}, 


the elect ; the time indicated by Matt. xxv. 
ult.: kal ameAevocovra obra cis KdAaoW 
aidviov, of 5€ Sikaror eis Cwhy aidviov. 

Stay wapadiSor| when He (Christ) gives 
up (the pres., for that which is certainly at- 
tached to the event as its accompaniment— 
érav indicating the uncertainty of the 
time when, and the verb being probably 
subjunctive : see Winer, Moulton’s Trans. 
p- 360, note 2), the Kingdom to God, and 
the Father (reff.: to Him who is God and 
His Father). Then the rest of the sec- 
tion as far as ver. 28, is in explanation of 
the giving up the kingdom. And it rests 
on this weighty verity : the KINGDOM OF 
CHRIST over this world, in its beginning, 
its furtherance, and its completion, has one 
great end,—THE GLORIFICATION OF THE 
FaTHER BY THE Son. Therefore, when 
it shall be fully established, every enemy 
overcome, every thing subjected to Him, 
He will,—unot, reign over it and abide its 
King, but DELIVER IT UP TO THE FATHER. 
Hence as in ver. 25, His reign will endure, 
not, like that of earthly kings, WHEN He 
shall have put all enemies under His feet, 
but only tT1xL He shall have, &c.,—and 
then will be absorbed in the all-pervading 
majesty of Him for whose glory it was from 
first to last carried onward. It may be 
observed that the whole of this respects 
the mediatorial work and kingdom: the 
work of redemption,—and that Lordship 
over dead and living, for which Christ both 
died and rose. Consequently nothing is 
here said which can affect either (1) His 
coequality and coeternity with the Father 
in the Godhead, which is prior to and inde- 
pendent of this mediatorial work, and is 
not limited to the mediatorial kingdom; or 
(2) the eternity of His Humanity : for that 
Humanity ever was and is subordinate to 
the Father; and it by no means follows 
that when the mediatorial kingdom shall 
be given up to the Father, the Humanity, 
in which that kingdom was won, shall be 
put off: nay, the very fact of Christ in 
the body being the first-fruits of the resur- 
rection, proves that His body, as ours, will 
endure for ever: as the truth that our 

RR 


610 IIPOS KOPINOIOTS A. xy: 


i = Kom. viii. 


ynon wacav ‘apxyiv kal macav * éEovoiav Kat | Sivapuy. ABT 


38 (reff.). LPS 
; 1 Genre 251 8ef yap avTov ™ Bacirevew, ayps ov ” On mavTas Tovs >4° 
men is €XOpods wird Tos Todas avTov. 6 éryatos éxOpos °! 
n Mat xxi, Kxatapyeitat 6 Oavatos. 27 Ildvta yap ° bréragev v0 

Heb toys qodas avTod. Grav bé Pelmn Ste wavta * vToTE- 

we raxrat, V SHrov I6TL SéxTOs TOD °UmoTaEavTos avT@ TA 


o Rom. viii. 20 


reff. Psa. viii. 6. p ellips., ch, vi. 16 (reff.). q Gal. iii. 11 only. ras above (q). Matt. 
xxvi. 73 only. Num. xxvii. 21. s = Acts xxvi. 22. Isa. xxvi. 13. 
25. rec axpis, with B7DFKLN? rel: txt AB'PX! 17 Chr-cat Damasce. rec 


aft axpr ov ins av (perhaps from Matt xxii. 42 ||, or, as Meyer, from Lxx, Ps cix.1), 
with D?-3KLN? rel Orig, Marcell, Eus, Cas Chr Thdrt: om ABD'FPR? a? 17 Hip 
Orig, Eus, Ath Epiph.epe Damase. aft €x@pous ins avrov AF 17 Syr coptt goth 
eth Orig,(and int,) Marcell, Eus Cas Cyr-jer Tert Hil: om BDKUPR rel vulg(with 
am demid, agst harl F-lat) syr arm Iren Hip Orig.(and int,) Marcell, Eus,; Ath Chr 
Thdrt Damase Hil. om autou F Jer,. (not F-lat.) 


26. This ver in DN-corr! tol harl' goth eth Ambrst Jer stands after wodas avtov 
ver 27: om ver 26 and 1st clause of ver 27 (home@otel) 17. 92(sic). 


27. om Ist clause &1(ins [but see above] N-corr!-3), 


Iren Hip lat-ff. (not F-lat Aug.) 


humanity, even in glory, can only subsist 
before God by virtue of His Humanity, 
makes it plain that He will be VERY MAN to 
all eternity. THY Bacthetav | That 
kingdom, which in its fullest sense is then 
first His. At this very time of 7d TéAos, 
Matt. xxv. 34, He first calls Himself by the 
title of 6 Baowdeds. The name will no 
sooner be won, than laid at the feet of the 
Father, thus completing by the last great 
act of Redemption the obedience which He 
manifested in his Incarnation, and in his 
Death. étav Katapyyoy| (aor.) 
when He shall have brought to nought, 
&e.: see above. Tac. apX. «.T.A. | 
not only, as Meyer, &c., hostile power and 
government, but as the context necessi- 
tates, ALL power. Christ being manifested 
as universal King, every power co-ordinate 
with His must come under the category of 
hostile: all kings shall submit to Him : the 
kingdoms of the world shall become the 
kingdoms of the Lord and of His Christ : 
—and see the similar expressions Eph. i. 
21, where speaking proleptically, the 
Apostle clearly indicates that legitimate 
authorities, all the powers that be, are in- 
cluded. Compare by all means Rev. xi. 15. 

25.] See on the last verse :—this is 
the divine appointment with regard to the 
mediatorial kingdom,—that it should last 
till, and only till, all enemies shall have 
been subdued to it. 64, viz. Christ, not 
the Father, as Beza, Grot., Est., Billr., al. : 
it is parallel with karapyjon, and included 
in the mediatorial acts of Christ, who in 
His world’s course goes forth vixdy Kal iva 
vixhon, Rey. vi. 2. It is otherwise with 
bmwéragev, ver. 27: see there. 26. ] 


ins ta bef 2nd mayra R. 
ins avtw ei F (vss) Iren Hip Orig Hil Ambr ; bef uz., Epiph. 


om Ist ot: B vulg D-lat 
aft vmorerakTat 
om ta F. 


Connect éoyar. éx@pés together; not as 
Bloomf., ‘‘ last of all, the enemy Death is to 
be destroyed,” which is ungrammatical. If 
écx. is to stand alone, €x@pds karapyetrat 
must be “is destroyed as an enemy.” 
Death is the last enemy, as being the con- 
sequence of sin: when he is overcome and 
done away with, the whole end of Redemp- 
tion is shewn to have been accomplished. 
Death is personified, as in Rey. xx. 14. 
KaTapyettat,—pres., either us a prophetic 
certainty as mapadido0i above,—or as an 
axiomatic truth. 27.| Scriptural 
proof of the above declaration. 

wrérag. viz., from the Psalm,—Gop, the 
Father. See on the Psalm itself, Heb. 
ii. 6 ff. notes. etry, scil. 6 Geds, the 
same subject as drératev. Meyer alone, 
as it seems to me, gives the right construc- 
tion of ray... bmoréraxta. “The aor. 
ern must be rendered regularly, not in 
the present sense, but as a futurum 
exactum: see Luke vi. 26: Plato, Parm. 
p- 143, o (tl 8 érav etrw ovcla re Kab 
év, dpa ovK a&uporépw;),—lIon, p. 535, B 
(Stav eb {rns ern kat exmdAhins uddrora 
Tovs Oewuevovs). The time referred to, is 
that when the as yet unfulfilled rdyra 
brératey shall be fulfilled and completed : 
hence it is no longer the aor., but the 
perf. broréraxrat. The meaning then is: 
‘when God, who in Ps. viii. 6 has an- 
nounced the éadragis, shall hereafter have 
declared that this iwdéraéts is come to pass,’ 
... This form of expression was suggested 
to the Apostle by his having already ex- 
pressed himself in the words of a saying of 
God.” Lrender then, But when God shall 
have declared that all things have been 


25—29, 


, SOR e \ G a a 7 r 
mavta’ *8 ray Sé °irrotayh a’t@® Ta Tavta, TOTe [Kal] * 
c ey ¢ tel n 
QUTOS 0 Vlos CUTTOTayNoETAaL TO °UTOTaEaVTL a’TO Ta 


/ iy, 
mavta, wa ty 6 Geos * mavra 


/ € / lal cal 
“moucovow ot Barrilouevor trép TAY vexpav ; et Y OXws 


70 dAov avrots Hv Kat Td Tay "AmeAARS. 
v Matt. v. 34. ch. v. 1. vi. 7 only +. 


28. om Ist clause (homeeotel) X1(ins X-corr!) m. 
om kat BD! F 17 am(with fuld harl mar tol, agst demid) Syr goth Orig, 


Orig-int,. 


TIPO KOPIN@IOTS A. 


611 


== Goll iii, 11. 
(ch. xii. 6.) 
Herod. iii. 
157, TavTa. 

v év ToloL 
BaBvAw- 
vio. 
Zonvupos. 
Polyb. v. 26.5, 

Acts xxi. 13. 


ev taow. 9 érei “ri 


u = Mark xi. 5. John xi. 47. 


avtw bef vrotayn D Iren, Eus, 


Marcell Iren-int Ps-Ath-int Hil, Jer: ins AD3KLPX rel syr coptt Ps-Ign Hip Dial Eus, 


Ath Ps-Ath Cas Cyr-jer Chr Thdrt Damasce Orig-int, Tert Hil,. 


o Geos bef 7 D!. 


rec ins ta bef 3rd mayra, with D3FKLPR rel Orig, Marcell, Eus, Dial Ath Tit 
Epiph Cxs Cyr-jer Chr Thdrt Damasc: om ABD! 17 Hip Orig, Marcell Kus. 


29. momowoy m 47, rorovow F. 


subjected to Him, it is evident that 
they have been subjected (ellipsis of the 
predicate of the foregoing sentence after 
dHAov rt and 018 ort is common; so Plato, 
Gorg. p. 475, ©, ‘odKoty kak@ bwepBar- 
Aov Td ddikeiy KdKiov by efn Tod GdiKe?- 
o0a,’—* djrov 8h Sr,’ —scil. kdeiov ay 
etm. Kiihner, § 852, d) with the excep- 
tion of Him who subjected all things to 
Him. 28.] On the sense, see above. 
“The interpretations, that subjection is 
only an hyperbolical expression for the en- 
tire harmony of Christ with the Father 
(Chrys., Theophyl., Ge.) :—the limitation 
of it to His human nature (Theodoret, 
Aug., Jerome, Est., Wolf, al.), with the 
declarative explanation, that it will then 
become plain to all, that Christ even in 
regard of His kingship, is, on the side of 
His Humanity, dependent on the Father 
(Flatt)—and the addition, that Christ will 
then in His divine nature reign with the 
Father (Caly. :—‘ regnum—ab humanitate 
sua ad gloriosam divinitatem quodammodo 
traducet’) ;—the interpretation (of airds 
6 vids!) as referring to Christ’s mystical 
Body, i.e. the Church (Theodoret),—are 
idle subterfuges (leere Ausflidte).” De 
Wette. The refutation of these and all 
other attempts to explain away the doctrine 
here plainly asserted, of the ultimate sub- 
ordination of the Son, is contained in the 
three precise and unambiguous words, av- 
TOs 6 vids. iva 7 6 0. wavra ev 
maovv | that God (alone) may be all things 
in all,—i. e. recognized as sole Lord and 
King: ‘omnia erunt subordinata Filio, 
Filius Patri. Bengel. Numerous exam- 
ples of rdyra in this sense (less commonly 
7a mdvra, Kiihner, § 422) may be found 
in Wetst. 29—34.| ARGUMENTS 
FOR THE REALITY OF THE RESURREC- 
TION, from the practice (1) of those who 
were baptized for the dead, (2) of the 
Apostles, Sc., who submitted to daily peril 
of death. 29.| éwet resumes the 
main argument, which has been interrupted 
by the explanation since ver. 23 of ExaoTos 


aft oAws ins o: P. 
ev TG idtw Tdyuatt. After it is an ellipsis 
of ‘if it be as the adversaries suppose.’ 
ti wowjcovow | There is in these 
words a tacit reprehension of the practice 
about to be mentioned, which it is hardly 
possible altogether to miss. Both by the 
third person, and by the art. before Barr., 
he indirectly separates himself and those 
to whom he is writing from participation in 
or approval of the practice :—the meaning 
being, what will become of—‘ what ac- 
count can they give of their practice ?’ 
ot BamriLdpevor] those who are 
in the habit of being baptized—not of 
BarrtioAgvres. The distinction is impor- 
tant as affecting the interpretation. See 
below. imép TOv vexp@v| on behalf 
of the dead; viz. the same vexpol who are 
spoken of in the next clause and through- 
out the chapter as the subjects of avacracis 
—not vexpoé in any figurative sense. tTdév 
vexp., the art. marking the particular dead 
persons on behalf of whom the act took 
place. Before we pass to the exegesis, it 
will be well to go through the next ques- 
tion—ei dAws «.7.A. If dead men are not 
raised at all, why do they trouble them- 
selves (ri cal as in reff.) to be baptized 
for them ? Thus much being said as to 
the plain meaning of the words used, 
there can be no doubt as to their in- 
terpretation. The only legitimate re- 
ference is, to a practice, not otherwise 
known to us, not mentioned here with 
any approval by the Apostle, not gene- 
rally, prevalent (ot Barr.), but in use 
by some, of survivors allowing them- 
selves to be baptized on behalf of (be- 
lieving ?) friends who had died without 
baptism. With the subsequent similar 
practices of the Cerinthians (Epiph. Her. 
xxviii. § 6, p. 114) and:;Marcionites (Chrys., 
Tertull. de resurr. 48, vol. ii. p. 864, adv. 
Mare. v. 10, p. 494 f.) this may or may 
not have been connected. All we clearly 
see from the text, is that it unquestionably 
did exist. With regard to the other 
interpretations, Bengel well says, ‘Tanta 


RR 2 


612 


w ver. 4. 

x here bis. | 
(Rom. viii. 
24.) 

y Acts xix. 27 


reff. (-vos, 2 Cor. xi. 26.) z here only. 


IIPOS, KOPINOIOTS A. 


XV. 


Exod. xviii. 22,26. Levit. xvi. 2. 


rec (for avtwy) twy vexpwy (mechanical repetition of the above), with D°L rel Syr Chr 
Thdrt (e Thi Jac-nisib: avrey tw vexpwy m 43. 52: txt ABDIFKPR a d 17. 47 latt 


syr coptt goth arm Orig, Dial Ephr Epiph. 


est interpretationum varietas, ut is, qui 
non dicam varietates ipsas, sed varietatum 
catalogos colligere velit, dissertationem 
scripturus sit.” I will give a few of them, 
mostly in the words of their authors: 
Chrys. (Hom. xl. p. 379):—trép ray 
VEKp@V, TOUTEOTL TGV TwuaTwy. Kal yap 
émt toitw Banti(n, TH Tov vexpovd oa- 
patos dvactdoe, motevwy bt. (Migne 
reads thy T. v. o. QvdoTacw moT., 671) 
ovKeT: wéver vexpdv. Kal ov pey Sia TaY 
pnudtwy Aé€yes vexpav avdoraow: 6 Be 
iepeds, Sswep ev cikdu tw... . delxvucl 
go....d1a Tod HdaTos* Td yap Bar- 
tiCec@ar Kk. KaTadvecOa, ciTa avavevel, 
Tijs cis Gov KataBdcews eat oiuBorov 
kK. THS ekeidev ayddov. 80 Kk. Tapov 
70 Bamtioua 6 TI. rade? (Rom. vi. 4),— 
Theophyl.: pnolv ody, 8r1 of morevoaytes 
éri éorat avaoracis vexpayv cwpudTwr, kal 
Barriobevtes em) To1avtais €Amlot, TL ToLh- 
covow amatnbevtes; Ti be GAws Kal Bar- 
TiCovrat tvOpwrot bTEep avacTdcews, TOUT- 
éotw én) mposdoKia avactdcews, ei v. OK 
éy.; and so in the main, Pelag., @icum., 
Phot., Corn.-a-Lap., Wetst.—Theodoret : 
—6 BanriCsuevds, pnot, TE deordTy TvvOd- 
mretat, Wa Tov Savdrov kowwvhoas Kal 
Ths avactdcews yevntat kowwvds’ ci SE 
vexpdv éott 7) capa, Kal ovK daviorarat, 
tl dhmore Kal Banticera; and so Castal., 
al. All these senses would require 7/ 
moihoete Barrticbevtes, to say nothing of 
the impossibility of thus understanding 
intp tav vexpov. Estius explains émép 
TaY veKp. as=‘jamjam morituri, and 
Calvin justifies this, ‘ baptizari pro mortuis 
erit sic baptizari ut mortuis non vivis 
prosit. So too Epiph. (I. c.),—of cate- 
chumens who zpd 77s TeAevTis AouTpoU 
katatioivrat:—and Bengel :—* baptizan- 
tur super mortuis ii, qui mox post bap- 
tismum ad mortuos aggregabuntur.” But 
against this drtp tav vexpov is decisive,— 
as is tarép against ‘ over the dead,’ i.e. over 
their sepulchres (Luth., al.): this local 
sense of irép not being found in the N.T. 
Le Clere, Hammond, Olsh., al., explain 67. 
+. vexp., ‘to fill the place of the dead.’ 
But, as Meyer observes, such an idea can 
hardly be gathered from the words, but 
would want explaining in the context ;— 
and besides, the question would thus be 
irrelevant, because, the place of the dead 
being supplied by their successors, it would 


be no matter to them, whether the dead 
themselves rose or not : whereas now, the 
benefits of baptism being supposed to be 
conveyed to the dead by the baptism of his 
substitute, the proceeding would be stulti- 
Jied, if the dead could never rise to claim 
those benefits. This, the only justifiable 
rendering, is adopted by Ambrose, and by 
Anselm, Erasmus, Grotius, al., and re- 
cently by Billroth, Riickert, Meyer, De 
Wette, al. The ordinary objection to it is, 
that thus the Apostle would be giving his 
sanction to a superstitious usage, or at all 
events mentioning it without reprobation. 
But this is easily answered, by remember- 
ing that if the above view of tl rorqoovow 
is correct, he does not mention it without a 
slur on it ;—and more completely still, as 
Riickert (in Meyer), ‘ usurpari ab eo mo- 
rem, qui ceteroqui displiceret, ad errorem, 
in quo impugnando versabatur, radicitus 
evellendum; ipsius autem reprehendendi 
aliud tempus expectari.” Seea multitude 
of other interpretations in Pool’s Synopsis 
and in Stanley’s note. His concluding re- 
marks are worth quoting: ‘‘On the whole, 
therefore, this explanation of the passage 
(that given above) may be safely accepted, 
(1) as exhibiting a curious relic of primi- 
tive superstition, which, after having, as 
the words imply (?), prevailed generally in 
the apostolical church, gradually dwindled 
away till it was only to be found in some ob- 
scure sects, where it lost its original signifi- 
cance: (2) as containing an example of the 
Apostle’s mode of dealing with a practice, 
with which he could have norealsympathy ; 
not condemning or ridiculing it, but ap- 
pealing to it as an expression, however dis- 
torted, of their better feelings.” 30.] 
Not only the practice of those just spoken 
of, but his own, and that of those like 
him, who lived a life of perpetual expo- 
sure to death, were absurd, if there be no 
resurrection. Observe that the argument 
here applies equally to the future existence 
of the soul; and so Cicero uses it, Tuse. 
Queest. i. 15: “ Nescio quomodo inheeret in 
mentibus quasi seculorum quoddam augu- 
rium futurorum . . . quo quidem demto, 
quis tam esset amens, qui semper in labo- 
ribus et periculis viveret ? ” 31.] To 
die daily is a strong expression for to be 
daily in sight of death and expectingit. See 
2 Cor. iv. 11. This he strengthens by an 


‘ > e , / x / x \ / £ \ 
VEKpOL OUK eyelpovTal, ~ TL kal PBantifovtar viTep a 
avtav ; 997i * Kal pels ¥ Kevdvvevomev * Tacav * dpav ; ea 


o17 


30—33. 


/ ‘ 
Sl axal iépav arobvncke, » vy tiv ° buerépay © Kadyn- 
1 nN 7, oA e yA 3 lal "II fal an } id lal 
ow, adehpol, iv * exw év ypiotd “Inood TH Kupiw Hudov. 


IIPOS KOPINOIOTS A. 


615 


a Acts ii. 46 
reff. 

b here only. 
Gen. xli. 15, 
16 only. 


32 ef ‘Kata dvOpwrrov § éOnpiouaynoa ev Edéow, rl pos Td © = Rom, xi. 


h OeNos ; Ef vexpot ovK ™ éyelpovTat,' Paywpmev Kal wlwper: 
33 un wravacbe. ™ hOelpov- 


k bd \ bd / 
avptov yap atroOvncKopev. 


reff. e Rom, xv. 17. 
h James ii. 14, 16 only. Job xv. 3 only. 

28. xiii. 32,33. Acts xxiii. 20. xxv. 22, 
m = ch. iii. 17 reff. 


i Isa, xxii. 13. 
James iy. 13. Exod. viii. 29. 


31. poBy 
TT DMLETEPW, 
Thucyd. i, 
33. see Rom, ~ 


xv. 4, 
d Rom, iii. 27 
f see note, and ch. iii. 3 reff. g here only t+. 


k adv., Matt, vi. 30. Luke xii. 
1 ch. vi. 9 reff. 


31. Steph nuetepay, with A a (h!?) k m 22. 4, 441, 51-6. 721. 89. 120-2 lect-14 wth 


Orig, : txt BDFKLP rel vss. 


rec om adeAda, with DFL rel arm-zoh Orig, Chr 


Thdrt Damase Ambrst: ins ABKPX m 17 vulg fri syrr coptt 2th Dial Aug Pel Bede. 
om xp. no. Tw and nu. D}(and lat) Ambrst. 


32. om to D!F Clem. 


asseveration, grounded on his boast of them 
as his work in Christ : not that this is im- 
mediately or proximately at stake in the 
matter, but much as. we should say, “ As I 
love you, it is true.” He would not think 
of deceiving those of whom he boasted be- 
fore God in connexion with Christ. 
ter. | gen. obj.,see reff. _ vy, the affirma- 
tive, as ud is the negative particle of ad- 
juration: but vai wa is often found in an 
affirmative sense: see Kiihner, § 701. 
$2.] The stress of the first clause is on kata 
avOpwmrov, and its meaning, merely as 
man, i.e. ‘according to this world’s views,’ 
‘as one who has no hope beyond the grave;’ 
seeref. If thus only he fought, &., where 
was his profit (seeing he despised all those 
things which kara &vOpwmroy might compen- 
sate for such a fight,—fame, praise, &c.) ? 
The renderings, dcov rd cis avOpdrous 
(Chrys. p. 381), i. e. ‘so far as one can be 
said @npiouaxeiy against men,’—and kara 
avOpérayv Aoyicndv Onplwy éyevduny Bopa 
(Theodoret),—‘exempli causa’ (Semler, 
Rosenmiiller), —‘wt hominum more loquar’ 
(Estius and Bloomf.), are all constrained, 
and scarcely to be extorted from the words. 
eOyptopaxynoa | I fought with beasts 
(aor. referring to one special occasion). 
How? and when? Most ancient and mo- 
dern Commentators take the expression 
figuratively, as used in Appian, B. C. ii. p. 
763 (Wetst.), where Pompey says, oZo.s 
Onptois uaxdue8a,—and Ignat. ad Rom. 5, 
p- 689 f., ard Suplas wéxps ‘Pouns Onpio- 
Hax@ did vis kK. Sardoons, dedeuévos Séxa 
Acordpdois, 6 €ort oTpaTiwTiKkdy Tdypua. So, 
of our text, Tertull. de Resurr. 48, vol. ii. 
p- 865: “Depugnavit ad bestias Ephesi, 
illas scilicet bestias Asiaticse pressure.” 
And this explanation must be right: 
for his Roman citizenship would have 
precluded his ever being literally thrown 
to beasts: and even supposing him to have 
waived it, and been miraculously rescued, 
as Ambrst., Theodoret, Erasm., Luther, 


Calv., al. suppose, is it conceivable that 
such an event should have been altoge- 
ther unrecorded in the Acts? Adopting 
the figurative rendering,—we cannot fix 
on any recorded conflict which will suit 
the words. His danger from Demetrius 
and his fellow-craftsmen (Acts xix.) had 
not yet happened (see Prolege. § vi. 2): 
but. we-cannot tell what opposition, justi- 
fying this expression, the avtirefuevor mod- 
Aol of ch. xvi. 9 may ere this have made 
to his preaching. ei vexp.] If dead 
men rise not, i.e. ‘7f none of the dead 
rise. These words are best joined with 
the following, as Chrys., Theophyl., Beza, 
Bengel, Griesb., Meyer, De Wette, al.— 
not with the preceding, as Theodoret, 
Grot., Est., Luther, al. For nara dv@pw- 
mov already expresses their meaning in 
the preceding sentence; and the form 
of ver. 29 seems to justify this arrange- 
ment, besides that otherwise ody. k. 
mlouev, &e., would stand awkwardly in- 
sulated. ay. x. thopev ...] In Isa. 
the words represent the recklessness of 
those who utterly disregard the call of God 
to weeping and mourning, and feast while 
their time lasts. Wetst. has collected very 
nuimerous parallels from the classics. The 
most striking perhaps is Herod. ii. 78. 
33.] The tendency of the denial of the re- 
surrection, represented by the Epicurean 
maxim just quoted, leads him to hint that 
this denial was not altogether unconnected 
with a practice of too much intimacy with 
the profligate society around them. 

#7) TAayv., as in ref., introduces a warning 
against moral self-deception. Hbelp. 
79m . .] These words (according to the 
reading xpja@, which has, however, hardly 
any support) form an Iambic trimeter, 
and occur in this form in a fragment of 
the Thais of Menander; but Clem. Alex. 
Strom. i. 14 [59], p. 350 P., says, mpds 
yotv Kopw0ious . . tauBelw ouyKexpnrat 
Tpayiko—but this may be a mere inac- 


614 


here only. 
Sir. xx. 26 


TIPO] KOPINOIOTS A. 


XV. 


ow" 7O0n° ypnota? ouiriar Kakal, 9+ 4 éxvaprarte* duxaiws, ABI 
P 


3ShS \ Npte , Ae , X @ a \ ” LPR 
o = here (Matt. K@L BK” ALAPTAVEeTEe® ayVv@dtav Yap €O0U TLVES EXOUVCLY. cde 
hk 


xi. 30. Luke 
v. 39. vi. 35. 
Rom. ii. 4. 
Eph. iv. 32. 

1 Pet. ii. 3) 


only. 
p here only. 
Exod. xxi. 


‘arpos “evtpoTny viv NaNO. 
35 WANN V épet tis Ids ¥ éyetpovtas of vexpoi; Troim dé 
, y” \ aA / 

cwpate épyovtar; *°*adpwv, ov 0 o7reipets, ob ¥ Cwo- 


10. Proy. vii. 21. Wisd. viii. 18 only. q here only. Gen. ix. 24. 1 Kings xxv. 37. met., as here, Joel 
i.5. avavynd., 2 Tim. ii. 26. r || here (Luke xxiii.41. 1 Thess. ii. 10, Tit. ii. 12. 1 Pet. ii. 23) only. see 
Deut. xvi. 20. s 1 Pet. ii. 15 only. Job xxxv.16. Wisp. xiii. 1 only. t= ch. vii. 35. xiv. 12 al. 


Ps, xxxiv. 26. y James ii, 18. 


uch. vi. 5 only. 
y Rom. iy. 17 reff. 


xciii. 8. 


w ver. 4. x Luke xi. 40. xii. 20 al. Ps. 


33. rec xpyo0 (to suit the metre), with Clem,: txt ABDFKLPN rel Clem-hom Eus 


Ath Chr Thdrt Damase Gc Thl. 


34. rec Acyw (negligence, the force of Aarkw not being perceived), with AFKL rel 
Chr Thdrt, dico flor(and F-lat) G-lat: txt BDPX k m 17 Dial, loguor vulg D-lat(and 


fri spec) Ambrst. 
35. adda BP Orig. 


36. rec adpoy, with KL rel Orig,: txt ABDFPR m 17. 47. 


curacy. Socrates, Hist. Eccl. iii. 16, 
quotes it as a sufficient proof that Paul 
was conversant with the tragedies of Euri- 
pides. “ Perhaps,” says Dr. Burton, “ Me- 
nander took it from Euripides.” The Apos- 
tle may have cited it merely as a common- 
place current, without any idea whence it 
came ;—and xpyord seems to shew this. 
The plur. du:Ala, points out the repetition of 
the practice. Meyer quotes Plato, Rep. viii. 
p- 550, dia 7d wh KaKkod avdpds elvar Thy 
prow, dutAtas S€ Tals TY HAAwY Kakats 
Kexpja ba. 34. éxvyy.| Awake out 
of (your moral) intoxication, already pos- 
sessing you by the influence of these men. 

Sikaiws | either, as is just,—as you 
ought (Wahl, al.),—or, in a proper man- 
ner (Olsh., al.),—or, ém) cuupépovts kar 
xpenolium (Chrys. p. 382, al.), or so as to be 
Sixator, as E. V., Awake to righteousness. 
The last meaning is well defended by 
Dr. Peile from Thue. i. 21: amlotws én 
7) pvdades exverixnkdta,—‘so as to be- 
come incredible ;—and seems to be the 
best. The aor. imper. éxvnare marks 
the quick momentary awaking; the pres. 
imper. 3) auaprdvere, on the other hand, 
the enduring practice of abstinence from 
sin (Meyer). But that this must not al- 
ways be rigidly pressed, see Kihner, 
§ 445. 2. Anm. 1. ayvectay| The 
stress is on this word: for some (the 
tweés of ver. 12, most probably, are hinted 
at, and the source of their error pointed 
out) have (are affected with) ignorance 
(an absence of all true knowledge) of 
God. See ref. to Wisd. apos évr. 
tp. A. shews that these rivés were ev byiv, 
—not the heathen without:—the exist- 
ence of such in the Corinthian church 
was a disgrace to the whole. Aare | 
I am speaking; not merely I say this; 
it refers to the spirit of the whole passage. 

35—50. | The argument passes from 


for (womoerran, 


the fact of the resurrection, already sub- 
stantiated, to the MANNER of it: which is 
indicated, and confirmed, principally by 
analogies from nature. 35. | The new 
difficulty is introduced in the form of a 
question from an objector. This is put first 
generally, m@s...., In what manner,— 
and next specifically, rolm 5€ (dé, ‘what I 
mean, is... .’) c@uatt, With what kind 
of body—épx., do they (pres. as transfer- 
ring the action to that time,—as éyelpov- 
tat before: so Meyer and De W.:—or 
rather perhaps, as assuming for the mo- 
ment the truth of the resurrection as a 
thing actually happening in the course of 
things) come (forth at that time) ? 

36—41.] Analogies illustrative of the 
question just asked: and first, that of seed 
sown in the earth (36—38). 36. | Meyer 
would point this, appwy ot, d omelpes.. ., 
because according to the common punctua- 
tion there is necessarily an emphasis on ov, 
which the context does not allow. But on 
the other hand, it seems to me, there is an 
objection to the introduction of a new 
matter so lamely as by 6 omelpets. Besides 
which, the emphatic ov does not necessarily 
require any other agency to be emphatically 
set against it, but may imply an appeal to 
the objector’s own experience (as Billr. in 
Dr. Peile) :—‘ thou say this, who art con- 
tinually witness of the process, &e.?’? And 
let it be remembered that we have another 
oreipew below, vv. 42—44, which may be 
set against thy sowing. I retain therefore 
the stop at &ppwy (nom. for voc. as freq. 
See Luke xii. 20; Mark ix. 25; Luke viii. 
54, al., and Winer, edn. 6, § 29. 2), and 
the emphasis on ct. The similitude was 
used by our Lord of His own Resurrection, 
ref. John. ov Cwororetrar| Its life is 
latent in it ; but is not developed into quick 
and lively action without the death of the 
deposited seed,—i.e. its perishing, disap- 


017 


34—4.0. TIPO] KOPINOIOTS A. 615 


a 34 i ee 
moweitat, eav py “amobdvy %7 Kal d otreipers, ob TO 75,3 xi. 
TOuUa TO yevnoopevoy oeipers, GAA *yumVoY ” KOKKOV, b Mae cn” 


b Matt. xiii. 
> s , / n an € \ ‘ 1 31 ||. xvii. 
° ef © TUyoL, 1alTou 7 Twos THY NowTra@V? 88 6 Sé Geos Sidwow 20 1, Jolin 


on a \ Qs Nite et: A A e ch. xiv. 10 
avuT@® cama Kalws HnOEAnCEV, Kal ExdoTH TOV OTEPLAaTOV © ie vel). 
a rn x , opt., 1 Pet. 

°idiov capa, *9 ob Taca cap— 4 ait odp— adda AdA7 , 3 ir. 


John xii. 24, 


, ‘ \ a 5 ae 
Kev avOpwrrwv, dddn Se capE fxtnvOv, GAM Sé GapE At 
a , = here only. 
SarrTnvav, adn 6é ixyOvov. 1 Kal somata ‘érovpana, « 5 ver 2. 
cts 1. 25 al. 


g here onlyt. Jobv.7Aq. Xen. 


f Luke x. 34. Acts xxiii. 24. Rev. xviii. 13 only. Num. xx. 4, 8, 11. 
Cyr. i. 4.11. i John iii, 12. Phil.ii. 10 al. Ps. 


y 1 h Matt. vii. 10 al. epp., here only. 
Ixvii. 15. 2 Mace. iii. 39 only. Dan. iy. 23 (26) Theod-A. (ovp., BF.) 


(woryoverrat A 89. 108! Epiph, and(but not ad loc) Chr, Thdrt,. 
ets THY (but marked for erasure) N?. 
fri) Iren Dial Orig-int. 

37. om 2nd o7epers X'(ins N-corr!). for e1, 7 A. 

88. rec avtw bef diiwow, with DF KL rel fri Orig, Chr Thdrt Ambrst: txt ABPXb d 
m0 17 vulg(and F-lat) syrr (copt) Orig,(and int,) Dial Epiph Damase Tert. rec ins 
To bef .diov, with KLN$ rel Orig Chr Thdrt Damase Thl ic: om ABDF PR! 17 Epiph. 

89. om 2nd capt F(not F-lat) Syr Chr-2-mss. om adda D? fri eth Dial Chr. 

rec aft aAA7 mev ins capt, with Syr arm: om ABDFKLPX rel syr copt eth gr- 
lat-ff. avOpwmrov D! Syr Dial Tert. om 3rd capt D!F 17 latt(exe fri) Syr Chr 
Tert: om 8rd clause K k m 47 harl. ktnvovs DIF Syr Tert. om 2nd 6e D}. 
rec om 4th capé, with AKLP rel fri syrr Chr Thdrt Aug Pel: ins BDFX (17) 47 am 
(with demid fuld har] tol) copt (Damasc) Thl Orig-int, Tert Ambrst. rec .xOuwv 
addy de rrgvev, with FKL rel syr Thdrt (Hc Orig-int,: txt ABDPN 17. 47 vulg fri Syr 


aft (wor. ins 
aft awo8avn ins tpwrov D: pref, F latt(not 


copt eth arm Chr (Damasc) Thl Orig-int, Tert. 


pearing from nature. The same analogy 
was used by the Rabbis, but to prove that 
the dead would rise clothed: ‘ut triticum 
nudum sepelitur et multis vestibus orna- 
tum prodit, ita multo magis justi,’ Ke. 
37.] Before, the death of the seed was in- 
sisted on: now, the xon-identity of the seed 
with the future plant. There is a mixture 
of construction, the words 6 omefpe:s being 
pendent, as the sentence now stands. The 
two constructions as De W. observes are, 
ef Tt orelpets, ov TO Oo. TH ev. omelpets,— 
and 6 omeipets, ov Td o. TO yev. eoTiV. 
He names the plant 76 c@pa TO yevnosd- 
pevov, having already in his eye the appli- 
cation to the Resurrection, ei TUXOL | 
if it should so happen,—peradventure: 
not, ‘for example.’ See on ch. xiv. 10. 
Tav AouTray, scil. cmepudtor. 38. | 70€- 
Ange, willed, viz. at the creation: the aor. 
setting forth the one act of the divine Will 
giving to the particular seed the particular 
development at first, which the species re- 
tains: whereas @éAe would imply a fresh 
act of the divine Will giving to every indi- 
vidual seed (not éExdotw t&v omepudror, 
but éxdor@m omépuati, or rather éxdorw 
KkéKKw) his own body. But the whole gift 
to the species being God’s, to continue or 
withhold, the pres. 5f5wouyr still holds good. 
éxdot. Tov oepp.| to each of 
the (kinds of) seed; see above: ray is 
generic. Wrov capa] a body of its 
own. Such then being the case with all 


seeds, why should it be thought necessary 
that the same body should rise as was sown, 
or that God cannot give to each a resur- 
rection-body, as in nature ? 39—41.] 
And the more,—because we have examples 
from analogy of various kinds of bodies ; 
viz. (1) in the flesh of animals (ver. 39) : 
(2) in celestial and terrestrial bodies (ver. 
40) : (3) in the various characters of light 
given by the sun, moon, and stars. 

aapé | animal organism (De W.). Dean 
Stanley’s former rendering (corrected in 
his 3rd edn.) of ov maca odpt, H aiTh 
odpé, ‘no flesh is the same flesh,’ is con- 
trary to the usage of the passages which 
he alleged to defend it, where the negative 
is always attached to the verb ; od Sikaw- 
Ohoetat maoa odpt, Rom. iii. 20; Gal. ii. 
16. See Matt. xxiv. 22 ||; Acts x. 14; 
ch. i. 29; 1 John iii. 15; Rev. vii. 16; 
ix. 4. On the other hand, where the 
negative is attached to mas, as here, the 
sentence is a particular negative, not an 
universal: e. g. Rom. x.16, aAA’ ov maytes 
bmhkovoav : ix. 6, 7; Heb. iii. 16; Matt. 
vil. 21, ob mas 0 Aéywv mor Kbpte KUpte cis- 
eAevoetat eis Thy BactAclay THY ovpavar, 
—where the rendering in question would 
involve portentous consequences indeed. 
I observe that Conyb. also, although dis- 
approving on the ground of the sense, 
adds, “the words of the Greek text no 
doubt admit of such a rendering.” 

KTyvov] properly (Kréavos, KTdouat) ani- 


616 TIPOS KOPIN@OIOTS A. my. 
kKhere bis. Kal c@pata * ériyea: adda | érépa pev 1 Tov | éroupa- Cra 
Phi. plop ™ do£a, \érépa 8€ % Tav * émuyeiwv. 1 GAAM ABC 
ii. 19. of ose) KLP 
iii. 15 only T. 


1 = here only. 
see Luke ix. 
29. 

m = Acts xxii. 
11 reff. 


°dotépwv' CaoTip yap °aotépos ? duahéper ev ™ Sop. 


lal lal BJ 
42 oitws Kal 1) YavacTacis TOY IvEKpOV. *oTrElpeTaL eV 


n Epp., here 
mily. Acts a b] > , 
i airet. § bOopa, éyetperac év t apOapaia: * * oreipetar ev * aTuysia, 
o Paul, here - 5 7 : r 
see only.  @ryetpetas Y ev ¥ Oo€n' 'omelpetat év “ acOeveia, eyeipeTat 
TySpeefeae: al , > , a 
iM Suae * €v * Suvdpers 44° orreipeTas cHpa YvuyiKor, eyEeipeTal TOpa 
13. Rey. i. 
16 all3, 


Gen. Z ) ar aia ¥ KOV, €OTLW Kal * TrVEU= 
ans. Gen. 2 rYEUWATLKOV. €l EoTLW Opa ¥ ~ruyLKOY, ECT 


p = and constr., 


Gal. iv. lonly. (Rom. ii. 18 al.) Dan. vii. 3 (Theod.). q ver. 12 reff. r see ver. 36. 7 Ripe 
viii. 21. ver. 50. Gal. vi. 8. Col. ii. 22, 2 Pet. i. 4. ii. (12 bis) 19 only. Jonah ii. 7. t Rom. ii. 7 
reff. u Rom. i. 26 reff. vy = Luke ix. 31. 2Cor. iii. 7, &e. Phil. iv.19. Col. iii.4. 1 Tim. 
iii. 16 only. L.P. w = ch. ii. 3 reff. (see note.) x Rom. i. 4 reff. y here 3ce. ch. 


ii. 14. James iii.15. Jude 19 only +. (ch. x. 3, 4 reff.) 


40. om 2nd cwpara F(not F-lat) Tert. [adAa, so ABD'P. ] 

41. aft Ist and 2nd aAA7z ins de F: aft 2nd, lect-8(sic).—om Ist ca F lect-8 vulg 
(and F-lat) fri copt Orig-int, Jer. aotepos (for -pwy) K, om yap K Orig-int,. 

44. recom et, with D?3KLP rel syrr Thdrt Phot-cat Jac-nisib, : ins ABCD! FR 17 
latt copt eth arm Damase Aug, Bede. (« is written above the line by €1(?).)—ree kat 
bef 2nd eorw, with KL rel &c: txt ABCDFX 17 &e. (P ?)—ree ins copa bef rvevpari- 
kov, with KL rel syrr (copt) eth Thdrt Phot-cat Jac-nisib,: om ABCDFX 17 latt 
arm. (P?) (Conformation to the foregoing assertions: or perhaps « overlooked from 


z = here 4 times only. 


m §9£a HdLov, Kal dAAN ™ SoEa ® cEAHVS, Kal GAH ™ Soka d rz. 


ect following. The 2nd cwpa was a gloss.) 


mals possessed by man: but used in a 
wider sense for quadrupeds in general. 

40. cdépata émovpavia) not, ac- 
cording to our modern expression, heavenly 
bodies,—for they are introduced first ver. 
41, and if we apply these words to them, 
we must suppose the Apostle to have 
imagined the stars to be endowed with 
bodies in the literal sense: for he is here 
comparing not figurative expressions, but 
physical realities :—nor (as Chrys., al.) the 
bodies of the righteous, as opposed to those 
of the wicked; for in these there is no 
organic difference whatever : but, as Meyer 
and De Wette, ‘the bodies of angels, — 
the only heavenly organisms of which we 
are aware (except indeed the Resurrection- 
Body of our Lord, and that of those few 
who have been taken into glory, which, as 
belonging to the matter in question, are 
not alleged) which will bear comparison 
with bodies on earth. 86éa belongs 
to the érovpdvia more strictly than to the 
éxtyera. In Luke ix. 26, we have év 77 
ddim aitod Kal Tod marpds Kal tav aylwv 
ayyeAov. 41.| This third analogy 
is suggested perhaps by 5d6éa just before. 
There is no allusion whatever here (as 
some have imagined,—even Chrys., Zcum., 
Theodoret, Calov., Estius, al.) to different 
degrees of glorification of the bodies of 
the blessed; the introduction of such an 
idea confuses the whole analogical reason- 
ing: which is, that even various fountains 
of light, so similar in its aspect and pro- 
perties, differ; the sun from the moon 


and the stars: the stars (and much more 
vividly would this be felt under the pure 
sky of the East than here) from one 
another: why not then a body here froma 
resurrection-body,—both bodies, but dif- 
ferent ? 42—44 a.] Application of 
these analogies to the doctrine of the 
Resurrection. 42.| otrws, thus, 
viz. in the entire diversity of that which 
is raised again from the former body. 
ome(perat| “Cum posset dicere 
sepelitur, maluit dicere seritur, ut magis 
insisteret similitudini supra sumte de gra- 
no.” Grot. év $00pq, év adBapoia | in 
a state of corruption,—in a state of in- 
corruptibility. 43. év drinta, év 8d£y | 
in dishonour (ri yap cidexGéorepoy vexpov 
diappvevros ; Chrys. Hom. xli. p. 390. Cf. 
Xen. Mem. i. 2. 538, —7Hs Wuxijs ekeASovons, 
. . 7) T@ua TOU oikeLoTaTov avOpamov Thy 
taxlorny ekevéykayvtes &paviCovow),—in 
glory: regarding, as throughout this argu- 
ment (see on ver. 24), only the resurrec- 
tion of the just: see Phil. iii. 21. év 
doGeve(q | in weakness,—the character- 
istic of the lifeless body, which is relaxed 
and powerless. Chrys. understands ao6. of 
its inability to resist corruption: De Wette 
would refer it to the previous state of pain 
and disease: but it seems better to under- 
stand it of the powerlessness of the corpse, 
contrasted with év 8vuv., in vigour, viz. 
the fresh and eternal energy of the new 
body free from disease and pain. “ That 
which Grot. adds: ‘cum sensibus multis, 
quos nune non inteliigimus,’ is very likely 


g 
017 


41—47, 
pariKov. 
dvOpwrros Adam 
> els mvevpa ¢ Cworrotoby. 


b 


45. for ovrws kat, ka8ws F(not F-lat) fuld arm(not ed-1805) Ambrst. 


mos BK Iren Did Orig-int, Tert. 
46. adda D!}. 


IIPOS KOPINOIOTS A. 


617 


Luke xxiv. 
46. Acts 
xiii. 47 al. 
b GEN. ii. 7. 
constr., Acts 
v. 36 reff. 
ver. 36. Rom. 
iv. 17 reff. 

d here ¥ times) 
only 


45 2obTws Kal yéypaTTat »’Eyyévero @ arparmes * = Mths «. 
els. ypuyny tdcay, 6 eo xaos "Adap | 
46 GX’ ov mparov TO 
paTiKor, GXXNA TO  spuxsnon, Sree TO * TVEULAT LOY. 
47 9 mp@tos avOpwiros éx yas 


2 Wr VEv- 


4 yoixos, o Sevtepos 


om avOpw- 


47. aft o mpwros avOpwmos add adau C! Clem. 


in itself true, but is not implied in éy 
duvduer.” Meyer. 44 a. cap. Wx. | 
an animal body, of which the Wvx%, the 
animal soul, was the acting and informing 
power. This soul having departed out of 
it, does not do away with the correctness 
of the predicate: its whole organism which 
still remains when it is sown, is arranged to 
suit this predominance of the animal soul. 
copa TVEULATLKOY | Theophyl., 
having explained Tapa ux. ew @ 7 
Wuxh Td KUpos Kal Thy AyEemoviay Exe— 
proceeds mvevuatixdy 5¢, 7d Thy Tod aylov 
mvevuaTos KaTamAovToby évépyeiav, Kar 
tr éxelvov Ta mayvtTa Sioikovmevov. el 
yap Kal viv ev nuiv evepyet rd mvedua, 
GAN OVX oOUTws, OVSE Gel. AdhintaTar yap 
Guaptavévtwy. Kal Tov mvevmaros 5 Tap- 
dyros, 7 Wuxh Sioiwet Td cama tére dE 
Sinver@s wapamevet Tols cduast Tay Si- 
Kalwy To mvedua. But this is not quite 
enough :—for thus the body might remain 
as it is, sin only being removed: whereas 
it shall be no longer a body in which the 
ux predominates to the subordination of 
the higher part, the mvetdua, but one in 
which the rvevua, and that informed fully 
by the Spirit of God, shall predominate,— 
its organism being conformed not to an 
animal, but to a spiritual life: see on ch. vi. 
13. Some understood mvevpatixdy, ethe- 
rial, aery, kovpdtepoy Kal AewTéTeEpoy, Kal 
oiov Kal én’ depos dxetcOa (Chrys. p. 391), 
or as Origen, dep@des k. aif€épsov (see Theo- 
phyl.), but the other is certainly right. 
44 b—49.] Reassertion and Con- 
Sirmation of the existence of the spiritual 
body. 44). | If there exists an animal 
body, there exists also a spiritual: i.e. 
it is no more wonderful a thing, that there 
should be a body fitted to the capacities 
and wants of man’s highest part, his spirit, 
than (which we see to be the case) that there 
should be one fitted to the capacities and 
wants of his subordinate animal soul. The 
emphasis is both times on éotw. 
45.| Confirmation of this from Scripture. 
ovTws, thus, viz. in accordance with 
what has been just said. The citation 
extends only to the words éyévero 6 &y@p. 


els Wux. (@cav: mp@ros and "Addu are 
supplied, as are also the concluding words, 
in which lies the real confirmation. The 
words quoted serve therefore rather for the 
illustration of man being a wux74, than for 
a proof of the existence of the spiritual 
body. éyéeveto | by his creation,—by 
means of God breathing into him the 
breath of life. eis W. Cac. | becoming 
thereby a o@pa Yuxucdy. 6 écx. 
*Addp| This expression was well known 
among the Jews as indicating the Messiah. 
The Rabbinical work Neve Shalom ix. 9 
(Schéttgen), says: ‘‘Adamus postremus est 
Messias :” see other instances in Schottg. 
ad loc. éoxatos, as being the last 
HEAD of humanity,—to be manifested in 
the last times: or merely in contrast to the 
jirst. eis mv. Cwor. | scil. éyévero— 
became a quickening (life - bestowing) 
spirit. When? This has been variously 
answered : see De Wette and Meyer. The 
principal periods selected are his Incarna- 
tion, his Resurrection, and his Ascension. 
But it seems to me that the question is 
not one to be pressed: in the union of the 
two natures, the second Adam was consti- 
tuted a life-bestowing Spirit, and is such 
now in heaven, yet having the resurrec- 
tion-body. The whole complex of His suf- 
fering and triumphant state seems to be 
embraced in these words. That His re- 
surrection-state alone is not intended, is 
evident from é& ovpavod, ver. 47. He was 
a mvedua (woody, even while in the cana 
Wuxindy; and is still such in the céua 
mvevpaticdy. The life implied in (wo- 
mo.ovy, is the resurrection-life: see John 
v. 21, 28; Rom. viii. 11. 46.] But in 
the natural order, that which is animal 
precedes that which is spiritual (rd Wox., 
TO Tvevp., not gua, but abstract and 
general): as in ver. 45, 6 mp@tos—6é éoxa- 
TOS. 47.] So exactly in Gen. ii. 7. 
God made man xodv AaBayv amd Tis yijs. 
Meyer has some excellent remarks here, 
with which I entirely agree :—“Since the 
body of Adam is thus ‘characterized as a 
YuxiKdy cua, as ver. 45, and psychical 
organism involves mortality (ver. 44), it 


618 


e ver. 40 reff. 

f Rom. xiii. 4 
reff. 

g Rom. viii. 29 
reff. 

h = ch. vii. 29. 
see ch.i. 12. 


avOpwros €& ovpavod. 


xiy. 18. 
k ch. vi. 9, 10 
ff. 


reff. 

1 ver. 42 reff. 

m Rom. ii. 7 
reff. 

n = Matt. xiii. 11. 


Rom. xi. 25. Dan. ii. 18 al. 


IIPOS KOPINOIOTS A. 


a, 


48 ofos 6 4% yoixds, TovodToL Kal ABC 
of “ yoixol, Kai olos 6 ° éroupavios, ToLodToL Kai of bed 
© érroupavioe' * Kat xabas * épopécapev tiv % eikova Tod ONT, 
_ I yoixod, ‘popécowev Kai THY £ Eixova TOU * érroUpaviou. 
50h ropTo O€ » hye, aderpol, Ott 'capE Kat ‘aiwa * Bact- 
relay Oeod *KAnpovopcat ov Svvavtat, ovdée 4 | POopa 
Tv ™apOapaiav * kXnpovopet. 


51 (600 ™ wuoTHpLov vpiv 


rec ins o kupios bef ef ian (gloss), with AD§KLPN? rel syrr goth Orig, Chr Cyr, Thdrt 
Ps-Ath Damase Thl (ec ‘lert Maximin (the insertion is ascribed to Marcion by Tert 
and in Dial): om BCD'F §&} 17 latt copt eth arm Orig,(and int,) Hip-ms Ath Bas Nys 


Naz Isid Cyr Apollinarist-in-Epiph Photin Tert Cyprsepe Hil. 


ovpavios F vulg Orig-int, lat-ff. 
48. aft rorevro ins ovta C. 


aft ovpavov add o 


om Ist ka: F vulg-mss(not F-lat) Iren-int,. 


for emoup., ovpavios and ovpayvio: D1F Tert Cypr Hil. 

49. popecwuey (from a desire [as Chrys below] to turn what is really a physical 
assertion into an ethical exhortation : see note at Rom y. 1) ACDFKLPX rel latt copt 
goth Thdot Orig,(and int;) Cas Bas Cyr Mac Meth(pref wa) Chrexpr(tod7’ eorw, &piora 


Tpakwmev. . « 


. TupBovdreuTiK@s eisdyet Tov Adyov) Epiph Ps-Ath Damase Iren-int 


Tertexpr Cypr Hil, Jer: txt Bae g 17 arm Thdrtexp:(7d yap popecomey mpoppntikas, ov 


mapaiveTiKas etpnKev) Thlexpr Ccexpr- 
50. for de, yap DF Iren Tert,. 


for KAnpovounoa ov SuvayTat, ov KAnpovopnoovotv 


(see ch vi. 9, Gal v. 21) F 42 copt Iren, Mac Chr Orig-int, Tert,.—évvara: BPR k. 
KAnpovounoe: (see as above) C1D'F latt copt Meth. 


is clear that Paul treats of Adam not as 
created exempt from death: in strict ac- 
cordance with Gen. ii. 7; iii. 19. Nor does 
this militate against his teaching that 
death came into the world through sin, 
Rom. v. 12. For had our first parents 
not sinned, they would have remained in 
Paradise, and would, by the use of the T’ree 
of Life, which God had not forbidden them 
(Gen. ii. 16, 17), have become immortal 
(Gen. iii. 22). But they were driven out 
of Paradise, ere yet they had tasted of this 
tree (Gen. iii. 22), and so, according to the 
record in Genesis also, Death came into 
the world by sin.” See also some striking 
remarks on the verse in Genesis in Stier, 
«Andeutungen fiir glaiibiges Schriftver- 
stiindniss,’ pp. 202, 3. €— ovpayod | 
either, in this glorified Body, at his 
coming,—as Meyer: or, in his whole Per- 
sonality (De W.) as the God-man: this 
latter seems more probable from John iii. 
18, where 6 vids tod avOpérov is desig- 
nated as 6 é« Tov ovpavod KaraBds. 

48.| 6 xoixds, Adam; oi x., his posterity 
on earth: 6 éwovp., Christ: ot ér., His 
risen people. See, as admirably illustrating 
this verse, Phil. iii. 20, 21. 49.] For 
the reason of keeping dopéowopev, see var. 
readd. As we (Christians) bore in this 
life; the time imagined is when this life is 
past, and the resurrection instant... 
50—54.| The necessity of the change of 
the animal body into the spiritual, in 
order to inherit God’s kingdom. The 


manner of that change prophetically de- 
scribed: and the abolition of Death in 
victory consequent on it. 50.| totro 
dé >., see reff. It calls attention to some- 
thing to be observed, and liable to be 
overlooked. Not only is the change or 
body possible, and according to natural 
and spiritual analogies,—but it is NECES- 
SARY. oap— Kat alba] = cdua 
wWuxidv, the present organism of the 
body, calculated for the wants of the 
animal soul. thy Ovnrhy pvow Kader 
Gddvarov 5& ravrny ert Ovnthy obcay Tis 
émoupaviov BaciAelas tuxeiv. Theodoret. 
Hj P00pa .... Thy adbapctav, 

the abstracts, representing the impossi- 
bility of the p@aprdév inheriting the &p@ap- 
Tov as one grounded in these qualities. 
KAnpovopet, pres., sets forth the 
absolute impossibility in the nature of 
things. 51.) He proceeds to reveal 
to them something of the process of the 
change at the resurrection-day. This he 
does under the name of a pvoryptov, a 
hidden doctrine (see rett., especially Rom.). 
mavtes ov xour.] See var. readd. 
Meyer maintains that the only ren- 
dering of the words which is philologi- 
cally allowable (the ordinary one, re- 
garding mdvres [uty] ov as = od mayTes 
| wev |,—we shall not all sleep, being inad- 
missible, here and in other instances where 
it has been attempted, see Winer, edn. 6, 
§ 26. 1), is this, ‘we all (viz. as in 
1 Thess. iv. 15, jets of Cavres of mept- 


48—54, IIPOS KOPINOIOTS A. 619 
eyo. TavtTes ov °KotunOnodpucba, TavTes SE ? AdAaYN- ° = 2h vii-39 
oomeda, © ev TaTdpe, ev * pir dpOarpod, év TH éoxaTn ° vi, 1d Kom. 
7 P; 1. 23 (from 
* oahareyye' ‘carmrioe yap, Kai of vexpol “éyepOyoovtat ¥:,°v.2)- 
» \ ¢ a > , lal \ \ Heb. i. 
YapOaprot, kal huels Padraynoopeba. 3” dei yap TO (om Ps 
\ aA \ 26) only 
’ h@aprov Ttobto * évdicacbar ™ apOapaotav Kai TO Y Oyntov Lev. xxvi. 


a B] 4 > / 4 \ \ \ b 1 
TovTo *évdvcacbar * abavaciav. + dtav dé TO‘ POapror Ber ony 
Eur. Iph. 
sch. xiv. 8 reff. 1 Thess. iv. 16. t Matt. vi. 2. Rey. 
viii. 6, &c. (6 times.) ix. 1, 13. x. 7. xi. 15 only. Num, x. 3—8. u ver, 4. v Rom. i, 23 (reff.). 
x Rom. xiii. 12, 14. Eph. iv. 24. vi. 11. 2 Cor. v.3. Col. iii. 10. Ps. cxxxi. 9. 
zhere bis. 1 Tim. vi. 16only+. Wisd, viii. 13 al4, 


Taur. 885. (- mie, James i. 6.) 


w = Acts iv. 12 reff. 
y Rom. vi. 12 reff. 

51. ins o: bef raytes, twice, A; but 2nd o: corrd into ov Al. rec aft mayres ins 
pev (on acct of the S— following), with A1C?D3KLPN rel vulg syr copt Dial Orthod 
Cyr Ces Orig-int, Tert: wey ovy A?(appy)F: de k: om B(C?!)D1(and lat) Syr ath Orig, 
(and int,) Jer(on "the testimony of the greek mss: for after stating that the lat mss 
read omnes quidem resurgemus, he says all the greek have either omnes dormiemus or 
non omnes dormiemus) Jac-nisib. for koiunOnsopeba, avactrncoweda D}(and lat) 
vulg(and F-lat) arm-marg lat-mss-mentioned-by-Jer-Aug-Pel-Ruf-Gennad Jac-nisib 
Hl ene Ambr Aug. KorunOnooueda bef ov (thus reading mavres [ev] kouundnod- 
feOa, ov mavres SE GAAaynoducda) A1C2(D!)FX 17 and greek-mss-mentioned-by-Jer- 
Aug-Pel-Ruf-Cc, also vulg wth arm Orig,(and int,) Cyr-jer Did Max- conf(treats of both 
this reading and ‘txt) : ov (? ovv) kom. ov A, the 1st ov is written over the line in small 
letters Al: txt BD?3KLP rel and greek-mss-mentioned-by-Thdor- paar Jer-Acac- 
Did-Pel-Gennad-Gec, also syrr copt goth eth-pl Thdot Orig,(and int,: also twice 
more in Jer) Thdor-heracl Diod Apollin(these three in Jer) Dial-trin Tit aes Ces Chr 
Thdrt, Andr Max-conf Damase Thl Gc Tert Jers. (Lhe variation has prob arisen 
Srom the apparent difficulty of reconciling maytes [pev| ov kom. with the fact that 
St. Paul and his readers had all died. Hence the negative particle was transferred 
to the other clause, to the detriment of the sense.) 

62. ins ws bef ev purn C!. for purn, porn D!F 67? Dial and greek-mss-mentioned- 
by-Jer(pimy s. porn utrumque enim legitur, et nostri interpretati sunt in ictu s. in 
motu). for eyep8., avacrnoovrat ADFP Orig, Chr, Damase Thl-marg: txt BCK 
LM® rel Orig, Dial Chryj, Cyr Thdrt Cosm. 

53. om 2nd touto F ins Tyv bef abavaciay Ip. 

54. om ro pOapr. Tout. evd. ap9. Kat (7. e. TO POapt. to To OvynT.) C1l,MN}(in supply- 
ing the omission XN? has written «a: to, To being superfluous) 64.71 vulg copt goth 
zth arm Mcion-e Ath Iren-int(citing from oportet enim, ver 53, to victoria tua, ver 


Acimomevor eis THY mapovoiay Tov Kuplov, 
—in which number the Apostle firmly 
believed that he himself should be, see 
2 Cor. v. 1 ff. and notes) shall not sleep, 
but shall all be changed.” But we may 
observe that this would commit the Apos- 
tle to the extent of believing that not 
one Christian would die before the wap- 
ovota;—and that it is besides not ne- 
cessary, for the emphasis is both times 
on mayres—‘| All of us] shall not sleep, 
but [all of us} shall be changed:’ i.e. 
‘the sleep of death cannot be predicated of 
[all of us], but the resurrection-change 
can” See also Winer, § 61. 5 f, and 
Moulton’s note, p. 695. 52. | ev atop, 
in a point of time absolutely indivisible, 
ev pirquati, Hesych. ev TH éox. 
oad. at (in, as part of the events of) the 
last trumpet-blowing. The word eécx. 
must obviously not be refined upon as 
some (tives in Theophyl.—and Olsh.) have 
done, identifying it with the seventh trum- 
pet of the Apocalypse ;—nor pressed too 


closely as if there were necessarily no 
trump after it,—but is the trump at the 
time of the end, the last trump, in a wide 
and popular sense. See ref. 1 Thess. 
oadticer| impersonal, — 6 TadmiykThS, 
scil. So Od. ?. 142, apEdwevor TOU xépou 
bOcv Té mep oivoxoever (scil. 6 alv@xane): 
Herod. ii. 47, éredv Odon: Xen. Anab. 

2. 17, éwed eodAmuyée: ili. 4. 36, aie: 
—vi. 5. 25, Ews onuatvor TH odAmyyL. 
Kiihner, § 414. 2. cadtiow for cad- 
miyéw is reprobated by the grammarians : 
see Wetst. pets, see above. 

53. | Confirmation of kat hp. addAay., by a 
re-statement of the necessity of putting on 
incorruptibility and immortality. TO 
$8. rovTo . . . Td Ov. ToUTO] this, indi- 
cating his own body. évdtcacPar—see 
note on the force of the aor. as indicating 
that which is momentary, on ver. 34. 
Compare on the figure of putting on, 2 Cor. 
vy. 3 and notes. 54.] 8tav Sé, EG: is 
a repetition, in a triumphant spirit, of the 
description of the glorious change. 


620 IIPOS> KOPINOIOTS A. XV. 55—58. | 


fal > / / a 
a=Matt.v.18. ropTO * évOvantat ™ apbapaiav Kai 70 ¥ Ovytov TodTO 
bis s x éyOuontat * adavaciav, TOTe *yevnoeTaL 6 Royos O 
LXX, but , b K a7) e 6 , c.2. ed;,? 55 a 
Kar.occ.  yeypappevos, » Katero0n 6 Odvaros ° eis “ viKos. Ilod 
oC ss / ~ / rn , r 
A iii, Tov, Odvate, TO © KevTpov; Tod Gov, Bavate, TO * ViKos ; 
xxiii. 24. 56 = dé as a 6 / Cy o£ / e \ , 
fieb.xnas. 6 7d 5€ © KEvTpoy TOD BavaTov 7 apapria, 7 6€ Ovvapts n bava- 
Pet. v. 8. fol lal lal fal aoe 
Rev. xi 18) THe dpaptias 6 vouos: 57 7@ b€ Oed ! yapis TH SvOovTe ABCDF 


only. 


Matt. xii.20 ¢ \ n a a Pe a LEKLE 
* only. 2'Kings nuiv To “vixos Sia Tov Kupliov nuov “Incod yploTOU. PRabe 
ii. 26. Jo 
Sarge 58 gf hi? h 2 pt gore a 1 defgh 
Ey, DB @sTe, aberpol pov ” ayamntot, } édpaior yiverOe, kimn 


ore 3c: i > / lal fal 
ereretceonly K Gueraxtvntot, | repiaaevovtes ev TH ™ Epyw TOD ™ Kuplov 
Acts xxvi. 14. , c ’ na 
Rey.ix. 10 TTAVTOTE, ELOOTES OTL O ™KOTTOS LU@Y OvK EaTLY ° KEVOS EV 


only. HosEa 


017. “ 
. 


xiii. 14. 
f = Rom. vi. kuply. 
17 reff. \ \ a / a > \ G 
g=ch.¥.8 XVI. 1 Tlepit dé tis PAoylas THs els Tods * aylous, 
ren. 
h address, Paul, here only. James i. 16, 19. ii. 5 only. (Eph. vi. 21. Col.iv.7,9. Philem. 16. 2 Pet. iii. 15.) 
ich. vii. 37. Col. i. 23 only+. Ps, lvi. 8 Symm, k here only t+. 1 Rom, iii.7. Phil. i. 26. 1 Thess. 
iv. 10 al. Tobit iv. 16. m ch. xvi. 10. (Phil. ii. 30.) n 2 Cor. vi. 5 reff. o ver. 10 
reff. p here bis only +. q = Rom. xv. 26. 2 Cor. viii. 4. ix. 13. r Acts ix. 13 


reff. Rom. xy. 26. 

55) Hil Ambrst Aug, Fulg Oros Bede.—in A arm, To $6. to ap@ape. is put aft To @v. 
tov. evd. aBavac.—om k. To Ov. Tov. evd. aBay. D}(supplied in D-lat, a prima manu) 1. 
Orig, : om a€avac. to abavac. F. ins tnv bef abavaciay AI, 17. 

55. transp vixos and xevtpov (see LXX) BCI,MN! 17 vulg copt «th arm-ed Orig,(and 
int,) Eus, Ath, Did Nys Cyr-jer, Bas-sel Cyr Damase Iren-int, Tert, Jer Ambr: txt 
A? DFKLPR rel syrr goth #th-pl Orig,(and int,) Eus, Ath, Cyr-jer; Chr, Thdrt Eucher 
Thl Cc Iren-int, Tert, Cypr Hil.—om ov gov 8. to vx. A’.—[veikos, here and in vy. 
54, 57 (confusion between e: and 1 as constantly elsw) BD'1,(& ver 57) m, contentio 
Tert. | rec for 2nd @avate, adn (so LXX), with A?D3(appy) KLMPN3 rel syrr goth 
Orig, Ath, Eucher: txt BCD!FI,8! vulg copt eth-rom Eus, Ath, Nys Iren-int, Tert, 
Cypr Hil Ambrsepe Augsepe- 

56. ins eorw bef 7 apapt. A. 

57. for d:d0vr1, Sovt7e D ab d 1 o Ath-3-mss Chr Cec. ino. xp. bef 7. kup. nu. M. 

58. ins cat bef aeraxivnto: A vss Ambrst. for epyw, oixw P. om Tov I. 

ovx eotw bef o Ko. vuwy F. 


yevyjoerat] shall come to pass—really de. breaks out in thanks to God, who gives it 

The citation is from the Heb. with this to us (present, as being certain) through 
difference, that the active, ‘He (Jehovah) our Lord Jesus Christ (the Name in fall, 
abolishes, y>2, is made passive, and mz), as befits the solemnity and majesty of the 


‘for ever,’ is rendered (as elsewhere by thanksgiving). 58.} Conclusion of 
the LXX, e.g. ref. 2 Kings, but not the whole by an earnest exhortation. 

here) eis vikos. eis v. ‘so as to re- cise | ‘que cum ita sint, —seeing that the 
sult in victory’ Wetst. quotes from the victory is sure. é5p., apetaxiv.| a 
Rabbis, ‘In diebus ejus (Messi) Deus climax (Mey.) ;—in reference, viz. to the 
S. B. deglutiet mortem.’ 55.] Tr1- doubt which is attempted to be raised 
UMPHANT EXCLAMATION of the Apostle among you on this matter. év TO 


realizing in his mind that glorious time: €pyy Tov xvp.| The work of the Lord is 
expressed nearly in the terms of the pro- the Christian life, with its active and pas- 
phetic announcement of Hosea,—oo fdlkn sive duties and graces,—the bringing forth 
gov, Odvare; Tov Td KeYTpoy Gov, Gn ; the fruits of the Spirit. elSdres | 
The figure of death as a venomous beast is Knowing (as you do—being convinced by 
natural, from the serpent, Gen. iii. Num, What has been said), that your labour 
xxi. The souls in Hades being freed by (bestowed on the py. to xup.) is not vain 
the resurrection, Death’s victory is gone: (which it would be, were there no resur- 
sin being abolished by the change of the rection: see reff.) in the Lord. These last 
animal body (the source of sin) to the spi- words cannot belong to 6 xémos ty., nor 
ritual, his sting is powerless. Fora discus- very well to otk gor Kevds (as Meyer), 
tion of the quotation, see Stanley’s note. but are best taken with the whole sen- 
56.] See above: and compare Rom, tence, your labour is not in vain: so ch. 
v. 12, and vii. 57.] For this blessed 1%. 1. 
consummation of victory over death, he Cuap. XVI.] VARIOUS DIRECTIONS AND 





XVI. 1—3. 


IIPO> KOPINOIOTS A. 


621 


/ Lal fol re 
w@smep * dvétaka Tais *éxxrnolats THS Tadartias, ott r@s Kal 8°: iM. 
3 


Upmels Troujoare. 


] fel lal 
map *éavt@ TWéTw ¥ Oncavpitwv 6 Te dv * evodatat, iva *, 
, iid ”. ’ / Ve 
by, OTav EXOw, ToTE ? Noyiar yivwvTau 


Acts xviii. 2. 


, cal OS BR . 
2UKata’ wlav % caBPatov Exactos UM@V Matt. si). 


3 Kings xi. 
Dan. i. 
5 Theod. 
” \ t plur., Rom. 
3 Orav S€ * Tapaq ‘i iG rett 
u = Acts li. 46 


yévopat, ods éav ” doximaonte, ° de ériatOA@Y TovTOUS _ 


v Mark xvi. 2. 
, >? a \ ‘ ¢ an > ¢ / iv 
Téprapw “arreveyxeivy thy © yapw wvpav eis ‘lepovoadyp: jek’ 
19. Acts xx. 
115 w= Luke xviii. 12. Mark xvi. 9. x see Luke xxiv. 12}| J. y Matt. 
vi. 19, 20. Luke xii. 21. Rom. ii. 5. 2 Cor. xii. 14. Jamesy.3. 2 Pet. iii. 7 only. 4 Kings xx. 17. 
z Rom. i. 10 (reff.). 3 John 2 (bis) only. Gen. xxxix. 3, 23. a absol., Acts xvii. 10 reff. b = Rom. 


xiv. 22 reff. c = Rom. ii. 27. 


d Acts xix. 12 reff. e = 2 Cor. viii. 6, 7, 19. 


Cuap. XVI. 2. rec caBBatwv, with KLM? rel copt goth Thdrt Damasc: caBBatw 


Nim: txt ABCDFI,PN-corr! 17 latt Chr lat-ff. 


vv. 3, 5, 12) 47. 
8. for cay, av BD'F, 


ARRANGEMENTS (1—18). SanuTarions 
(19, 20). AUTOGRAPH CONCLUSION AND 
BENEDICTION (21—24). 1—4.] Di- 


rections respecting the collection and 
transmission of alms for the poor saints 
at Jerusalem. 1.| The construction 
is as in ch. vii. 1; viii. 1; xii. 1;—the 7rep} 
de... rather serves to introduce the new 
subject than to form any constructional 
part of the sentence. Similarly in ver. 
12. Aoylas |] Aoyia, cvAAoyn, Hesych. 
Aoylay, Thy avAdAoyhy TeY xXpHnuaTwY 
kadet, Theodoret (Wetst.). The word is 
said in the Lexx. not to be found in 
classic writers. eis T. Gy.] = cis 
Tovs TTwXOVS T. Aylwy TaY ev ‘Iepouca- 
Ajm, ref. Rom. See also 2 Cor. viii. 
1 ff; ix. 1 ff.: and on the poverty of 
the church at Jerusalem, note on Acts 
ili. 44. That poverty was no doubt in- 
creased by the continual troubles with 
which Jerusalem was harassed in this, the 
distressful close of the Jewish national his- 
tory. See other causes in Stanley. That 
the mother church of Christendom should 
be thus, in its need, sustained by the 
daughter churches, was natural ; and it is 
at the same time an affecting circumstance, 
to find him the most anxious to collect and 
bear to them this contribution, whose for- 
mer persecuting zeal had doubtless (see 
Acts xxvi. 10) made not a few of those 
saints widows and orphans. astrep 
Stér. | We do not find any such order in the 
Epistle to the Galatians: ch. ii. 10 there 
being merely incidental. It had probably 
been given during hisjourney among them 
Acts xviii. 23,—or perhaps by message (?) 
from Ephesus. Not as E. V., ‘as I have 
given order, but as I gave order. He 
refers to the occasion, whatever it was, 
when that order was given. _—_ Bengel re- 
marks : “ Galatarum exemplum Corinthiis, 
Corinthiorum exemplum Macedonibus, Co- 
rinthiorum et Macedonum Romanis pro- 


eav BI,M.—ér’ &y n(and so 


evodw0n ACI, KM &3(-5007) Damase. 
tepoooAuma A, 


ponit. 2 Cor.ix.2. Rom. xv. 26. Magna 
exemplorum vis.” 2. play oaBB. | 
For this Hebraism, and caf. in the sin- 
gular, signifying week, see reff. On the 
observance of the first day of the week, see 
notes, Acts xx. 7, and Rom. xiv. 5. Here 
there is no mention of their assembling, 
which we have in Acts xx. 7, but a plain 
indication that the day was already consi- 
dered as a special one, and one more than 
others fitting for the performance of a reli- 
gious duty. Tap éauT@ 710. | let each 
of you lay up at home (reff.) in store 
whatsoever he may by prosperity have 
acquired (lit. ‘whatsoever he may be pros- 
pered in: i.e. the pecuniary result of any 
prosperous adventure, or dispensation of 
Providence): not, as Bengel, al. : ‘quod 
commodum sit, —a meaning which the word 
will not bear. tva py, .. | that 
there may not, wher I come, THEN be 
collections to be made. His time would 
be better employed in imparting to them a 
spiritual benefit, than in urging them to 
and superintending this duty. 3. | 
“Vide quomodo vir tantus nullam suspi- 
cioni rimam aperire voluerit.” Grot. 
SV émirroAGy cannot belong to doxmd- 
onte (as Beza, Calv., Wetst., E. V.,—for 
what need of letters from them érayv 
mapayevopot, or before his coming, if the 
person recommended were not to be sent 
off before his arrival?), but is emphati- 
cally prefixed, as the safe and proper way 
of giving credentials to those sent ;— 
TovTous méu~w,—the alternative which 
follows, of himself accompanying them, 
being already in the mind of the Apostle. 
émtoTodev, plur.,—not of the cate- 
gory merely, meaning one letter,—but 
meaning, either that each should have 
his letter of credentials,—or more pro- 
bably, that Paul would give them letters 
to several persons in Jerusalem. 
Meyer well remarks: “‘ Hence we see how 


622 


TIPOS KOPINOIOTS A. 


XVI. 


es 
f=andeonstr., 4 Gay S€ faEvov 4 & ToD Kame TropevecOa, oly €mol Tropev- ABCD 


here only. 

g = Luke xxiv. 

25. ooVTal. 

h Acts xiii. 6 
reff. 

i = Matt. xiii. 
56. Jobni. 
1,2: Gali. 
18. 1 John i. 


2.'see ver.10.° TTpOMEMANTE OV eav Tropevopal. 
” > p 48 nD a > / \ , \ > lal 
dipte év ? mapdd@ ideiv édrrilw yap xpovov Twa ° érripe- 
vat impos buds, €av 6 Kvpios * eruTpén. 


ch, ii. 3. 

k here only. 
Xen. Anab. 
v. 9. 20. (see 
ch. xiv. 10.) 

1 Phil. i. 25. 
Heb. vii. 23. 

ll. Tit. iii. 12 only +. 

q Acts x. 48 reff. 


James i. 25 only. Gen. xliv. 33. 
o Acts xv. 3 reff. 


5 éNevoouar O€ mpds tpas, 6tav Maxedoviay 
i a .def 

n §é\Ow: Maxedoviav yap ™ Suépyouarr 6 iapos twas 8€ kim 

K ruyov | qapapev@ ™ 7) ™ Kai ™ rapaxemsdow, iva vueis me 


Tov Oéiw yap tas 


84 étripeva 


m ch. ix. 8 reff. n Acts xxvii. 12, xxviii. 
p here only. Gen. xxxviii. 14. Polyb. y. 68. 8. 


r Acts xxvi. 1 reff. Heb. vi. 3. Esth. ix. 14. 


4. rec 7 bef agiov, with DFKLN! rel syrr goth Chr Thdrt Damase: txt A(mv)BC 


I, MPN? a m 17 vulg(and F-lat). 

5. for yap, 5 F(not G) m. 

6. for de, y[ ap] Ip. 
om 7 F (not F-lat) 2. 
¥ D-lat G-lat.—iva et kat mapax. D!. 
-twuat b} o. 

7. for 1st yap, 5 I,: om Syr. 


Katauevw BM 672: raparomewww F.—rapap. bef tux. P. 
om ka: BM 38.116 (Syr) Chr-2-mss. 


for wa, e wn 


for eav, av DIF. mopevooua P, ; 


rec (for 2nd yap) de, with KL re! syr Thdrt: 
txt ABCDFI,MPR 17 latt Syr copt goth Chr Damasc lat-ff. 


rec emitpetn (the 


force of the aor not being perceived: see note), with DFKL rel: ABCI,MP(-pe.)8 dm 


17 Chr Thl-mss, permiserit latt. 


common in Paul’s practice was the writ- 
ing of Epistles. Who knows how many 
private letters of his, not addressed to 
churches, have been lost? The only letter 
of the kind which remains to us (except 
the Pastoral Epistles), viz. that to Phile- 
mon, owes its preservation perhaps to 
the mere circumstance, that it is at the 
same time addressed to the church in the 
house of Philemon. See ver.2.” — xdpwv} 
see reff. Meyer compares Plato, Def. p.113, 
E: xdpis, evepyeria Exovouos. 4.| 
But if it (the occasion,—dependent on 
the magnitude of your collection) be wor- 
thy of my also taking the journey (i. e. 
if your collection be large enough to war- 
rant an apostolic mission in order to carry 
it,—not said for security,—nor to procure 
himself a fair reception at Jerusalem,—but 
with a sense of the dignity of an apostolic 
mission: “justa estimatio sui non est su- 
perbia,” Bengel), they shall go in my 
company (abv éuol 7. contrast to 6” ém- 
oroAav mréuw, and observing the same 
order). This did apparently take place, see 
Acts xx. 4 ff. 

5—9.] Taking up érav rapayévwuat, he 
announces his plan of visiting them. 
5.] This plan was a change from his for- 
mer intention, which had been (see 2 Cor. 
i. 15, 16, and note), to pass through them 
to Macedonia, and again return to them 
Srom Macedonia, and thence to Judea. 
This he had apparently announced to them 
in the dost Epistle alluded to ch. v.9 (or in 
some other), and he now tacitly drops this 
scheme, and announces another. For this 
he was charged (2 Cor, i, 17 ff.) with levity 


of purpose :—but his real motive was, lenity 
towards them, that he might not come to 
them in sorrow and severity (2 Cor. i. 23 ; 
ii. 1). The second plan he adhered to: 
we find him already in Macedonia when 
2 Cor. was written (2 Cor. ii. 13; viii. 1; 
ix. 2, 4), and on his way to Corinth (2 Cor. 
xii. 14; xiii. 1);—and in Acts xx, 1, 2, the 
journey is briefly narrated. Maxed. 
y. Sv€px. is not parenthetical, but dépx. 
is opposed (by 5€) to mapameva. The 
pres. implies, as in E. V., his now matured 
plan,—not, as in the erroneous subscrip- 
tion of the Epistle, that he was on his way 
through Macedonia, when he wrote the 
word. 6. wapapeva}| This, of which 
he speaks uncertainly, was accomplished ; 
he spent (Acts xx. 3) three months, and 
those (ib. ver. 6) the three winter months, 
in Greece (at Corinth). tpets, Meyer 
justly remarks, is emphatic, and conveys 
an affectionate preference, in his present 
plan, for them. ov, with a verb of 
motion. The account of this is that the 
ideas of motion and rest are both involved 
in the verb: rest, when the motion is ae- 
complished. So Luke x. 1 ;—Soph. Trach. 
40, ketvos & Srov BéBnkey ovdels olde :— 
Xen. Hell. vii. 1. 25, daov BovAnbetev 
éfeAOeiv. See Kiihner, § 623, Anm. 2. 

Whither he should go from Corinth, was as 
yet uncertain, see ver. 4. 7.| For Iam 
not willing, this time to see you by the 
way. ‘There is a slight, but a very slight, 
reference to his change of purpose (see 
above) ; but we must not take &pri with 
6éAw (which Meyer charges Neander with 
doing, but clearly in error, see PA. u. Leit. 


I, KL! 
Prab 


017. 4 


4—12. 


dé ev “Edéow Ews rijs * mevTnKoo Ths" oat oes yap OL § Acts i. 


\ 
Kab 


IIPOS KOPINOIOTS A. 


623 


1 reff. 
. ii. 12 


a avéwyev peyarn nf evepyns, Kab Y QyTiKeipmevot u2 vei vi. 11. 
, v Philem. 6. 
TONAOL. Heb. iv 12 
om y oly 
10 x y ~ 23.2. 
"Hav 6€ éd0n Bysaieses puigiibite wa ¥ adoBos *3 
2 yévntat *mpos vast TO yap *” Epyov * Kuplou ” épyaveras “YIK% cb. 
¢ , 5 \ ’ , 
@s kayo 11 untis ody adtov ° eEovPevncn, ° TpoTrenpare “si Anh 
be 2eUN ee db ae e aN) , Sens § , \ v Luke a 
; poner : ck ae pid ee € 1) Tpos Be EK EX OMAL yap vain foe 
QUTOV meTa TOV AdEAPOV. 25, 2th: 
\ \ a > a \ 10, 14 
12 Tlept S€ "AwoAAw Tod adeApod, f ToAAa " qapekd- ‘nly. LP. 
Zech. iil. 1. 
x Ww. iva, Col. iv. 17 only. (see 2 John 8.) w. TOS, Luke viii. 18. ch. iii. 10. Eph. v. 15. y Luke 
i. 74. Phil. i.14. Jude 12 only. Prov. i. 33. W ier xvii. 4 b& (-Bos AC) only. z ch. ii. 3 reff. 
a ch. xy. 58. b Acts xill. 41 reff. = Rom. xiv. 3 reff. d Luke ii. 29, Acts 
xvi. 36 (reff.). ch. vii. 15. Jamesii. 16 al. Judg. xviii. 6 B (ets elp. A). e Acts xvii. 16 reff. 
fady. a gospp., Matt. ix. 14. Mark iii. 12 oe) yer. 19. James iii. 2. Eccl. xii. 10 (?). g constr., 


ch. i. 10 reff. w. inf., Rom. xii, 1 re 


8. om ev F(not G). 
10. opoBws B': paseo: P Aq. 
ey.) He: eyw, omg kai, BM 67?: 


ewe BD! F Orig, (txt,) Damasc. 
12. om amoAAw N}(ins N-corr!) eth. 
goth lat-ff. 


p- 415 note): rather the &pr: refers to the 
occasion, the news from ‘them of Chloe,’ 
which had made it advisable that he should 
not now pay them a mere passing visit. 
yap} ground of od @€Aw—but not the ulti- 
mate one, see above. émitpeyy | shall 
have permitted me, i.e. ‘if it shall so turn 
out, in the Lord’s direction of my work, that 
I shall then find my way open to do so.’ 
8, 9.] His present plan regarding his stay 
in Ephesus (where he was writing). 
7. wevtyk. | viz. that next coming. This 
probably happened so, or nearly so, not- 
withstanding the tumult of Acts xix.: for 
he already (see there vv. 21, 22) was medi- 
tating his departure, and had sent on two 
of his company, when the tumult occurred. 
Ovpa, see reff.: an opportunity of 
action. }eyaAy refers to the extent of 
the action thus opened before him: évep- 
ys, to its requirements : neither of them 
(though heyday may be referred to Oupa) 
properly agreeing with the figure, but both 
with the reality. Meyer compares Plato, 
Phedr. p. 245, A: wovody em) mointikas 
Ovpas apixnrat. G@vtiK. ToAdd.| See 
Acts xix. 9, 23 ff. 10; Sty 
Recommendation of Timothy to their good 
reception and offices. He had preceded 
Paul (Acts xix. 22) 5 in the journey to Mace- 
donia. From éav €\@y, it would appear to 
have been probable, but not quite certain, 
that he would visit them. In ch.iv. 17, he 
is described as sent on for that purpose : 
so that the éay may merely refer to the 
uncertainties of thejourney. 10. BA. tva 
apoB. y.] There must have been some 


9. om kat avt. mod. L. 
rec kat eyw, with DF rel Orig, Chr(ka@ws . 

txt ACKLPN n 47 Thdrt Damasc Thl. 
11. om ovy D}(and lat) F G-lat goth arm Ambrst. 


for de, ovv MP: om NX}. 
om pera Twv adeAd. B. 
ins dnAw vay ott bef moAAa DEN! latt 


special reason for this caution respecting 
Timothy, besides that assigned by Meyer, 
al., that he would naturally be depreciated 
as only a subordinate of Paul, whom so 
many of them opposed. His youth occurs 
to us, mentioned 1 Tim. iv. 12: but even 
that is not enough, and would hardly be 
intended here, without some reference to it. 
De Wette’s conjecture may not be without 
foundation, that he was perhaps of a timid 
disposition. Meyer objects that we have 
no historical trace of this : but I think some 
are to be found in 1 Tim. ie. g. ili. 15 (see 
note); v. 22, 23. 70 Epyov Kup. | see 
ref., note. 11. ev cipyvy] xwpls 
paxns Kar prdoverkias, Theophyl., and 
similarly Chrys. iva é€XO. | the aim of 
mpoméeuw. exdex. yap avr. | kal TovTO 
poBovrtos avTovs Hy. tva yep eidéTes, OTL 
TavTa ciphoerar mpos avToy dmep ay man, 
emletKeoTEpot yevavrat, 51a ToUTO mposebn- 
kev" exd. y. avt. Chrys. Hom. xliv. p. 407. 
Theophyl. adds, Gua Sé nal aidecmdre- 
pov aurby moi@y, el’ye oUTws davayKaloy 
TovTov exe, dste exdexecOar adtdv. 

By peta tav adehpov it would appear, 
comparing ver. 12, that more brethren be- 
sides Erastus (Acts xix. 22) accompanied 
Timotheus to Macedonia. It is hardly pro- 
bable (as Caloy. and De W., al.), that pera 
7. ad. is to be taken with en BEX ofan : cai 
and the brethren expect him.’ 12. ] 
Of Apollos: that he was not willing at 
present to go to them. 8é, transition: al. 

On the construction of trept Soot 

see on ver. 1. mapekah. iva 20n | 
tva denotes the aim, not only the purport 


624 IIPOS KOPINOIOTS A. XVI. 
hActsxxi.2 Rega avdTov, Siva EXOn mpos twas peta To” aderpav ABCI 
ae ie , : LM! 
iMatt. xvii. eg) Rardytws ov ‘fv ** OéXnua “iva viv EXOn, edevoeTat ade. 
k of man, ch. Leo m .2. / fg bh} 
_wigiret.  O€ OTaY ™ EVKALPION. mie 
see Matt. vi, ‘ : 47 
12 Mark vi. 13 2 Domyopeite, °oTynKete év TH Tiatet, ? avdpiteabe, 


m Mark vi. 31. 
Acts xvii. 21 


4 Kparavodabe. 


14 r U e lal b] 2 U s / 
TavTa Uav ev ayaTn * ywéerbo. 


‘een, PO 5 Stindulis, GBedpol oars: aya 
"1 thew: 5tTTapaxar@ S€ tyas, adedpol: oidate tiv “ oiKiav 
v. 6 al. r 4 > \ ’ \ a > a \ > 
(Jer. v. 6.) Xrehava, ’ 6Tt €otiv “ arrapyn THs “Axaias Kat * eis ¥ dia- 
o Rom. xiv. 4 
eff. / r Z ¢ / x Mv c / és 16 t lcd ‘ c Ct 
oie oy, Koviay Tos *aryvols étrakav éavTovs wa Kal vpets 
Josh. i. 6. ’ / a , \ \ fal 
q Lake isd, ii, * vrotacanaOe » tois ” ToLlovTOLs, Kal TravTL T@ © ouUVEp- 
40, Eph. iii. a 4 s ; Se eae ; 
16 only. d l7 e e f 
Wonly.  YyOUVTL Kal ° KOTTLOUTL. Yalpo dé °érlt tH ' rapovala 
(-os, 1 Pet. v. 6.) r constr., here only. s = ch. ix. 15. xiv. 26, 40. t ver. 12. 


u = John iy. 53. Gen. 1. 8. 

x Acts xiii. 48 reff. 

a Rom. viii. 7, 20 reff. 
ii. 22 only +. Esdr. vii. 2. 
ch. xiii. 6 reff. 


y ch. xii. 5. 

b ch. vii. 15, 28. 

1 Mace. xii. 1 only. 
f = 2 Cor. vii. 6, 7. 


13. om T7 F. 


v constr., ch. iii. 20. 
Acts i. 17. vi. lal. + 


(-yos, ch. iii. 9.) 
Phil. i. 26. ii. 12 al.+ 


Gal. i. 11 al. w Rom. viii. 23 reff. 
z Acts ix. 13 reff. Rom. i. 7. 
Rom. viii. 28. 2Cor. vi.l. James 
d ch. xv. 10 reff. e constr., 

2 Mace. viii. 12. xv. 21 only. 


ec Mark xvi. 20. 


ins kat bef Kparaovobe A D-gr vulg(and F-lat) Syr copt eth 


lat-ff: om BCFKLPN rel D-lat(with G-lat fri) syr goth Chr Thdrt Damase Th] @e 


Ambrst-ms. (M ?) 
15. om de D!-gr &! 71 goth eth arm. 


aft orepava ins kat poptovvarov DX# 


am(with demid fuld harl) arm Thdrt Damase Ambrst-ms: ka: dopt. kat axatkov C} 
F a vulg-ed(with tol F-lat) syr-w-ast(and mg-gr) Ambrst-ed (additions from ver 17). 
for eri, ea C\(appy) DF &c as above Orig-int. 


16. om Ist ka M. 


of the exhortation. See remarks on ch. 
xiv. 13. “Tdeo excusat, ne suspicentur 
Corinthii ab eo fuisse impeditum.... 
Apud se querere poterant : Cur hos potius 
quam Apollo nobis misit? Respondet, 
minime per se stetisse, &c.” Calvin. Meyer 
remarks, perhaps the Corinthians had ex- 
pressly desired that Apollos should be sent 
tothem. peta. aSeddp.] perhaps, those 
who went with Timotheus (see above) : 
perhaps, those who were_to bear this letter 
(ver. 17). kat] and, not, ‘but: 
see John xvi. 32; Rom.i. 13. It merely 
couples the exhortation with its result. 
GéAnpa} Evidently the will of 
Apollos, not, as Theophyl.: touvréorw, 6 
Oeds ovw HOcAev. érav evxatp.| The 
present xaipds not seeming to him a suit- 
able one: apparently on account of the 
divisions hinted at in the beginning of the 
Epistle. 13.] elra deccvis bri obk ev 
rots SdidacKdAots, GAAGd Kal ev €éavTots 
dpelAovar Tas éArldas Exew HS Twrnplas, 
not ypny- «.7.A. Chrys., who adds: 8d 
A€yet, Yenyopeite, ds KabevddvTwv' oty- 
KeTe, Ws cadevouevwy' avdpileoOe, Kpa- 
Tatovabe, &s padakiCouevwv. wavTa Up. év 
ayary yiwéo8w, os craciaCévtwy. p. 407 f. 
avSpit | Aristot. Eth. iii. 6. 12:—aua 

3t wal avdpiCovra, ev ols eorw 7 GAKN, 
} kaddv 7d drobavetv. Wetst.: where see 
other examples. 15—18.| Recommen- 
dation of the family of Stephanas to their 
honourable regard: and by occasion, ex- 


aft kat komiwyTe ins ev vuty F Ambrst. 


pression of his own joy at the presence of 
Stephanas and his companions. 15. ] 
Some expositors (Erasm., Wolf, al.) take 
otdate as imperative, and regard it as the 
command: but the imperative use of ovate 
(for tore) seems to be without example. 
We must therefore understand it as indica- 
tive, and the construction is the well-known 
attraction, olda oe tls ef (Meyer). 
amapxy | see Rom. xvi. 5: the first 
Achean converts. ératay, plur., refer- 
ring to the noun of number, oixla. ‘This 
family were among the few baptized by 
Paul, see ch. i. 16. ératav éautovs 
So Demosth. de falsa legat.: BovAoua 5€ 
brouvijoa eis tha tdiw e@ratev éavrdy 
Aicxlyns, Wetst.: where see other ex- 
amples. The éavtovs is not without mean- 
ing—they voluntarily devoted their ser- 
vices. els Stak. Tots aylois| to ser- 
vice for the saints: in what way, does not 
appear: but perhaps, from the fact of Ste- 
phanas being at that time in Ephesus,— 
for journeys and missions. 16.] Kat 
tpets, you in your turn,—in return for 
their self-devotion. trotaga.]| viz. 
in honouring their advice and being ready 
to be directed by them: there is an allu- 
sion to ératay éavrot’s above. Tots 
TovovTots | fo such persons, meaning the in- 
dividuals of Stephanas’s family, whom they 
knew. See the usage of 6 ro.odTos in reff. 
auvepyourtt | viz. with Tots TovovTors. 


17.| Perhaps Fortunatus and Achai- 


13— 22. 


IIPOS KOPINOIOTS . A. 


625 


Stehavad kat Poprovvdrov Kal "Axaixod, Ott TO 8 bpuérepov £ =<h- Xv. 91: 


2 Cor, viii. 


-< , > Nusa 3 , ay 
voTepnua avtol ‘averAnpwcav: 18% avéravoav yap TO Yeah Pi 

20 = ) cians 1.30. Col. 
euov 'rvetua Kal TO Kueov. ™émuyiwdoKeTe odV ” Tors 1.24. 1 Thess 
ll. ~r.,ex 

b TOLOUTOUS. Luke xxi. 4. 
Judg. xviii. 


> U Comite e A 10. 
1° Aorravovtat buds ai ™ éxxrAnola ths ’Acias. domd- ich.xiv.16 


¢ a , / 
Cerae vuds ev °xupio P toAda ’Ax’ras Kal IIploxidXa, * = 


ren. 
k = Matt. xi. 
2 Cor. 


\ a > > a vii. 13. 
ow 47H "Kat ‘otxoy avtav 4ékxkrAnola. 29 aomaovras Phitem.7, 2 


1 Chron. xxii. 


¢€ La) e \ / 
umas ot adedpol Tavtes. daoTacacbe adAHoUS év * Pidr}- , 1 


C2 uf 
Mate ayio. 


1°O ™doracpos “TH éuh V yerpt Tadrov. 


n Rom. xvi. 16 reff. 


v. 12.) 
Rom. xvi. 16 re 


r Acts ii. 46 reff. 


8 . 
Paul) as above (t) only. (gospp., Matt. xxiii. 7 || al4.) + 


w Rey. xiv. 11. 


16 reff. 
m =2Cor. vi.9 
Deut. i. 17. 
22 w el TLS xxiii. 9. 
(see 1 Thess. 
o Rom. xvi. 2, 8, 12 al. p ver. 12 reff. q Rom. xvi. 5. 
t Col. iv. 18. 2 Thess. iii. 17. u = (an 
vas above (t). Gal. vi.11. Philem. 19. 


17. rec povprovvatov, with KMP rel Chr-ed Thdrt-ed: txt ABCDFLN e m 17. 47. 
rec (for vuetepoy) vuwy, with AKLN rel Chr Thdrt Damasc: txt BCDFP m 


ile 


19. om A 34. 


Pel. 
21 omy C. 


cus were members of the family of Ste- 
phanas. The Fortunatus mentioned by 
Clement at the end of his Ep. i. to the 
Corinthians (ce. 59, p. 328) may be the 
same. mapovoig.| viz. in Ephesus. 
TO dpétepov voT.] The want of 
you (ref.): i.e. of your society. Grotius 
interprets it, “Quod vos omnes facere 
oportuit, id illi fecerunt: certiorem me 
fecere de vestris morbis,” and holds them 
to have been of XAojs of chap. i. 11. But 
it is very improbable that he should men- 
tion thus a family so distinguished as this: 
he names them just after, ch. i. 16, as the 
household of Stephanas :—and still more 
improbable that one of so fine feeling 
should add of the bearers of such tidings, 
avéravoay «.T.A., which would on that 
hypothesis be almost ironical. 
18. kai tpa@v] this is a beautiful expres- 
sion of true affection used in consciousness 
of the effect of this epistle on them: q.d. 
‘it is to their presence here that you owe 
much of that in this my letter which I 
know will refresh and cheer your spirits.’ 
Theophyl. explains it: @etey avrots br: 
h avrov avdravots, avTav eéotiw. dste 
émel, euod avamav9évtos mep) avTay, Kat 
duets exepOhaate avTd TOUTO, THY euhy ava- 
Tavow, pndev &xapt mpds av’Tovs TovToUsS 
evdelénabe :—Grot., of the announcement 
which they would make on their return 
Vou. II. 


rec ovto, with BCKLPX rel Thdrt Damase: txt ADFM vulg Syr Chr Ge 
(ili D-lat: tipsi illi G-lat: ipsi vulg lat-ff). 

18. aft yap ins ca: D'F latt goth Ambrst Pel Bede. 
aft at exkAnoia add maca CP 47 Syr Chr Bede. 
aomaCovra (for -e-), with BF LM rel vss gr-lat-ff: txt CDKPN c goth. 
bef ev kupew M a 17.74 arm: om ev xvp. 123 Ambrst. 
D for mpiokiAAa, mpicka BMPX 17 am(with demid harl) fri copt goth arm 

at end ins map ous{ouvs F] rar EeviCowar DF latt goth Pel Bede. 


Tots TotovTots P. 

rec 
TOAAG 
axvAas bef zoAAa 


of Paul’s love for the Corinthians. But 
this last can hardly be. erytvaokere | 
know, the prep. giving force, and slightly 
altering the meaning to that of recog- 
nition. Grot. and Theophyl.,—év ruq 
avTovs EXETE. 19, 20.| Salutations. 

19. év kuptw] see note, Rom. xvi. 2. 
On Aquila and Priscilla, see Rom. xvi. 3, 
4; Acts xviii. 2. They had removed from 
Corinth (Acts xviii. 1) to Ephesus (ib. 
26), and had there, as subsequently at 
Rome (Rom. xvi. 3, 5), an assembly of 
the faithful meeting in their dwelling. 

ot 48. wavtes—the whole Ephesian 


church. év gtd. ay.] see Rom. xvi. 
16, note. 21—24. | Autograph con- 
clusion. 6 &omacpds is the final greet- 


ing, which, according to ref. 2 Thess., 
was always in his own hand, the rest 
having been written (see Rom. xvi. 22) 
by an amanuensis. TlavAov is in 
apposition with euod implied in éu7, as Il. 
p. 226, suérepoy Se Exdorov Oupdy adiw: 
é€uds tov aOAtov Blos, and the like. See 
Kihner, § 499. 4. 22.| He adds, as 
in Col. iv. 18; Eph. vi. 24, some exhorta- 
tion, or solemn sentence, in his own hand, 
as having especial weight. On the dis- 
tinction between giAciy and ayanay see 
notes on John xxi.15. The negation here 
of the feeling of personal affection, “ has 
no love in his heart for,” ¥ worthy of 
8 


626 TIPO KOPINOIOTS A. XVI. 23, 24. 


% 1. 29 9) ABC 
apa . 
pai vata 1 KY 


x James y. 12. 


> Cal ‘ 7 x ” >, , 
ee. OV dire’ Tov KUpLoY, *nTw Y avabepa. 


1 Mace. x. 31. U a / IT, rn > td lal 9 € > U 

y Rom. ix. 3 * yvapts TOU = esta Inood * peo ULOV. 7 ayaTn ao 

Ms ? b \ an a a > 

there only. P wou META TAVTWOY V“OV Ev ypLoT@ Iynood. [apnp. | sae 
[24]. | Rev Fe 

Rest IIPO> KOPINOIOTS A. wa € 
Phil. i. 9. 
Col. i. 8 


Philem. 5,7. Rev. ii. 4, 19. 


22. rec aft xupioy ins mmoovy xpiorov, with C3DF L(Treg) &3 e g m 47 am syr copt 
goth: nuwy mo. xp. KP rel vulg-ed(and some mss) (Syr) Chr Thl Victorin: om 
ABC!IMN! 17 fri Chr-ms Cyr,. 

23. aft xupiov ins nuwy ALP b fk m 017 vulg(not am) fri Syr copt Chr Thl Ambrst. 

rec aft moou adds xpiorov, with ACDFKLMPN:? rel latt syrr copt 2th arm Chr 
Ambrst: om BX! n 17. 47 am(with tol F-lat al) goth Thdrt. 
24. om pou A 73. om aunv BFM 17 fuld(and tol) fri: ins ACDKLPX rel yss. 


SUBSCRIPTION: rec adds eypady amo ¢iAimrwv bia oTrepava Kat pouvpTovvarou Kat 
axaikov kat Tyuobeov, with KL(first inserting emiroAn) a ef g k (m) n 47, similarly 
(but for piAitrwy, eberov) dh: eypapn amo epecov B?P: eypapn amo pidimmoy wake- 
dovias D2: eypadpy ato acias k.T.A., omg (as do also h m) zp. kop. tpwtn, b 0: om 
altogether M1: txt AB!CX 17, and D}(adding ewAnpw6n) F(prefixing ereAec6n). 


note, as connected with the curse which 
follows. qTo ava8.| On avdbeua, 
see note, Rom. ix. 3:—let him be ac- 
cursed. papavada |] An Aramaic ex- 
pression, NON JY) or NOX NIWD the (or our) 
Lord cometh (or, is come, as-Chrys., al., 
6 kup. 7m. HAVE: in 1 John iy. 2 the 
same Syriac form is used to express 
€AnAv0dra): probably unconnected with 
avdfeua: and added perhaps (Mey.) as 
recalling some remembrance of the time 
when Paul was among them: at all 
events, as a weighty watchword tending 
to recall to them the nearness of His 
coming, and the duty of being found 


ready for it:—not added, as Riickert, to 
stamp genuineness on the letter,—for why 
here rather than in other Epistles, espe- 
cially as those who were to bear it were so 
well known? See Stanley’s note. 

24. 7 ay. pov} Because the Epistle had 
contained so much that was of a severe 
character, he concludes it with an expres- 
sion of affection; so Chrys.: wera tocat- 
THY KaTnYyopiay ovK amooTpepeTal, GAA 
Kal pire? kal meptdauBaver wéppwbev abrods 
évras. Hom. xliv. p. 411. év xp. 
"Inc.| Tovréctiv, ovdév avOpemivoy 7) cap- 
Kikov 7] Gyarn mou Exel, GAAA TrvevMATLKH 
éoti.Kal ev xpior@. Theophyl. 


€l- 


IF TATPOS LOD Kab Kupiov Anaot Xpiarov. 
PN 
ef 


/m 
47 


IITPOS KOPINOIOYS B. 


I. 1 [latinos amoatonos xpiarov 
Geod, kat Tiofeos 6 adeddos, TH 
ovon é€v KopivOe ° tony Tois 4 


OAH 7H _Axaig. *Xapis viv 


ae xv. 32 


dase 4 dua Oedajparos *; 
b b 1 cs i. 
» xehyo ig tov » deod wip reff. 


Acts xxiii. 
1 Cor. 


id / 
aylows Taow Tous ovow é€y By, Phil, 


Kal © eipnvn amd QGeod a det ix. 13 


e Rom. i. 7. 
f Rom. ix. 5 


e a ff. 
3£EvAoyntos 6 &Oe0s Kal Srratip tod Kupiov juav g Rom, xv. 6 
ren. 


Tirie. Steph » mpos rovs KopivOiovs Sevtepa: elz mavAov tov amogroAov 7 Tpos 
KopwOtous emioToAn Sevtepa, with rel: Tov aytov arocroAov TavAou emtoTOAN mpos Kop. 


B’ L (h): apxera: mpos kopivGi0vs B’ D'F(Seurepn) : 


ewioTOAN Tpos Kop. Sevtepa k 1: 


txt ABKN m(devT.) n 0 17. 47, and C at top of page. (P ?) 


Cuap. I. 1. rec mmoou bef xpiorov, with ADGKL rel vss Chr Damasc: om io. xp. 
F(and lat): txt BMP 17 hal(and mar al) syr Thdrt Bede. 


Cuap. I. 1, 2.] ADDRESS AND GREET- 
ING. 1. 81a Ged. Beod] see 1 Cor. i. 
1, note. Ttpd0eos 6 48.] So of Sos- 
thenes, 1 Cor. i. 1; ‘one of of adedpol ;’ 
—but perhaps in this case with peculiar 
emphasis: see 1 Cor.-iv. 17; 1 Tim. i. 2, 
18; 2 Tim. ii.1. On his being with Paul 
at this time, see Prolegg. to this Epistle, 
§ ii. 4. ov T. ay. Taow....] This, 
and the Epistle to the Galatians, were cir- 
cular letters to all the believers in the 
respective countries: the variation of ex- 
pression in the two cases (rats exxAnolas 
7. Tadatias, Gal. i. 2) being accounted 
for by the Aner that the matter 
of this Epistle concerned directly the 
church at Corinth, and indirectly all 
the saints in the province,—whereas that 
to the Galatians, being to correct deep- 
rooted Judaizing error, directly concerned 
all the churches of Galatia. Achaia 
comprehended Hellas and Peloponnesus ; 
the province was so named by the Ro- 
mans because they became possessed of 
them by subduing the Achean league, 
Pausan. vii. 16. 7. On the history of 


the province, see Acts xvili. 12 and 
note. 2.] See 1 Cor. i. 3. 

8—11.] THANKSGIVING FOR DELIVER- 
ANCE FROM GREAT DANGER OF HIS LIFE: 
—HIS ABILITY TO COMFORT OTHERS IN 
AFFLICTION. Commentators have endea- 
voured to assign a definite purpose to this 
opening of the Epistle. De Wette thinks 
that Paul had zo definite purpose, except 
to pour out the thankfulness of his heart, 
and to begin by placing himself with his 
readers in a position of religious feeling 
and principle far above all discord and 
dissension. But I cannot agree with this. 
His purpose shews so plainly through the 
whole latter part of the chapter, that it is 
only consistent with vv. 12—24 to find it 
beginning to be introduced here also. I 
believe that (Chrys. has given the right 
account: é€Avme: Alay avtovs k. edopuBeu 
7d wa maparyever Gat éxet Toy amdarodoy, 
Kal TadTa| emayyelAdmevoy, GAAG Toy GmravTa, 
ev Maxebdovig avar@oat xpdvor, kal Soke 
auTa@Y eT Epous MpoTreTunkevat. dia TOUTO 
mpos TovTO iordwevos Td BopuBeiv (al. av0- 
opmooy), A€yer Thy aitiay bC hv ov mapeye- 


Ss 2 


628 


h = Eph. i. 17. 
James i. 17 

i Rom. xii. ne j 
Phil. ii. 1. 
Col. iii. 12. 


e 2 m k g 
Heb. 28 Driver Hav, ™ els 70 dvvac0ar Has "ape TOUS noli 
il 5 > Y Lal / 
sea. €v maon Oriver Sia tis J wapakdAnoews “is * wapaxa- 
4. Acts xv , > ual eae," a -~ 5 o \ ° s \ 
sial Ps. Novpela avTot UTO Tov Deod, > OTL KaOa@s ° TepLTcEvEL TA 
ed “ ant / nr lal fal © \ r 
ke P gaOnuata Tov ypicToD “eis nuas, oT@s * dia TOD 
12. ch. ii. 7, ~ oO , \ rae , e a 6 8%, 
Bal. Gen YplaTOD °TEplagEvEL Kal 7) Jqrapakhyots Nev. €LTE 
xTark xii. 17. Rom. y.2. Matt. xiv. 14 al. fr. m Acts iii. 19. vii. 19 al. n constr., Rom. ii. 16. 
o Rom. iii. 7 reff. Rom. vii. 5 reff. (see note.) q = Rom. v. 15. viii. 18. r = 1 Thess. 
iv. 2. s constr., 1 Cor. xii. 26. 
8. om 2nd o F. 


4. for em, ev Cln Eus Chr Antch Procop. (P?) 
ins kat bef avto: DF latt Ambr Bede (not fri Jer 
for vo, aro F(not G) 109. 

aft ovrws ins kat DF m 17. 80 latt copt as 


upwy 3. for ers, wa F. 
Ambrst). (P ?) 
5. for ta ra€quata, To Ta€nua D!}. 


(vulg Damase Ambrst-ed om ka: below.) 


IIPOS KOPINOIOTS B. i. 


om yuwy M Hil Ambr: 


rec om tov [bef 2nd xpiorou |: 


ABCDFKM P(appy) 8 rel Orig.—om from mepioo. to mepioo. L. 


vero" ov pay ef ei Belas avThy TlOnow, ovde 
Aéyer Bri olda pev dmooxdpevos HEew, 
émeid}) SE Sia TAS GAlpers éverodlaOny, avy- 
Yote, Ke Mi Karayerée Twa vrepolay 
}) pabvulay judy’ GAN Erépws avTd (al. 
TOUTO) K. Meyaronpem ear epov kK. aktomo- 
TOTEpoV kaTacKevd et, emalpwy Th Tapayv- 
Gig 7d mpaypa, iva nde epwt@ot Aourby 
Thy aitiay, dv hy torépnoe. Hom.i. p. 420. 
Calvin, somewhat differently: “ Incipit 
ab hae gratiarum actione, partim ut Dei 
bonitatem predicet, partim ut animet 
Corinthios suo exemplo ad persecutiones 
fortiter sustinendas: partim ut pia gloria- 
tione se efferat adversus malignas obtrec- 
tationes pseudapostolorum.” But this 
does not touch the matter of the post- 
poned journey to Corinth, which through 
the latter part of the chapter is coming 
more and more visibly into prominence, till 
it becomes the direct subject in ver. 23. 
3.| evh., Blessed (above all others) 
Cel 5 C3 ea aes 1S | The 
God and Father ‘of our Lord Jesus Christ. 
Here, as in ref. Rom., De Wette would 
render, ‘ God, and the Father’ ...., which 
grammatically is allowable ; but I prefer 
the other rendering, on account of its 
greater verisimilitude and simplicity. 
6 wm. T. oixtip.| oikr. can hardly be the 
gen. of the attr ibute, as De W. and Grot., 
seeing that oir. is plural and refers to acts 
of merey 5 ; but as Chrys., p. 421, 6 oixripuods 
TooOUTOUS emiberEduevos : see ref. James. 
This meaning De W. himself recognizes in 
6 0. rdans mapaxdA.,—‘ the God who works 
all (possible) comfort,’ and refers to 6 @eds 
T. eArldos, Rom. xv. 13. 4.| The 
Apostle in this Epistle uses mostly the 
first person plur., perhaps as including 
Timothy, perhaps, inasmuch as he writes 
apostolically (cf. nuas tos e&moarddous, 


of himself and Apollos, 1 Cor. iv. 9), as 
speaking of the Apostlesin common. This 
however will not explain all places where 
it occurs elsewhere: e.g. 1 Thess. ii. 18, 
HOcAhoapey €AGcivy mpos suas, eyo pmev 
TladAos, kal Gmak x. 5is,—where see note. 
So that after all perhaps it is best to regard 
it merely as an idiomatic way of speaking, 
when often only the singular is intended. 
In order that we may be able: not, 
‘so that we are able.’ 61a tTovTo yap map- 
ekdAcoev Nuas, pnoly, va tuets GAAHAOUS 
TapakaA@uev. Chrys. ib. “Non sibi vivebat 
Apostolus, sed Ecclesiz : ita quicquid gra- 
tiarum in ipsum conferebat Deus, non sibi 
soli datum reputabat, sed quo plus ad alios 
juvandos haberet facultatis.” Caly. 
js, attr. for 4, or perhaps (Winer, edn. 6, 
p- 148, § 24.1) for iv (mapdkAnow mapa- 
KaAetv). 5.] ‘As He is, so are we in 
this world:’? 1 John iv.17. As the suffer- 
ings of Christ (endured by Christ, whether 
in his own person, or in his mystical body 
the Church, see Matt. xxv. 40, 45) abound 
towards us (i.e. in our case, see reff.) ;— 
even so through Christ our consolation 
also abounds. The form of expression is 
altered in the latter clause: instead of 4 
TapakAnots Tov xXpicTov epic. we have 
) Tapan. Hav wepico. Sia Tod xpioTod. 
And not without reason :—we suffer, be- 
cause we are His members: we are con- 
soled because He is our Head. There is 
no comparison (as Chrys., p. 422, ob yap 
boa erable, pnolv, érabouev udvov, GAAG Kal 
mepicod) between the personal sufferings 
of Christ, and theirs. 6.] And all 
this for your benefit. But whether we 
are afflicted, (it is) on behalf of your 
comfort (eis 7d dvvacbat x.T.A. ver. 4, 
only now applied to the Corinthians) and 
salvation (the great end of the mapd- 


"I nood YPLoTov, o b marnp TOV \ ober ippay Kal Oe0s Taons BAe 


TApaKNaa ews, 40 » Tapanadey mwas léqt maon TH abe 


hk 


ae 8, IPOS KOPINOIOTS B. 629 


t = ch. iv. 8, 


dé t OrBoueda, trép rhs Mtuav J rapakdyjrews Kai oo- i's. 


, fol v2 / 2. wwe a a 7 A q ab ra a ae 
Typlas THs * evepyoupévyns ev “ Vrropovh Tov avTa@v Imraby- 4. 2 Thess. 
4 xen y) MINAT 4 t 4 Y éxr ‘Udy 10: Heb. 
patov * dv Kal hueis waoXoper, Kat 1 ¥ dais NOY %i 5 atat 

a / \ fol vii. 1 ar 
%BeBala *imép tuav: telte *rapaxarovpeba, brép THs i's) ony. 
P Ps. exix. 1, 
¢ lal ; la \ / O77 c 5 
"iuav i mapakdjoews Kal cawtnpias, 7 EiddTEs OTL ws “Pos, see cl. 


and note. 


>KoWovol éote TOV ITaOnudTwY, oOUT@S Kai THS } Tapa- y Rom. vis 
, e2 a > , 
KNATEOS. * arguociy, adergoi, a 
¢ a ¢ lal a b] a / t sl, 
Cimép ths Orirews hudv ths yevouévns ev TH “Acia, * rk?" 


reff. 
w Rom. ii. 7 


8 ¢Od yap Oédomev tmas 


-onstr., W- 
o e at \ f © \ , g2 , 4 y cons ae sie 
Ore Kal °imepBorjy fuméep Svvapww © EBapnOnwev, wsTE ” gen. ofps 
Xxviii, 20. Phil. i. 20. z= Rom. iv. 16 (reff.). Heb. iii. 14. vi, 19. ix, 17, a = Phil. i. 7, 
b 1 Cor. x. 18, 20 reff. c Rom. i.13. xi. 25. 1Cor. x, 1. xii. 1. 1 Thess. iv. 13. d = John i. 30. ch, 
viii, 23. 2 Thess, ii. 1. e Rom. vii. 13 reff. f = Acts xxvi. 13 al. g Matt. xxvi. 
43 (|| Mk. vy. r.). Luke ix. 32, xxi. 34. ch. y.4. 1 Tim. v.16 only +. Isa. i, 4 Aq. Symm.,, &c. 


6. for e:re Se, ex Se D1 32: om Se C. for 1st vuwy, nuwy L. om Ist 
Kat cwrnpias B17. 176. rec has e:te mapakadoupeba vrep TNS UMMY TapaKAnTEwWS 
Kat cwrnpias bef rar n eAmis nuwy BeBara vTEep vuwy: ELTE Tapak. UTEP T. VL. TapaKAn- 
TEWS TNS EVEPyouMEevNS EV UVTOMOVH TWY aUT. TAD. WY K. NM. 7. Kal N EAT., OME KaL 

cwrnpias, ACMPN am(with flor fuld? harl tol!) fri Syr copt sth (arm) Ephr Antch, 
and, but insg kas owrnpias, m fuld!: sive consolamur pro vestra consolatione sive 
exhortamur pro vestra exhortatione et salute vulg-ed(with demid) : txt (BDFK)L rel 
syr goth Chr Thdrt Damase Phot Thl @c.—om auvzey K: avrov b e g k 0.—ws D!F 
(G-lat has both).—for nuey, vuwy B o. 

7. rec (for ws) wsmep, with D2-3KL rel Chr Thdrt: o: (= 
G-lat : sicut F-lat: txt ABCD!MPR 17 Orig Ephr Damase. 
eote DF latt goth. om ourws F D-lat(and G-lat) Syr goth. 

8. for umep, mepp. ACDFPX b m? o 17. 47 Orig Bas Chr Thdrt Antch Tert: txt 


et?) F, st D-lat Syr: om 
Twy Tabnwatwy bef 


BKLM rel Damase Thl (ce. 
Chr Thdrt Damasce Ambrst-ms : 


urep, Tapa Dit. 


rec aft yev. ins nuw, with D?K LN? rel vss Bas 
om ABCD'FMPRN? 17 latt Orig Tert Jer. 
rec eBapn Onuev bef urep Suvauiv, with DFKL rel yulg syrr 


for 


goth Chr Thdrt Damase Tert Ambrst: txt ABCMPR m 17 fri arm Bas Jer, 


kAnots), Which (viz. mapdkAnois and cw- 
tnpia) is working (not, as Chrys., Theo- 
phyl., Hstius, Beza, al., ‘being worked ? 
the passive does not occur in St, Paul) in 
the endurance of the same sufferings 
which we also suffer ;—and our hope is 
stedfast on your behalf (that you will en- 
dure hardness, and be consoled and saved) ; 
—or whether we are comforted, (it is) for 
your comfort and salvation. This place 
of the words kal—tudy agrees best with the 
sense, besides being in accordance with the 
best mss. Their position has perhaps been 
altered to bring the two parts of the dilem- 
ma closer together, and because éAm)s judy 
seemed to suit the part. efSdéres, and the 
future supposed to be implied after obtws 
kal (asin E.V.), The objection to this is 
(as De W.) that the éAmis clearly must be 
referred to swtnpta, which however is not 
hinted at in ver. 7. 7.] eiddétes re- 
fers back to mapakadovucba:—we are 
comforted with the assurance that, &c. 
After otrws kai understand not écec@e, but 
éore: he is speaking generally, of the com- 
munity of consolation subsisting mutually 
between himself and the Corinthians; and 


it was this thought which helped to console 
him, 8. ] see var. read. It is gene- 
rally supposed that the tribulation here 
spoken of was the danger into which Paul 
was brought by the tumult at Ephesus, re- 
lated in Acts xix. This opinion has been 
recently defended by Neander, Wieseler, 
and Dr, Davidson, but impugned by De 
Wette, on the grounds, (1) that ev 7H ’Acia 
can hardly refer to Ephesus, which Paul 
generally names, 1 Cor. xv. 32; xvi. 8; 
(2) that he was not in danger of his life 
in this tumult. The first ground is hardly 
tenable: there would be an appropriate- 
ness in év 77H ’Acig here, as he has in 
his mind an apologetic account of the 
reasons which hindered him from leaving 
those parts and coming to them. I own, 
however, that the strong expressions here 
used do not seem to me to find their justifi- 
cation in any thing which we know of that 
tumult or its consequences. I am unable 
to assign any other event as in the Apos- 
tle’s mind; but the expressions seem rather 
to regard a deadly sickness, than a perse- 
cution: see below, vv. 9, 10. kad” 
trep. signifies the greatness of the afflic- 


630 


h ch. iy, 8 only. 
Ps, Ixxxvii. 
15 only. 

i constr., see 
Acts iii. 12 
reff. 

j Ist pers., ch. 
ili. 1 reff. 

k here only ¥. 

1 ch. ii. 13. vii. 


5. 
m = John i. 31. 
n Heb. ii. 13, 
from Isa. viii. 
17. 


o constr., as above (n). Mark x. 24. Luke xi. 22. xviii. 9 only. Ps.ii. 12. w. acc., ch. ii. 3 reff. 
Rey. xvi. 18 only t. i 


xv. 4 reff. q Heb. ii. 3. James iii. 4. 
ly. 13. (see amoOvyjaKeLy, 1 Cor. xy. 31.) 
u perf., 1 Cor. xy. 19 reff. vy here only +. 


9. aft aAAa ins em D!. 
povtt b! 1! o Cyr Thdrt Thl. 
10. for eppv., epycaro B}. 


IIPO> KOPINOIOTS B. 


om ecxnkamev D!. 


Te 


 €EarropnOjvar jpads Kal itod Shur 9 adda adrol év 
s a - / nr ' 
J éavrois To * dmoxpima Tod Oavatou | écynKapev, ™ iva by 
/ re. | a fol a fal 
00 qreqroLOoTes ™@pev ep JéavTois, GAN ° etl TO Oe@ TH 
P éyeipovTL TOU 95, 10 Og éx IrnALKov * dava 

p s vexpovs, 19 ds é« ItndLKovTOUV * BavaTou 

s = Med a A e lal \ s C7, t > a tu > / er 
eppicato nuds Kal *pioetar, teis ov ™ HAmikapev OTE 
Kal éte * poeta, 11’ cuvuToupyovvTay Kal vuov bmép 


p =1Cor. 
r= ch. xi 23: Pas. 
t see Rom. xv. 12 reff. 


2 Macc. xii. 3. 
s Rom. vii. 24 reff. 


Oeov Tov eyeipayta F: evei- 


rec (for Ist pucetar) puetat (see notes), with DIF KLM 


rel vulg-ed(with fuld F-lat) syr goth Orig,(and int,) Chr Thdrt Thl Ge Jer: txt 
BCPN 17. 47 G-lat am(with mar tol) copt 2th arm (Ath) Damasc.—om kat pucetat 


AD?! demid Syr eth-pl Chry.. Ambrst-ed. 
om et: D2F h k vss Jer Ambrst. 
11. nuwy vmep vuwy A. 


tion itself, objectively considered: t1ép 
Suv., the relation of it to our power of en- 
durance, subjectively. Gste e&.| So 
that we utterly despaired even of life. 
Such an expression surely would not be 
used ofa tumult, where life would havebeen 
the first thing in danger, if Paul had been 
at all mixed up in it,—but to some wearing 
and tedious suffering, inducing despondency 
in minor matters, which even reached the 
hope of life itself. 9.] adda, more- 
over,—carries on and intensifies the de- 
scription of his hopeless state. We had 
in ourselves the response of death, i. e. our 
answer within ourselves to the question, 
‘Life or Death ?’ was, ‘Death. So Vulg., 
Estius, Billroth, Riickert, Meyer, De Wette. 
7. &ardékp. may perhaps mean, the 
‘sentence, as Hesych.: améxpima, katd- 
Kpysa, Wipov,—and most Commentators. 
The perfect éeoxfxayey is here (see 
also ch. ii. 12, 18) in a historical sense, 
instead of the aorist: which is unusual. 
Winer, edn. 6, § 40. 4 (see Moulton’s 
note 4, p. 340), illustrates the usage by 
Harvey nar etanpev (7d BiBAtov), Rey. v. 
7: see also Rev. viii. 5. Wa pn... | 
very similarly ch. iv. 7, @xowev de ry 
Oncavpoy todTov ev dorpaklvors oKeveow, 
tva 7 brepBod?) Tis Suvduews Y TOU 
Qeod, kal ph e& Tpov. TO ey. T. 
vexpovs | Our thoughts were weaned from 
all hope of surviving in this life, and 
fixed on that better deliverance which God 
shall work when He raises us from the 
dead. To see in this expression merely 
a figure (De W.), and understand * Who 
raiseth the dead’ as =‘ Who delivers men 
from peril of their lives?’ because such 
peril is below and elsewhere (ch. xi. 23) 
called @dvatos,—is surely very forced. 


om ott BD1M: kau bef or: F. 


for 2nd pvo., puerat F goth. 
for umep, mept DIF. 


Tn Senoet bef virep nuwy C 


Understanding it literally as above, I can- 
not see how it can be spoken with reference 
to the Ephesian tumult. If it alludes to 
any external danger, I should be disposed 
to refer it to the same obscure part of 
Paul’s history to which he alludes 1 Cor. 
xv. 32, where he also speaks of the hope 
of the resurrection as his great support. 
But there would be this objection, that 
these two passages can hardly refer to the 
same event ; this evidently had taken place 
since the sending of the first Epistle. 
10.] Who rescued us from so great a 
death, and will rescue us,—on whom 
we hope that He will also continue to 
rescue us. The rec. pveta: has been sub- 
stituted for the fut. picera:, as more ap- 
propriate. But it regards the immediate 
future,—the kal ri pioerat the continu- 
ance of God’s help in time distant and 
uncertain. The whole verse (as De W. 
confesses, who although he repudiates the 
Ephesian tumult, yet interprets the passage 
as alluding to external danger) seems to 
favour the idea of bodily sickness being in 
the Apostle’s mind. 11.] cvvuTovp- 
youvtrwyv—with whom? From the similar 
passage Rom. xv. 30, cvvaywricac@al por 
év Tais mposevxais tmtp euod, it would 
seem as if wor should be supplied ;—but 
he himself could hardly be said bzoupyety, 
though he well might aywvicac@a. We 
must therefore understand the preposi- 
tion either with Chrys., Hom ii. p. 432, 
TouTéoTIV, EvXOMeVwY TavTwY Buay bréep 
nuav,—or as merely signifying coinci- 
dence with the purpose to be accom- 
plished, as in ph mpose@vros juas rod 
avéuov, Acts xxvii. 7, where see note. 
iva é« wodkGv mpositev... .] 
“ Three constructions of this verse are pos- 


d pver 


ABCI 
KLM 
abec¢ 
ghkl 
nol7, 


9—18. 


IIPOZ KOPINOIOTS 


631 


Huav mH Oenoe, iva “éx ToAN@V * TpOSM@TT@V TO Y Eig Vz Mit? 


nuas * ydpicpua * bia TONY ” EvyapiaTHOA brrép tuav. 
12°H yap * Kavynars asc allie €oTW, TO 


iii. 5. 

x = here only. 
Tposwmrov 
aEvoxpewy 
TO Wit 


1 wapTvpiov 


THS “ouverdijcews npav, OTe ev SayvoTnTL Kai ® eidiKpweEla Poly. ae 


h 


Tov Geov, ovK év copia * Bapeerts ann év ’ xapure Geod, y = Act xx. 


xiv. 24. 
a ii 4 al. 


K aveotpadnpev ev TO KOT Me, | TepircoTepas Hé TpPds UpMas. 2 Mein MMs, 
16 


13 9) yap ara ypadhopuev tuiv ™adrrN 7 &” avaywackere 


c Rom. iii. 27 reff. 


b 1 Cor. xi. 24 reff. constr., here only. 


. Vi. 23, 
xi. 29 al.t 
aso 1 Cor. i. 9. 


d Matt. viii. dal. fr. Josh. 


XXiv. 27. e = (John viii. 9.) Acts xxiii. 1. Rom. ii. 15 al. fr.¢ (Eccles. x. ys Wisd. 

xvii. 11 only. | f Heb. xii. 10 only+. 2 Macc. xy. 2 only. g 1 Cor. v. 8, ch. ii. 

17 only+. (-7s, Phil. i. 10.) hso Sixatoc. Geov, Rom. iii. 21, 22. i 1.Cors dB) 8 reff. 
j = Rom. i. 5. 1 Cor. iii. 10 al. k = Eph. ii. 3. 1 Tim. iii. 15. 1 Pet.i.17. 2 Pet.ii.18. Ezek. xix. 


6. see Matt. xvii. 22. 


1 Cor. xii. 23, 24.) m Luke xii. 51. 


pene copt Chr,: om Sedul, syr has it with ast. 


Ich. ii. 4 al8., Paul. 
Num. xiii. 29. 


Heb. ii. 1. xiii. 19 (Mark xv. 14 y. Eng (-pos, 
n Acts viii. 28 reff. 


for Ist nuwy, vuwy (but corrd) X! 


e?, ev TOAAW Tposwrw FM 67? Chr,, in multifacie D-lat, in multa facie G-lat. 


—homeeotel in P roAAwy to ToAA@r. 
hl mno Damase Phot(in Gc). 
12. for 2nd nuwr, vuwr (but corrd) N?. 


vuas 17. vuwy BD3FKLP ce? fg 


rec (for ayiornre) amAornti (see note, 


and Eph vi. 5, Col iii. 22), with DFLN? latt syrr goth Chr Thdrt Thl ce Ambrst: 


txt ABCKMPS! m 17 copt arm Clem Orig Antch Damasc, Anton. 
ree om tov, with FKLPN% rel Orig Thl Cc: ins ABCDMN}:3b 
ins kat bef ove BM a m vulg(and F-lat) syr Damase. 


eAikpweia A syr. 
am 17. 47 Damasc,. 
oapkivy F. 

18. om aad’ F. 


sible: (1) to take ex oAA. mposér. as well 
as 61a moAA@v with edxapiornb7,—‘in 
order that the mercy shewn to me may be 
given thanks for on my behalf by many 
persons with many words’ (Storr, Opuse. 
li. 253): but the rendering, ‘with many 
words,’ is objectionable, see Matt. vi. '7:— 
(2) to take é« moAA. mpos@r. with edxap., 
and 6a moAA@y with 7d eis Hu. Xap. in 
order that the mercy shewn to me by means 
of (the intercession of) many, may be given 
thanks for by many persons on my behalf’ 
(Theophyl., Billroth, Meyer, who explain 
ek m™. Tpos@m. ‘ex multis oribus:’ Stan- 
ley, ‘from many upturned faces’): but 
the position of the words is against this,— 
and it is more natural that the mention of 
the effect of the intercession should precede 
that ofthethanksgiving. (3) Consequently, 
the best method is to take én roAA. mposar. 
with 7d eis ju. xdp., and 6i& moAA@y with 
edxap. (Beza, Caloy., Estius, Fritz., Riick- 
ert, al.) :—in order that the mercy shewn 
to us by the intercession of many persons, 
may by many be given thanks for on our 
behalf.” De Wette. The emphasis of 
the whole being on the é« wodAa@v mpos- 
étev, he places it first, even before the 
art., after which it would naturally come. 
| -Wposetrev, ‘persons,’ a later mean- 
ing, which Phry nichus (see Wetst. ) blames 
as used by of aug) Tas dikas pHropes. 
12—24.] EXPRESSION OF HIS CONFI- 
DENCE IN HIS INTEGRITY OF PURPOSE 
TOWARDS THEM (12—14), AND DEFENCE 


ins ev bef 


om 7 &@ A 17: om 7 4, 219' Syr goth arm: om & D!. 


OF HIMSELF AGAINST THE CHARGE OF 
FICKLENESS OF PURPOSE IN NOT HAVING 
COME TO THEM (15—24 12.] yap, 
reason why they should help him with their 
united prayers. Kavxyots | viewed in 
its ground and substance. But we must 
not say that it is for cavxnua: the Apostle 
regards the paptvpgiov and the rabynois 
as coincident :—it is not the testimony, 
&e., of which he boasts, but in which his 
boasting itself consists. aytor. |] amad- 
TyTt seems to be a gloss from Eph. vi. 
5:—in holiness and sincerity of God: 
i.e. either ‘belonging to God,’ as 7 dixaoo. 
aitov, Matt. vi. 33, or ‘which is the gift 
of God,’ as in ref. Rom.,—or better than 
either, as E. V., ‘ godly,’ i.e. maintained 
as in the service of and with respect to 
God. Calvin interprets it, ‘coram Deo.’ 
See on ch. ii. 17; and on the senses of 
ayibr. and amAér., Stanley’s note. 

ovK év god. capx.] which fleshly wisdom 
is any thing but holy and pure, having 
many windings and insincerities in order 
to captivate men. GAN’ év xdp. 
Qeod | but in the grace of God, i.e. in 
that xdpis which he had received (ref. 
Rom.) cis brakohv mlorews ey maow Tors 
€0veo.v—the grace of his apostleship. To 
this he often refers, see Rom. xii. 3, xv. 
15; Eph. iii. 2, al. TEpLTTOTEPYS | 
“Non quod apud alios minus sincere con- 
versatus fuisset ; sed quia majora sincere 
sue conversationis documenta apud Corin- 
thios ostenderat: ut quibus gratis ac sine 


632 IPOS KOPIN@IOTS B. 
o 1 Cor. ix. 8 
mei) 0 . E A 
p Acts sai yveocedbe, 14 Kabws Kal 
q 1 Cor. i. 8 
only (reff.). 
r constr., see 
1 Cor. xiv. 
37. 


s Rom, xi, 25 
(reff.). xv. 15, 
24. ch. ii. 5 
only. 


v 1Cor. i. 8 reff. 
iii. 4 only. P. 


w dat., 1 Cor. ix. 7. xi. 5 al. 
4 Kings xviii. 19 only. 


i: 


, ¢ / BJ 
°4 Kal ? ériywookerte, EdTifw Sé btu 4 Ews 4 TENOUS P emrL- 


 érréyywTe uas * amo * “épous, 


, r c cal cal oJ lol 

'éTe KavYNUa Dav Eopev " KabaTrEp Kai VpEls NMOV EV TH 
rn , e lal , a é \ 7 nr 

V jyepa Tod Kuplov nuav Incod. 15 Kal © ravTn THe * Te- 


/ \ c lal lal ivf / 
mrowbncer EBovdopnv TpOTEpov Tpos Vuas éOety, iva deuTE- 
t Paul (Rom. iy. 2 al8.) only, exc. Heb. iii. 6. Deut. x. 21 al. 


u Rom. iv. 6 reff. 
x ch. iii. 4. viii. 22, x. 2. Eph. iii. 12. Phil. 


om 7 kat emrywwokete (homeotel) Bo! 31, 41. 109. 288 (Ee: om » FK 114 latt copt 


arm Ambrst. 


rec ins kat bef ews, with D3KLMP rel syr Chr Thdrt Thl @e: om 


ABCD'ER 17 latt Syr copt goth arm Damasc lat-ff. 
14. om kad. x. vu. nu. K.—rec om last nuwy, with ACDL rel goth Ge: ins BFMPR 


m 17 vulg Syr syr-w-ast copt «th arm Chr Thdrt Ambrst. 


aft imo. add 


xpicrov D!F MPN3(but erased) bm o latt Syr syr-w-ast copt goth ath arm-ed Chr Antch 


Thl lat-ff. 


15. eadew bef mpos vuas DF KL rel latt Syr copt goth Chr-ms Thdrt Thl lat-ff: txt 
ABCMPRX (a) h m 17 syr Chr Damase (c.—ree pos vuas eAdew bef mporepor, with (K 
h 47) copt Thdrt: «A@ew mporepoy mpos vuas a: txt ABC(DFL)MPX-corr! m 17 (rel) 


stipendio preedicasset evangelium, parcens 
eorum infirmitati.” Estius. But perhaps 
it may relate only to the longer time, and 
greater opportunities which he had had at 
Corinth for shewing his purity of purpose : 
so Caly., De W. 13, 14.| Confirmation 
of the foregoing assertion. For we do not 
write to you any other things, except 
those which ye read, or acknowledge (by 
experience of facts), and I hope, shall 
acknowledge to the end:—i. e. ‘my cha- 
racter in my writings is one and the same, 
not fickle and changing, but such as past 
facts have substantiated it to be, and as I 
hope future facts to the end of my life will 
continue to do.” dvaywdcKovtes yap ém- 
ywookete, Ott & oUYICTE Tuly ev Tots 
pyo.s, Tada Kal év Tos ypdupact A€youev 
kat ovk éevavTiodTar buay 7m mapTtupla Tals 
emioToAais, GAAG ouVgdEl TH avayvere 7 
yvaos, hv mpodraBdrtes efxerte (al. Exere) 
mept jua@v. Chrys., Hom. iii. p. 443, 
who has the advantage of being able 
to express in his exposition the play of 
words in ava- and émi-yweécokere. As 
also ye did partly (that part of you, viz. 
which have fairly tried me: ard pépous, 
because they were divided in their estimate 
of him, and those who were prejudiced 
against him had shut their minds to this 
knowledge. Chrys. refers it to what fol- 
lows: petpia(wy eirev: Theophyl. to the 
not yet completed testimony of his évapérou 
Blov: Estius and Calvin, to their inade- 
quate estimation of him, which he blames: 
but I much prefer the above. So most 
Commentators) acknowledge us, that (not 
‘because, putting a colon at mépous, as 
Luth., Griesbach, and Scholz: nor is it to 
be joined with émyvdécecbe, what follows 
being parenthesized, as Theophyl., al., 


Meyer, Olsh.) we are your boast, as ye are 
ours, in the day of the Lord Jesus. éopev, 
‘ present,’ as of that which is a settled re- 
cognized fact. But this is no ground for 
its being joined with éemyvecede, as Olsh. 
The experimental mutual knowledge of one 
another as a kavxnua was not confined to 
what should take place ev TH jm. T. k. 
*Inoov, but regarded a present fact, which 
should receive its full completion at the day 
of the Lord. 15—24.| His defence of 
himself against the charge of fickleness of 
purpose for not having come to them. 
15.] tavty TH Tenm., i.e. of my character 
being known to you as that of an earnest 
and sincere man. arpotepov belongs 
to éAgeiv, not to éBovadunr. ™pOTepoy, 
viz. before he visited Macedonia, where he 
now was. iva Sevtépav yap ox7TE | 
that you might have a second benefit (ef- 
fusion of the divine xdpis by my presence : 
not=xapdy as Chrys., see var. read.). 
Seurépav, second, because there would thus 
have been opportunity for ¢wo visits, one 
in going towards Macedonia, the other in 
returning. This is the interpretation of De 
Wette, Bleek, and Wieseler, and I believe 
the only one which the words will bear. 
The other, according to which devrépay 
xdpiv would mean ‘a second benefit,’ by 
my visiting you for the second time, is in 
my view unnatural, and would hardly have 
justified the use of Sevrdpay at all. For 
come when he would, the xdpis of the 
second visit would be the devrepa xapis, 
and the conferring a Sevrépa xdpis would 
have been of no signification in the present 
connexion, which is to state a purpose of 
paying them ¢wo visits in one and the same 
Journey. The first of these he characterizes 
by mpétepov . . . €A@eiv,—the second by 


va. 
ABCD] 
KLPS 

bede 
ghkl: 
nol7.: 


14—18, 


pav Yyapw oxnre, 1° Kat 750 vuav % dvedOety * eis Maxe- 
I \ / > \ / 3 lal \ € an 
Soviav, kat Tadwv ato Maxedovias éXOeiv mpos buds Kal 
apie, 9 € fal b 67 > \ *T 8 / 
vp vuav  rpoTempOhvas eis THv ‘louvdaiav. 
, / cy (oN lee / e2 / x 
Bovropevos pn Te °apa TH Tédadpla °éexpnodauny; 4) 
& * Bovrevouar ® kata § capKa * Bovdevomat, iva 7 » Trap’ 
. esa 
€“ot TO ‘val val, Kat TO iov ov; 


Acts [vii. 1.] xxi. 38. 
vii. 21 reff. 
53 v. r.) xil. 10 only. Isa. iii. 9 al. 
i Matt. v.37. James y. 12. 


IIPOS KOPINOIOTS B. 


d here only+. (-péds, ch. iv. 17.) 
f epp., here bis only. 


633 


y = here only. 
z Acts ix. 32 
reff. Num. 
xx. 18, 20. 
a 5 see Rom, xv. 
17 todo ov $s 
Mark iv. 35 ||. 
Acts xviii. 
27. Rom, v. 


2 


Amos i 
. Q ute 1 b Acts xv. 
18 Karistos 56 0 Oeds, rt: 
¢ in interrog., 
(1 Cor. 
John (xi, 
h = Rom. xii. 16 al. 


e = ch. iii. 12. 
Acts y. 33. xxvii. 39. gospp., Luke xiv. 31. 
g Rom. i. 3 reff. 


k = 1 Cor. i. 9 reff. 


latt syrr goth Chr Damase lat-ff.—to mporepoy L rel Thl (ec: ro devrepov K: om 


mpotepov X}. 


similarity of s and e. 


xapay B L(TischdfLN. T. ed 7]) PX? 31. 71-3. 80. 115 Thdrt. 
(Chr says: xdpw 5& éevtat@a thy xapay déyeu.) 


rec exnte (probably from 


There is nothing in what Tischdf [ed 7] says against oxiiTe as 


being conformed to the tense of éBovAduny, seeing that that word may be either im- 
perfect or aor), with ADFKL rel: txt BCP Thdrt, Damase. 


16. 5:0 F(not G). 


for d1eA0., aweAOeww AD!F copt Chr, Damase: «Adew ab o 


(Ce: proficiscerer aut transirem G-lat: txt BCD3KLN rel vulg syrr Chr, Thdrt Thl. 


(See Rom xv. 28.) 
17. for ovy, de A; vero igitur goth. 


for vp, ap D1 b 1 0 47 Chr-mss Thdrt-ms, e@ 17. 


rec BovAevouevos, with DK rel G-lat syrr 


goth eth arm Thdrt (ic Ambrst: BovAevoowevos L: txt ABCFPRachmo 17 vulg 


copt Chr Damase Thl Bede. 


devrépa xapis, implying also the first. So 
that I do not believe this passage to be 
relevant to the question respecting the 
number of visits which Paul had made to 
Corinth previously to writing these Epis- 
tles. See on that question, Prolegg. to 
1 Cor. § v. 16.| If this is the same 
journey which is announced in 1 Cor. xvi. 
5, the idea of visiting them iz the way to 
Macedonia as well as after having passed 
through it, must have occurred to him 
subsequently to the sending of that Epis- 
tle ; or may even then have been a wish, 
but not expressed, from uncertainty as to 
its possibility,—the main and longer visit 
being there principally dwelt on. But 
perhaps the following is the more likely 
account of the matter. He had announced 
to them in the lost Epistle (see 1 Cor. v. 
9) his intention, as here, of visiting them 
on his way to Macedonia: but the intel- 
ligence from “ them of Chloe” had altered 
his intention, so that, in 1 Cor. xvi., he 
speaks of visiting them after he should 
have passed through Macedonia. For 
this he was accused of levity of purpose. 
Certainly, some intention of coming to 
them seems to have been mentioned in 
that lost Epistle: see 1 Cor. iv. 18. But 
the mporeupOjvar eis Thy “lovdalay can 
hardly but be coincident with the alms- 
bearing scheme of 1 Cor. xvi.4; in which 
case the two plans certainly are modifica- 
tions of one and the same. 17.] pyre... 
Did I at all use levity (of purpose)? tq 
éAad., as 7 apeTh, 7 mlortis,—the art. 
being generic. Olsh., De Wette, Billroth, 


om 77 F Thdrt. 


take it to mean ‘the levity of purpose 
which has been laid to my charge :? Winer, 
‘the levity of purpose inherent in human 
nature.’ Or those things which I plan, 
do I plan according to the flesh (i.e. ac- 
cording to the changeable, self-contradic- 
tory, and insincere purposes of the mere 
worldly and ungodly man), that there may 
be with me (not, so that there is with 
me: he is speaking not merely of the re- 
sult, but of the design : ‘do I plan like the 
worldly, that Imay shift and waver as suits 
me?) the Yea, yea, and the Nay, nay 
(i.e. both affirmation and negation concern- 
ing the same thing)? Chrys., Theodoret, 
Theophyl., @e., Caly., Bengel, Billroth, 
Winer, al., take it thus: ‘ Or those things 
which I plan, do I plan after the flesh (as 
fleshly men do), so that my yea must (at 
all events) be yea, and my nay, nay ?’ i.e. 
as worldly men who perform their promise 
at all hazards, and whatever the conse- 
quences, whereas I am under the guidance 
of the Spirit, and can only journey whither 
He permits. But this explanation is 
directly against the next verse, where va? 
kal of is clearly parallel to val val cad od of 
here, the words being repeated, as in ref. 
Matt., without altering the sense: and in- 
consistent with ver. 23 and ch. ii. 1, where 
he says that his alteration of plan arose 
Jrom a desire to spare them. See the 
whole discussed in Stanley’s note. 18. | 
Such fickleness, you know, was not my 
habit in preaching to you. Chrys. gives 
the connexion well: xadds ayrideow 
GvakUmTovoay KaTadve, ci yap brorxd- 


634 TIPO KOPINOIOTS B. J. 19—24. 
leonstr see 1674 0 AOYOS HU@V O Tpos Dudas ovK éoTw ‘vat Kal ‘ov. 
Judith xii. 4. 


m 1 Tim. iii. 16. 

n = Acts viii. 5 
reff. 

o constr., Matt. 


196 tod Oeod yap vios “Incods ypuotds 0 ™év dpiv SV 
nov ™ KnpvxOeis, Ov €uod Kal Lidovavod Kai TywoGéou, 


eras ; ‘ A / 
pActsidremt. OUK e€yéveTo ‘val Kal ‘ov, adda val év avT@ yeyovev" 


q Matt. xix. 18. 
Mark ix. 23. 
Eph. iv. 9. 
Heb. xii. 27. 

r see Rey. i. 7. 
xxii. 20, 

s see Rom. xy. 7; 9. ch, iv. 15, viii. 19. 


18. om nue LI. 


om o [bef mpos] D'. 


r cal ‘\ \ \ 

20° 6car yap P érayyediat Ocod, ev avT@ 470 "vai, Ovo Kai 
la A lal / > e an 

d2 avtod 176 'apnv 7d Oe@ mpos SdoEav Sv Hudv. 


rec (for eatw) eyeveto (corrn 


to suit the supposed reference to the past ?), with D*KLN3 rel Chr Thdrt Damase, fuit 
syrr: txt ABCD!1FPN! 17 latt goth Cyr Thl-marg. 
19. rec yap bef tov Ocov, with D(F)KL rel Chr Thdrt: txt ABCPS m 17.—om tov 


i xpior. bef ino. ACN}, om xp. 17. 


D-lat G-lat fuld. ciaBavov DE. 


20. ins tov bef deov A f 0 48. 72. 106 Thart. 


ins o bef 50 nuwr F, qui per nos 
for eyeveto, eoti C. 
rec (for 510 kat 5° avtov) Kat ev 


avtw, with D?3KL rel syr Chr Thdrt Thl Gc: ka 6C avrov, omg 510, D!(and lat) 
Epiph(appy): txt ABCFPN m 17 vulg G-lat Syr copt goth arm Mcion-e Damase Pel 


Fulg Bede. om 2nd To X!. 


F-lat, but honorem per nos over the greek in F.) 


pevos, bnol, maparyevéerOar brepcOov, Kal 
ovk @oTt mapd co. vat, val (predicate in 
Chrys.’s interpretation ; see above), kal 
ov, ov, GAAG viv & A€yels GvaTpéemes meTa 
Tadta, dsmep ent 778 oS emdnutas erotn- 
cas: oval iiv, wh mote Kal ey TO Knpvy- 
batt tovTo yéeyover. i” otv mh TavrTa 
evvo@ol, pnde OopvBavTm, not mords 
de 6 Ocds K.T.A. p. 446. ToT. 
Se 6 6., dtu] a form of asseveration: see 
reff. The dé follows on the denial of 
the preceding question. 6 oy. | 
Our doctrine (which we preached, ef. 6 
Adyos 6 Tov aravpod, 1 Cor. i. 18), to you 
is not (present, inasmuch as the cha- 
racter of the doctrine was present and 
abiding. ‘The pres. has been altered in 
rec. to the easier eyévero) yea and nay 
(i.e. inconsistent with itself’). 19.] 
Confirmation of the last verse, by affirming 
the same of the great Subject of that doc- 
trine, as set before them by Paul and his 
colleagues. Xpiores, personal—not 
for ‘doctrina de Christo’—Hr HiMsrtr 
is the centre and substance of all Christian 
preaching: see 1 Cor. i. 23, and note at 
Bs 2 6 Tov Oe0d vids is prefixed for 
solemnity, and to shew how unlikely fickle- 
ness or change is in Christ, being such as 
He is. Cf. 1 Sam. xv. 29, ‘the Strength 
of Israel will not lie nor repent.’ 

YiAovavod] so 1 Pet. v. 12; = Silas, see 
Acts xviii. 5 and al. He names his com- 
panions, as shewing that neither was he 
inconsistent with himself, nor were they 
inconsistent with one another. The Christ 
was the same, whether preached by dif- 
ferent persons or by one person at dif- 
ferent times. G\Aa val éy air. 


aft Sofay ins kat Tiyunyv DF. (not vulg nor 


om & [bef nuwy] CL vulg. 


yey-] ‘Christus predicatus, i.e. predi- 
eatio nostra de Christo, facta est ne in 
Ipso Christo” Bengel. This seems to me 
far better than with De Wette, al., to 
make vat the subject, and yéyovey pre- 
dicatory. The absence of the art. before 
val, as well as the sense, stamps it as the 
predicate. ‘Christ preached as the Son of 
God by us, has become yea in Him,’ 
i.e. has been affirmed and substantiated 
as verity by the agency of the Lord Him- 
self. 20.] Scat yap .. . is an inde- 
pendent relative clause, as in ref.,—not the 
subject answering to év a’7@ 7d valasa 
predicate, as E. V.:—For how many so- 
ever be the promises of God, in Him is 
the yea (the affirmation and fulfilment of 
them all); wherefore also through Him 
is the Amen, for glory to God by our (the 
Apostles’) means. This reading, which 
has the stronger external authority, may 
have arisen from an idea that the clause 
had reference to the Amen ultered at the 
end of prayers. So Theodoret, ob 8) 
xdpw Kat SC adrod roy Tis evxapiorias 
av’T@ mpospéepouey tuvoy, from which com- 
ment De Wette thinks the reading has 
sprung. The apparent objection to it is, 
that then pov must mean 7uay kat 
buay, which without notice it perhaps 
could hardly do. In the next verse, 
when such is about to be its meaning, we 
have first jpas obv dpiv, and then in 
ver. 22, judas ... juay in the general 
sense: but here, without any such pre- 
paratory notice, 6° j7uév must signify ‘ by 
means of us Apostles, ‘by our work in 
the Lord’ Thus auhv will be merely a 
strengthening of vai—the affirmation and 


ABCD 
KLPR 
be de 
ghkl 
nol7.: 


PG 1. IIPO> KOPINOIOTS B. 635 


91 e nm t n 2 a \ € Lal ’ \ \ u 
0 8 tBeBaidv Huds oly tyiv eis yptoTov Kal “ yplaas t Rom. xv.s 


€ 5 ¢ \ a \ i 
nuas Beds, 22 0 Kal * odpayicdpevos Huds Kat  Oovs “ren” 


\ x 226 BS a , w2 A Sy en hae ico eae 
Tov XappaBava Tov TvevipaTtos “ év Tais Kapdials Nuav. 2%. Eph. 
,’ \ \ \ lal \ y wit 
23°"Eyo O€ Yudptupa tov Oeov * émixadodmar *érl THY HERE 


SF a / cr t CNR IAN Shake 3 5) r xii. 4, 9. 
Eury vpuxnv, OTe » pedopevos vuav ovKéTe Gov eis Ko- w = ch. vii, 10 
reff. Ezek. 
24 ¢ Oy) ec 6 d fj , .) yy) a Xxxvi. 26. 
pwOor. ovy ° ére 4 Kuptevopey tuav THs TioTEws, Ee, | 
14 only. Gen. 
Xxxvill. 17, 
18, 20 only. 
y Rom. i. 9 reff. 
z = here only. 
see Acts XxXv. 
b Rom. xi. 21 reff. 
d Rom. vi. 9, 14 reff. 
g=Rom.v. 2. 1Cor. xv. 1. 
idat., Rom. xiv. 7 
lart., Rom. xiv. 13 al. 


> yy e / > a a €: fal nr \ f / 
anda © ouvepyot Eapev THS KAapas Vw" TH yap ° TLOTEL 


g& sf f Thee aed Tae Ak a iheat \ 

éotynKxate II. éxpwa o¢ iéuavt@ * TovTO, 'TO py 
11 al. a = Luke ix. 5, 

e = John vi. 46. ch. iii. 5, Phil. iii. 12. iv. 11, 17. 

e Rom. xvi. g reff. constr., here only. 

h = Acts xx. 16. 1 Cor. ii. 2. v. 3. vii. 37. 
reff. Tit. ii, 14. 


Acts xii, 51. 
2 Thess. iii. 9 only. 
fdat., Acts xxi. 21. 
Tit. iii. 12 al. 2 Macc. xi. 25. 
k so Rom. xiy. 13. 1 Pet.ii,19. 2 Pet. iii. 8. 


21. vuas ovv nu Cadosyr: vuas cuvvy yay B115: nos nobiscum F-lat, so also b!. 
ins o bef ka: xpioas D}. for 2nd ynuas, vuas B}. 
22. om 6 ACIKPN!aemo17 Syr(appy) copt goth Ps-Just Did Chr Damase: raz 
bef 6 F tol demid eth. apaBwva (F)LX m; -Bova FP. 
23. for ovieti, ove F latt Syr copt goth (ath) Ambrst. 
24. rns miorews bef vuey DF a latt Ambrst Aug. 


Cup. II. 1. for 5<, re D' eth: yap Bw 17 syr copt. 


completion of God’s promises. 

21, 22.] construction as in ch. v. 5, which 
in form is remarkably similar ; 21.] 6 
Se BeB. ... Hpas is the (prefixed) predicate, 
and @eds the subject. Be. eis xpiotdv = 
BcB. TH mloTeL eis Xpiordy, confirmeth us 
(in believing) on Christ.  yxpicas hpas, 
after jp. ovv tpiv and the kat, cannot 
refer (as Meyer, al.) to any anointing of 
the Apostles only, but must be taken, as 
Chrys., al., of a//, Apostles and Corinthians. 
—6uod mpophntas «. iepeis Kk. Bactdrets 
epyatsuevos’ Tatra yap Td madaby éxplero 
7a yevn. Chrys., p.448. See 1 John ii. 20. 
«Observe the connexion of xpiorés and 
xploas.” Stanley. 22.| odpay. again 
cannot refer to the Apostles alone, nor is 
ref. John any ground for such a refer- 
ence,—but as in the other N. T. reff., to 
all,—sealed by the Holy Spirit to the day 
of redemption. Kal Sots....]| ‘dnd 
assured us of the fact of that sealing: see 
Rom. viii. 16. 7. app. T. my. | the 
pledge or token of the Spirit: genitive of 
apposition: the Spirit is the token. 486., 
mpddoua, Hesych.:— éml tats avais mapa 
TeV avovmevav 5idomevn mpoxaTaBoAr b7éep 
aopadelas, Etymol. in Wetst., where see 
examples. “It is remarkable that the 
same word paw, is used in the same 
sense in Gen. xxxviii. 17, 18, from ny, 
to ‘mix’ or ‘exchange,’ and thence to 
‘pledge,’ as Jer. xxx. 21; Neh. v. 3. It 
was therefore probably derived by the 
Greeks from the language of Phoenician 
traders, as ‘tariff,’ ‘cargo,’ are derived, in 
English and other modern languages, from 
Spanish traders.” Stanley. 23, 24. | 


His reason for not coming to them. 
23. éml....wWvx.| against my soul,— 
‘cum maximo meo malo, si fallo.’ Grot. 
derddpevos tp.| sparing you,—out 
of a feeling of compassion for you. 
ovKéte, ‘no more, viz. after the first time: 
see Prolegg. to 1 Cor. § vy. 6. The follow- 
ing ovx Sti Kup. seems to be added to 
remove any false inference which might 
have been drawn from ge:dduevos as seem- 
ing to assert an unreasonable degree of 
power over them. But why buay ris 
miotews? He had power over them, but 
it was in matters of discipline, not of 
faith: over matters of faith not even an 
Apostle has power (‘fides enim prorsus ab 
hominum jugo soluta liberrimaque esse 
debet.’ Calv.), seeing it is in each man’s 
faith that he stands before God. And he 
puts this strongly, that in matters of faith 
he is only a fellow-helper of their joy (the 
xapa ev TG morevew, Rom. xy. 13), in 
order to shew them the real department 
of his apostolic power, and that, however 
exercised, it would not attempt to rule 
their faith, but only to secure to them, 
by purifying them, joy in believing. He 
proceeds to say, that it was the probable 
disturbance of this joy, which induced him 
to forego his visit. 77 wioren, dat. 
of the state or condition in which: cf. 
Rom. xi. 20. So Polyb. xxi. 9. 3, orn 
7H Savoia. 

Cnap. II. 1—4.] FURTHER EXPLANA- 
TION ON THE REASON OF THE POSTPONE- 
MENT OF HIS VISIT. 1.] 5é is merely 
transitional, and does not imply any con- 
trast with what has preceded. ELavTe, 


636 


m = 1 Cor. iv. 
21 reff. 

n Matt. xix. 
22\|. Rom, 
xiv. 15 al. 
act., ver. 5 
(bis). ch. vii. 
8 (bis). Eph. 
iv. 30 only. 
Job xxxi. 39. 

o interrog., 1 Cor. y. 2 reff. see Phil. i. 22. 

i. 11. iii. 5, 


27 onl t constr., Phil. iv. 11. 


IIPO> KOPINOIOTS B. 


/ 3 , Cal rf 
mTadw ™ év AUTH Tpos vuas €dOeiv. 
td an / 
buds, Kal Tis 6 Pedppaivwy pe ei pi) 0 ™ AvTrovpEVOS 4 EE 

an \ 4 r , 
€uod ; 2 Kal éypaa * Todt * avo, va py EN @v * AUTHY 
sS Alsat 22 ’ @ u EO / Vv \ pe / 
oxo taf av “eet pe yalpew, ‘ weToWas émt TavTas 
p Acts vii. 41 reff. act., here only. Prov. xv. 20. 
r see Acts xxiv. 15, 20. xxv. 25. ch. vii. 11 al. 


r, 1 Pet. ii. 12. iii, 16. 
vy constr., Matt. xxvii. 43. 2 Thess. iii. 4. w. dat., ch. i. 9 reff. 


i, 


9 > ‘ Pee Se | a 
7 el yap eyo "AUTO 


= cus 
s John xvi. 2T, 22. hil. ii. 


Ezek. xiy. 4. u Acts xxvii. 21. 


rec eAGew bef ev Avy, with copt eth: eAdew bef mpos vuas DF latt Syr (goth) arm 

Chr Thl: txt ABCKLPR rel syr Thdrt Damase (ec. 
2. [e in « is written over the line, and o inserted before Avrw but erased, by R!.] 
rec aft kat Tis ins ect, with DFKLPR? rel latt Orig,(and int,) Chr Thdrt : 


om ABCN! copt Cyr Damasce. 


om pe P. . 


3. rec aft eypava ins vay, with C3 DFKLN? rel latt syrr goth eth Chr Thdrt Pel : 


om ABC!PR?! 17 am copt Damase Ambrst. 


A copt arm Damase: txt BDFKLX rel. 
Pel Bede. 


avto bef tovro C Chr Thl: om avro 
tovto auto bef eypava DF latt goth xth 


aft Avmny ins em Auvmny (see Phil ii. 27) DF a latt syr-w-ast Pel Bede. 


rec exw, with CDFKLN? rel Thdrt Damase: txt ABPN!'ad 17 Chr Thi Gc- 


comm. (See var read, ch i. 15, Phil ii. 27.) 


not = rap éuavTe@ (as most Commentators 
and E. V.), but ‘dat. commodi,’ for my 
own sake, as is evident by the considera- 
tion in the next verse. Tovto refers 
to what follows: see reff. To py 
madw év Avary mpds tpas eAOetv] not 
again to come to you in grief. ‘This is 
the only fair rendering of the words; im- 
plying, that some former visit had been 
in grief. Clearly the first visit Acts xviii. 
1 ff., could not be thus described: we 
must therefore infer, that an intermediate 
unrecorded visit had been paid by him. 
On this subject, compare ch. xii. 14; 
xiii. 1 and notes: and see Prolegg. to 
1 Cor. § v. év Avay] is explained 
in vv. 2, 3 to mean (so Estius, Bengel, 
Riickert, Olsh., De Wette, al.) in mutual 
grief: ‘I grieving you (ver. 2), and you 
grieving me’ (ver. 3): not, as Chrys., al., 
Paul’s grief alone, nor, as Meyer, al., grief 
inflicted on them by Paul. 2.| yap, 
reason why I would not come to you in 
grief: because I should have to grieve those 
who formed my proper material for thank- 
fulness and joy. éy® has a peculiar 
emphasis : ‘If Z cause you grief’... . im- 
plying, ‘there are who cause you sufficient.’ 

kat prefixed to a question denotes 
inconsequence on, or inconsistency with, 
the foregoing supposition or affirmation : 
so Eur. Med. 1388, & rékva idrara! 
“untpl ye, col & ov.” Kismet’ Extras ; 
see other examples in Hartung, Partikel- 
lehre, i. p. 147. It is best expressed in 
English by ‘then:’ who is he then, &c. 
asin E. V. The explanation of Chrys., 
who has been followed by Erasm., Bengel, 
Olsh., al., is curious, and certainly incon- 
sistent with the context: ei kal AuT@ byas, 
xdpw por mapéxere Kav TovTH weyloTHy, 


for ag’, ep de F. 


bri Sdxvecbe b1d Ta Tap e“od Aeyoue- 
vey. Hom. iv. p. 456. Some of these 
Commentators refer the singular to the 
offender, vv. 5—8. But however the 
words may bear the meaning, and how- 
ever true the saying might be, it is 
pretty clear that it would be beside the 
subject: nay, would give a reason the other 
way,—why he should come to them. 
3.| €ypaiya Tovro avté, I put in writing 
this same thing, viz. the tovro which I 
éxpwva, ver. 1: the announcement of my 
change of purpose in 1 Cor. xvi. 7, which 
had occasioned the charge of fickleness 
against him. The theories of Commenta- 
tors have given rise to various interpreta- 
tions of todto. airé: Chrys. understands, 
ch. xii. 21 of this same Epistle :—Beza, 
Meyer, al., my blame of you in the first 
Epistle :—so Estius, especially 1 Cor. iv. 
19, 21:—Bleek supposes a lost Epistle to 
be referred to: De Wette wavers, but is 
disposed with Erasm., Riickert, al., to ren- 
der aitd TovTo ‘on this account,’ as Plato, 
Protag. p. 310, aA’ aitd tadra Kal viv 
fjxw: but Meyer rejoins, that this idiom is 
foreign to the style of Paul. I imagine 
that ¢wo meanings are open to us: (1) as 
above, the announcement which caused the 
charge of fickleness: (2) the reproaches in 
the 1st Epistle which grieved them. Of 
these, specious as is the latter on account 
of the following context, I prefer the former 
because of the todro in ver. 1. ap? 
dy, ellipt. for amd robTav, ad ay, see reff. 
metrovbas ....| having trust in (re- 
posing trust on) you all, that my joy is (the 
pres. expressing the purport of the trust 
when felt) that of all of you: i.e. trust- 
ing that you too would feel that there was 
sufficient reason for the postponement if it 


ABCD! 
KLPR 
bede 
ghkli 
nol7.4 


2—7. 


buds ote e€un yapa Tavtwv vuav oti. 
Tors OrHrews Kal * cvvoyhs Kapdilas éyparpa vuiv ¥ dua 


IIPOS KOPINOIOTS B. 


637 


4we Nn w=1Cor. vii. 
eK yap 5 reff. 

\ x Luke xxi. 25 

only. Job 

Xxx. 3, 


fal fol \ > / wa 
TONY SaKpvov, ovy iva * AUTNOATE, AAAA *® THY ayaT ND ¥ = Rom. ii- 


vA lal aA / > c r 

iva yvOTe iv exw ” TEepiscoTépws “Eis Umas. 
/ 7 > \ > X / vA 

“NedUTrNKEV, OVK Eue *NEAVTINKEV, AAAG “aro 4 wépous, iva 


Ny es 3 an ‘ e aA 
yn © é7iBap®, TavTas vas. 


j fal la of 
hémitysia avtn 1) ivard ¥ tdv * rrevovwr, 7 @ste 'Tovvay- 


b ch. i. 12 reff. 

el Thess. ii. 9. 2 Thess. iii. 8 only t. 
reff. hhere only+. Wisd. iii. 10 only. 
ii. 22. k 1 Cor, ix. 19 reff. 


4. wa yvwre bef thy ayarny F 1. 
5. [aAAa, so ABCLPR rel. | 


ce Acts xx, 2]. xxiv. 24. ch. i. 11 al. 
f Luke xxii. 38. 


1 Gal, ii. 7. 


27 reff. 
> s 2 Tim. ii. 2. 
5 Ec O€ TUS x ver. 2 reff. 
a arrangt. of 
words, John 


‘ ‘ . : ~ iii.29. Acts 

6 f (kavov- & TH & TOLOVT@ 1 Row si.3i. 
1 Cor. ix. 15. 
xiv. 9. Gal. 
ii. 10, 


d Rom. xi. 25 reff 

g Acts xxii. 22 
i ellips., see 2 Pet. 
1 Pet. ili. 9 only +. 3 Mace, iii. 22 


Gen, xxx, 15. 
(-cov, 2 Mace. vi. 13.) 


for evs, mpos F. 
emiBapov F. 


6. om 7 uT0 Twy mAcovev (not F-lat) eth-rom. 


interfered with our mutual joy. Meyer 
well observes, that mdvtas duas, in spite of 
the existence of an anti-pauline faction in 
the Corinthian church, is a true example of 
the love which amdyta motever, mavTa 
éAmtet, 1 Cor. xiii. 7. 4.| Explana- 
tion (yap) that he did not write in levity of 
purpose, but under great trouble of mind, 
—not to grieve them, but to testify his love. 
ék, of the znducement—8.a, of the condi- 
tion: he wrote, out of much tribulation 
(inward, of spirit, not outward) and an- 
guish (cuvoxh, ‘angustie’) of heart, with 
(q. ‘through,’—the state being the vehicle 
of the action, see reff.) many tears. 

T. &yamny, before the conjunction tva, for 
special emphasis: see reff. TEplooo- 
répws—‘ than to other churches (?)’—so 
Chrys. (referring to 1 Cor. iv. 15; ix. 2), 
Theophyl.: Estius thinks, ghe comparative 
is not to be pressed, but understood as in 
ver. 7,—‘ exceedingly.’ 

5—11.] DiGRESSIVE REFERENCE TO 
THE CASE OF THE INCESTUOUS PERSON, 
WHOM THE APOSTLE ORDERS NOW TO BE 
FORGIVEN, AND REINSTATED. From the 
Ad’rn of the former verses, to him who was 
one of the principal occasions of that grief, 
the transition is easy. 5.] 8é, transi- 
tional. Now if any one hath occasioned 
sorrow (a delicate way of pointing out the 
one who had occasioned it), he hath 
grieved, not me (not,—‘not only me,’ 
which destroys the meaning,—‘ Z am not 
the aggrieved person, but you’), but, more 
or less (‘partially :’ ref.), that I be not 
too heavy on him (refers to ard pépous, 
which qualifies the blame cast on the 
offender), all of you. The above punctua- 
tion and rendering is adopted by Chrys. 
(a ph Baphow exeivoy toy mopveioarta, 
p- 459), Beza, Calvin (but not in his ¢ewt), 
al., with Meyer, De Wette. But Theodo- 
ret, Vulg., Luther, Bengel, Wetst, al., join 
emiBap® mavras vu., thus: ‘he hath not 


grieved me (alone and principally) but only 
in part (having grieved you also), that 
I may not lay the fault on all of you,’ 
which I should in this case do, by making 
myself the only person aggrieved, and 
classing you with the offender. But this 
can hardly be; aAAd must be ei ph. 
Another way is adopted by Mosheim, Bill- 
roth, and Olsh.,—to join rayras with ta 
wh emiB.,—‘ but in part,—that I burden 
not all,—you :—eémiBap& being variously 
understood, either (1) of including you in 
the blame of the offender, or (2) as Olsh., 
of extending to them all the burden of this 
sorrow ;—he supposes it to be ironically 
spoken ; their highest praise would have 
been that ald had been troubled. But 
as Meyer remarks, irony is entirely out of 
place in this part of the Epistle. The mean- 
ings are well discussed in Stanley. 6. | 
ixavov, sc. either éori or oT. ™] 
torovTw | Meyer remarks on the expression 
as being used in mildness, not to designate 
any particular person: but the same desig- 
nation is employed in 1 Cor. v. 5, mapa- 
dotvat Toy To.odTOY TE catava. 

q émit. att] This punishment (= ém- 
tiutoy, see rett.): what it was, we are un- 
able with certainty to say; but 1 Cor. v. 
seems to point to excommunicationas form- 
ing at least a part of it. But it was nota 
formal and public, only a voluntary indivi- 
dual abstinence from communion with him, 
as is shewn by imd tév wdeiovev: the 
anti-pauline party probably refusing com- 
pliance with the Apostle’s command. 
ixavov] enough, not in duration, though 
that would be the case, but in magnitude: 
sufficient, as having produced its desired 
effect, penitence. 7.] so that (con- 
seq. on ixaydvy) on the contrary you 
(should) [rather (than continue the pun- 
ishment) | forgive and comfort him, &e. 
Meyer denies that S<zv should be supplied, 
and makes éste depend immediately on 


638 IIPOS KOPIN@IOTS B. TF, 
= Luke vii. —/ 7 cmae m f en f 
2 ge il [warXov| vas xapicactas KaL be sa 
Le ke sol. la a , a 
iii i ° un °Tws TH? TEepiscotépa AUTH 4 KaTaTIOOH £ o & ToLOUTOS. 
(bis). L.P. a a ~ \ 9 
(sir. xii 3a) 8 846 TarapaKxan® vuas * Kup@aat els avTov wyamrny. * * eis 
n=ch.1. cc. 
: a \ \ Y . \ \ 03. > 
oleorix.21 TOUTO yap Kal éypava, iva yro tHyv “SoKimipy vpayY, ét 
reff. e > / w .f / es) 10) & 5é m / 4) > 7a 
p= Mark xii. VY 0g TaVTA “ UTTNKOOL EOTE. @ 0€ Th™ yapifeaOe, Kayo 
|| i. or. 
“At Ol \ s / , Si te 
Bett, Kal yap éyw 6 *Keydpiopas, el Te *Keyapiopat, Ov Updas, 
36) Theod. an \ A c \ 
41 Cor. xv.5t Yéy Yarpos@mra ypiotod, |! va py * weovertnOGpev v0 
Mee i lal a Lal ah / = lal 
rex ins rod caTava’ ov yap avToU Ta * vonuata ” ayvoodpev. 
. ah ame s Gal. iii. 15 only. Gen. xxiii. 20. Levit. xxv. 30 only. t Rom. xiv. 9 reff. 
u Rom. vy. 4 reff. v = ch. viii. 23. ix. 8. Gal. v. 10 al. Ww Acts vii. 39 reff. x act. 
signif., Acts xxvii. 24. Gal. iii. 18. 2 Mace. iii. 33. y ch. iy. 6. Prov. viii, 30. see note. z ch. 


vil. 2. xii. 17,18. 17 
only. P.+ Baruch ii. 8 only. 


1 Thess. iv.6 only. P. Ezek. xxii. 27. 
b Acts xiii. 27, 


a ch. iii. 14. iv. 4. x. 5. xi. 3. Phil. iv. 7 


7. om paddoy AB Syr Aug: ins CKLPR rel syr copt arm Chr Thdrt;,;, Damase Thl 
(c Ambrst, and aft vwas DF goth Thdrt Tert. 
9. aft eypava ins yaw F(vpwv[ sic] vobis F and G) 31 copt 2th Chr Thdrt Pel Bede. 


ins tayvtwv bef vuwy F(not F-lat). 


for et, n (7 ?) AB 17. 


10. rec at ey, with C!1FKLN* rel Thdrt: txt ABC?DPX! a m 17. 47 Epiph Chr 


Damase. om eyw A. 


rec et Tt Kexap. @ kexap., with D?KL rel syr Thdrt 


Th 1@e: txt ABC(D!)F(P)X latt Damase Jer; Ambrst Pel Pac,—om 6 D! eth-pl: » 


D3P m g?(perhaps). 


ixavév,—‘ enough, for you to forgive and 
console him T] Tepicootépa AvTy | 
not, as E. V., ‘by overmuch sorrow 2? but 
(as Meyer), by the increase of sorrow 
which will come on the continuance of his 
punishment. Kkatatro6y does not set 
any definite result of the excessive sorrow 
before them, such as apostasy or suicide, 
but leaves them to imagine such possible. 

8.] kupdoat, hardly (as usually un- 
derstood) to ratify by a publie decree of 
the church: if (see above) his exclusion 
was not by such a decree, but only by the 
abstinence of individuals from his society, 
the ratifying their love to him would con- 
sist in the majority making it evident to 
him that he was again recognized as a bro- 
ther. 9.] Reason why they should now 
be ready to shew love to him again,— 
the end of Paul’s writing to them having 
been accomplished by their obeying his 
order. For to this end I also wrote: 
the xal signifying that my former epistle, 
as well as my present exhortation, tended 
to this, viz. the testing your obedience. 
Meyer (ed. 2) explains the kai as imply- 
ing that other orders to the same effect 
were sent by word of mouth. He alludes 
beyond doubt to the former Epistle, ch. 
vy. Yet the ancient Commentators, Chrys., 
&e., and Erasm., Wolf, Bengel, al. (not 
Olsh., as De Wette says), interpret it 
of this Epistle: which certainly is gram- 
matically allowable (see 1 Cor. v. 9, note), 
but opposed to the context (see vv. 3, 
4, besides the manifest sense here, that 
the object of his writing had been accom- 
plished). That I might know the proof 


of you, whether in all things (emphatic) 
ye are obedient. This was that one among 
the various objects of his first Epistle, 
which belonged to the matter at present in 
hand, and which he therefore puts forward : 
not by any means implying that he had no 
other view in writing it. 10.] Another 
assurance to encourage them in forgiving 
and reinstating the penitent ;—that they 
need not be afraid of lack of apostolic autho- 
rity or confirmation of their act from above 
—he would ratify their forgiveness by his 
sanction. @de...] ‘ Your forgiveness 
is mine :’ not said generally (as Meyer), but 
definitely, pointing at the one person here 
spoken of and no other. Kayo, scil. 
xaplCouat. Then he substantiates this as- 
surance, by further assuring them, that his 
forgiveness of any fault in this case, if it 
takes place, takes place on their account. 
Meyer’s (former: now [4th edn.] aban- 
doned) and Riickert’s rendering of ke- 
Xaptopat as passive, disturbs the whole 
sense of the passage, besides being incon- 
sistent with the N.T. usage of the word, 
see reff. év TposeT@ xptoTov] either 
‘in the presence of Christ,’ as in ref. Prov. 
(compare Matt. xxi. 42),—so Theodoret, 
Erasm., Beza, Calv., Olsh., De W.,—or, 
and far better, in the person of Christ, 
acting as Christ, in the same way as he 
had commanded the punishment, év r@ 
dvéuatt Tov Kuplov quay “Incov, 1 Cor. 
v. 4: so Vulg., Estius (who argues the 
matter at some length), Wetst., al. 

11. fa ph . . .| follows out the 5? bpuas 
—to prevent Satan getting any advan- 
tage over us (the Church generally: or 


ARCDE 
KLPR ¢ 
bede 
ghkln 
no 17.4) 


8—14. 


128? 


décynka °aveorw * 


/ “ \ . a 
Titov tov adeddov pov' adda ' atrotaEapevos i avtois, 


Kk é&AXOov * eis Maxedoviav. 


IIPOS KOPINOIOTS B. 


639 


EA@ov 6c els TI Tpwdada v eis TO evayyédwov ToD © Acts xiv. 27. 
lal \ c / c > , > , 13 5 
xXpliaTov, Kat °Ovpas pot Cavewypévns ev xupio, 13 odk« 


1 Cor. xvi. 9. 
Col. iy. 3. 
Rey, iii. 8. 
Isa. xlv. 1. 


TO Tvevwati mov, TO mr) Eevpely pre Voi-% vit 
t i ie ? t all | P be 5. 


e Acts xxiv. 23 
reff. 
f Acts xvii. 16 


Teo d€ Ged !ydpis TO, 


g causal dat., 


/ U4 ¢ a ? fal \ \ h ly. 
mavrote ™ OptauBevovtr ads €v TO -ypioT@ Kal THY Xen.cyeiv. 
5.95 Wo 5 
edn, 6, $ 44. 5, h Acts xviii. 18 reff. i Acts viii. 5 reff. — Be 
xi. 25 reff. 1 Rom, vi. 17 reff. m Col, ii. 15 only t. 


12. 81a ro evayyedtov F Damasc: dia Tov evayyeAtov D: propter evangelium latt. 
kat Ouvpa wor nv ewyuevn KF: qvewy. DP. 


18. for 2nd tw, Tov C2N!: ro LP fli mn: ev tw D 17. 


avtovus K, 


better, ws Apostles), in robbing us of some 
of our people,—viz. in causing the peni- 
tent offender to despair and fall away 
from the faith. Chrys. remarks: mAcop- 
etlay cixkdTws éxddAcoev, Stay Kal dia Tay 
meTepwy Kpath. Td yap 80 auaprias 
AauBavew, (O.ov avtT@ eote: TH wevTa Sid 
peravolas, ovKeTe Huetepov yap, ovK exelvov, 
7d dmAov. p. 462. Theword has yet another 
propriety: the offender was to be delivered 
Over T@ catavG cis bAcOpoy THS TapKds— 
care must be taken lest we mAcoverTnOGmev 
tmd rod o., and his soul perish likewise. 
ov yap ...] avtod before Ta von. 
for emphasis:—such devices, as coming 
Jrom him, are special matters of observa- 
tion and caution to every Christian minis- 
ter ; much more to him who had the care 
of all the churches. See 1 Pet. v. 8. 
The personality and agency of the Adver- 
sary can hardly be recognized in plainer 
terms than in both these passages. 
12—17.] He PROCEEDS (after the di- 
gression) TO SHEW THEM WITH WHAT 
ANXIETY HE AWAITED THE INTELLIGENCE 
FROM CORINTH, AND HOW THANKFUL HE 
WAS FOR THE SEAL OF HIS APOSTOLIC 
MINISTRY FURNISHED BY IT. The only 
legitimate connexion is that with vv. 1—4. 
Sé serves to resume the main sub- 
ject after parenthetical matter: so Herod. 
vili. 67,—é7el @v amikato és tas “AOhvas 
mayTes ovToL Ary Tlapiwy* Taptor de 
brodepbevtes ey KiOvw exapaddkceoy toy 
méAcuov KH amoBhoeTat" ot dé Aourot cs 
. amikovto és To PaAnpov, k.T.A. See Har- 
tung, Partikellehre, i. 174. 12.] To 
Troas, viz. on his journey from Ephesus, 
Acts xx. 1, 2; 1 Cor. xvi. 5—9. ‘* The art. 
perhaps indicates the region of ‘ the Troad,’ 
rather than the city.” Stanley. eis TO 
evayy. T. xp-| for (the purpose of preach- 
ing) the Gospel of Christ. He had been 
before at Troas, but the vision of a Mace- 
donian asking for help prevented his re- 
maining there. He now revisited it, pur- 
posely to stay and preach. On his return 
to Asia he remained there seven days, Acts 


evpiokey D!, 


xx. 6—12. Kal @Jpas...] and an 
opportunity of apostolic action being 
afforded me: év kupiw defines the sort of 
action implied, and to which the door was 
opened. It is remarkable that in speaking 
of this journey, though not of the same 
place, Paul uses this expression, 1 Cor. xvi. 
9. Compare the interesting passage at 
Troas on his return from Europe the next 
spring, Acts xx. 6—13. 13. éoxyKe 
avecty | perf. in the sense of aorist, as ch. 
i. 9. I had not rest for my spirit (not, 
“in my spirit: compare ovx cipotoa 7 
TeploTepa Gvamavow Tois mocly avTis, 
Gen. viii. 9). He could not with any 
tranquillity prosecute the spiritual duties 
opened to him at Troas. T@ 7 €vp. | 
by (reason of) my not finding: see reff. 
Paul had sent Titus to Corinth, ch. xii. 
18, partiy to finish the collection for the 
saints, but principally to bring intelligence 
respecting the effect of the first Epistle. 
Probably it had been fixed that they should 
meet at Troas. 7. adeX. pov implies 
a relation closer than merely that of Chris- 
tian brotherhood—my colleague in the 
Apostleship. avtois|] the disciples 
there: understood from the context. 
14—17.] Omitting, as presupposed, the 
fact of his having met with Titus in Mace- 
donia, and the nature of the intelligence 
which he brought,—he grounds on these a 
thanksgiving for that intelligence, and a 
magnification of his apostolic office. It is 
evidently beside the purpose to refer this 
thanksgiving to the diffusion of the gospel 
in Macedonia (as Flatt), or in Troas (as 
Emmerling), or to general considerations 
(as Bengel):—both the context, and the 
language itself (see below), shew that its 
reference is to the effects of the apostolic 
reproof on the Corinthians. 14, Optap- 
Bevovt.] leading us in triumph, see ref. 
Two kinds of persons were led in triumph : 
the participators of the victory, and the 
victims of the defeat. In Col. the latter 
are plainly meant; here, according to many 
Commentators (Caly., Elsner, Bengel, De 


640 IIPO> KOPIN@OIOTS B. IT. 15—17. 
> \ ie] UA io lal nr 
nheresce. A Gquny THS Yvorews CavTov » havepovvTe bu Hudv ev ABCD 
Eph. v. 2. \ Ud en r fal rn 
Phi, is TavTl TOT. 13 Gre yxptatod I etwdia eopev TO Oe@ "Ev de de 
only. Exod. ghkl: 


v. 21. 


© gen. object., 


cal J \ rn 
Tois * cwlouévols Kat * év tots * amroAdupévols, 16 “ obs noi7.: 


ch. x. 5. \ n2 bee , ae 4 ne \ 5) oe 
pRom its HEY "OoHM EK Pavatov ‘cis Oavatov, “ois 5é "Gopn éx 
rem. 
q Eph. y. 2. Phil. iv. 18 only. Ezra vi. 10. r = 1 Cor. ii. 6. s 1 Cor. xv. 2 reff. t Rom. 
li. 12 reff. ul Cor. xi. 21 reff. v = Acts xi. 18. Rom. v. 16 reff. 


14. [s of rns is written over the line by &? or -corr?.] 


16. oopnv (twice) D. 


rec om ex (twice), with DFKL rel latt arm Iren Thdrt, 


Cyr, Thl Gc lat-ff: ins ABC m 17. 47(2nd) copt 2th Clem Orig,(and int,) Dial Nys 


Wette, al.), the former : which however is 
never elsewhere the reference of the word, 
but it always implies triumphare de aliquo. 
Wetst. quotes this sense, BaotAets eOpidp- 
Bevoe, Plut. Rom. p. 38 D, and in four other 
places :—and the Scholiast to Hor. Od. i. 
37.31, who relates of Cleopatra, “‘invidens 
Privata deduci superbo Non humilis mulier 
triumpho,” that she refused the terms of- 
fered her by Augustus, saying, od Opiay- 
BevOjcoua. Meyer in consequence under- 
stands it in this sense here: who ever 
triumphs over us, i. e. ‘ who ceases not to 
exhibit us, His former foes, as overcome by 
Him :’—and adds in a note, “‘ Remark the, 
emphatic mdvrore, prefixed, to which the 
similarly emphatic évy mavt) tém@, at the 
end, corresponds. God began His triumph 
over the juets at their conversion ;—over 
Paul, at Damascus, where he made him a 
servant, from being an enemy. This tri- 
umph he ever continues, not ceasing to 
exhibit before the world these His former 
foes, by the results of their present service, 
as overcome by Him. This, in the case 
before us, was effected by Paul, in that (as 
Titus brought him word to Macedonia) his 
Epistle had produced such good results in 
Corinth’. And I own that this, notwith- 
standing that De W. objects to it as a 
strange way of expressing thankfulness for 
deliverance from our anxiety (but és it so 
to those who look beneath the surface? In 
our spiritual course, owr only true triumphs 
are, God’s triumphs over us. His defeats 
of us, are our only real victories), yet ap- 
pears to me to be the only admissible ren- 
dering. We must not violate the known 
usage of a word, and invent another for 
which there is no precedent, merely for the 
sake of imagined perspicuity. Such is that 
of ‘to make to triumph’ (Beza, Estius, 
Grot., al.) :—pa@ntevew, Matt. xxviii. 19, 
and BaciAevery, 1 Kings viii. 22, are not 
cases in point, their sense being, to ‘make 
a disciple,’ ‘to make a king,’—whereas that 
required for @p:auBevew, would be, ‘ tri- 
umphatorem facere. xopevery, for ‘to 
make to dance,’ is more to the point: o#mw 
Katamavcouey povoas, al pm exdpevoar, 
Eur. Herc. Fur. 688,—tTaxa 0 yw wadrdAov 


xopevow, ib. 873 :—but the Apostle’s own 
usage in ref. Col., in my mind, decides the 
question. See also the following context. 
év TO xp., as usually, in our con- 
nexion with, ‘as members of, Christ: 
not, ‘by Christ.’ Thy dopyv| The 
similitude is not that of a sacrifice, but 
still the same as before: during a triumph, 
sweet spices were thrown about or burnt 
in the streets, which were @uuiayarwy 
mAnpes, Plut. Amil. p. 272 (cited by 
Dr. Burton). As the fact of the triumph, 
or approach of the triumphal procession, 
was made known by these odours far and 
wide, so God diffuses by our means, who 
are the materials of His triumph, the sweet 
odour of the knowledge of Christ (who is 
the Triumpher, Col. ii. 15). 77S 
yveo.| genit. of apposition: the odour, 
which, in the interpretation of the figure, 
is the knowledge. avToU,—xpioTov, 
cf. next verse. 15.| Here the pro- 
priety of the figure is lost, and the source 
of the odour identified with the Apostles 
themselves. For we are to God a sweet 
savour of Christ (gen. object., of that which 
was diffused by the odour, viz. the know- 
ledge of Christ. ‘ Instar fragrantis cujus- 
dam unguenti, seu florum aut herbarum, 
famam nominis ejus, velut bonum et sua- 
vem odorem,... . spargimus apud omnes.’ 
Estius) among those who are being saved, 
and among those who are perishing (cw(. 
and a7oAA., see note, 1 Cor. i. 18). Kay 
cé(wyral tives, Kay GmoAAvwyTal, Td 
evayyéAtov méever Exov Thy oikelay apeThy, 
K. Huets wévomev ToUTO bytes bmEp EopEr, 
Theophyl., mainly from Chrys., who pro- 
ceeds kal KaOdmep Td pas, Kav oKoTl(y 
Tovs dabevets, das att, Kaito. cKoTiCor" 
Kk. TO méAt, Kav miKpoy 7 Tots vooovnt, 
yAukd Thy piow éotly oftw Kat Td ebay- 
yéAwov eva@dés ort, Kay GmroAAdwyral 
tives amiotouvtes. Hom. v. p. 467. 
16 a.] to the one (the latter) an odour 
arising from death and tending to death: 
to the others (the former) an odour 
arising from life and tending to life. 
The odour was, Crurist,—who to the 
unbelieving is Death, a mere announce- 
ment of a man crucified,—and working 


Wi. 1. 


Sas Yels Saonv. 


IIPO> KOPIN@OIOTS B. 


641 


\ Ww \ rn / Ww e / alr; ’ 
kal “apos tadta tis “ ixavos ; 17 ov where only. 
, ec a Af 
yap éopev ws * ot X TONAL Y KaTTNAEVOVTES TOV *OYOV ToD i}. 


sd. xviii. 
Xen. 

Mem. i. 2. 15. 

see Col. i. 12. 


nr > na 
*@cov, adr’ *as €&  ciduxpweias, GAN *as &x Oeod, x Hom. v.15 
ren, 


© xarévayte [Tov] eod *év ypicT@ NaNodpev. 


y here only +. 
see note. 
z Acts xi. 1 reff. 


III. 1 ’Apyowe@a maduv ° éavtovs * cunotavew ; i) a= Mati. vi 


i14. b ch. i. 12 reff, 


e Ist pers., Rom. viii. 23. xv. 1. 1 Cor. xi. 31. ch. i. 9. iy. 2,5. x. 12,14. 1 Thess. ii. 8. 


ch, y, 12. x. 12, 18 only. see Rom. iii. 5 reff. 


Has (PR?) (wnv (1st; but corrd) &!. 


29. John 
= 1 Thess. iv. 1. 
f (-avevv) 


c Roni. iv. 17 reff. 


17. for woAAo, Aoiwor DF Ld ef ghInsyrr arm Chr Thdrt: plurimi vulg(and F-lat) ; 


ceteri aut plurimi G-lat. adda (1st) B. 


om 2nd add’ F fuld(and demid) syr Iren-int, 


om Ist ws F latt copt goth Iren-int lat-ff. 


rec (for katevayt1) kaTevwmioy, 


with DFKL rel Bas Chr, Thdrt Damase: evwmov X32: txt ABCPR! m 17 Did Chr-ms. 
om Tov bef dcov (to corresp with ex Beov before: but the art here is significant 
as giving solemnity) ABCD!X! m 17 Bas: ins DSF K LPN rel Chr Thdrt Damasce. 


Cuap. III. 1. for cunoravew, cvrctay BD! 17: cumotavac F Thdrt: txt ACD2:3 


KLPNX rel. 


death by unbelief: but to the believing, 
Iife, an announcement of His Resurrec- 
tion and Life,—and working in them life 
eternal, by faith in Him. The double 
working of the Gospel is set forth in 
Matt. xxi. 44; Luke ii. 34; John ix. 39. 
16 b.]| In order to understand the 
connexion, we must remember that the 
purpose of vindicating his apostolic com- 
mission is in the mind of Paul, and 
about to be introduced by a description 
of the office, its requirements, and its 
holders. This purpose already begins to 
press into its service the introductory and 
apologetic matter, and to take every op- 
portunity of manifesting itself. In order 
then to exalt the dignity and shew the 
divine authorization of his office, he asks 
this question: And (see remarks at ver. 
2) for (to accomplish) these things (this 
so manifold working in the believers and 
unbelievers,—this emission of the evw- 
dla xpiorod every where), who is suffi- 
cient? He does not express the answer, 
but it is too evident to escape any reader,— 
indeed it is supplied in terms by ch. iii. 5, 
ovx bri fkavol éomev AoyloacOal Ti ad’ 
é€auT@v as e& éauT@y, GAA’ 7% tkavdTns 
NeM@Y ex TOD Geod. Meyer remarks that 
mpos Tavra is put first, in the place of 
emphasis, to detain the attention on its 
weighty import, and then t/s purposely 
put off till the end of the question, to 
introduce the interrogation unexpectedly ; 
as in Herod. v. 33,—o0) d€ kK. TodTo.wt 
Tolot mphywaot th €o71;—Plato, Symp. 
p- 204, 6 ép@v tev Kadr@v Tl épG; 
17.] ot wodAot here points definitely at 
those false teachers, of whom he by and 
by, ch. x.—xil., speaks more plainly. 
éopev ... KatrnAevovtes| are not in the 
habit of adulterating (the word xa- 
Wor cE: 


rec (for Ist #) «, with AKLP rel arm Chr Damase: txt BCDFN a fm 


mnaos (Sir. xxvi. 29] originally signifies 
any kind of huckster or vender, but espe- 
cially of wine,—and thence, from the fre- 
quency of adulteration of wine, camnAcbw 
implied to adulterate: in Isa, i. 22, we 
have of kdmndAol cov ployouot Tov olvoy 
vdaTi: in the Etymol. (Wetst.) «dmndos, 
6 oivoTéAns...6 5€ AicxtdAos Ta SdAta 
mdvrTa KaAel KdmnAa ‘Kdarnda mpopé- 
pwv texvhiuata:” in Lucian, Hermotim. 
59 (ib.), ore Kal piAdcopor amodidovrat 
Ta wabnuata, &sTep of KamnAol, Kepa- 
oduevol ye of moAAoi, kal SoAdcayTes, 
kal Kkakowetpovvtes. See many more 
examples in Wetst. The same is ex- 
pressed ch. iv. 2, by SoAotvtes 7. Adyor 
7. Oeov) the word of God, but as (‘ut qui’) 
from sincerity (the subjective regard of 
the speakers), but as from God (the objec- 
tive regard—a dependence on the divine 
suggestion) we speak before God (with a 
consciousness of His presence) in Christ 
(not ‘in the name of Christ,’ Grot., al., 
nor ‘concerning Christ,’—Beza, al.: nor 
‘according to Christ,’ Calv.: but as usual, 
in Christ; as united to Him, and mem- 
bers of His Body, and employed in His 
work). 

Cu. III. 1—VI. 10.] Beainnine with 
A DISOWNING OF SELF-RECOMMENDATION, 
THE APOSTLE PROCEEDS TO SPEAK CON- 
CERNING HIS APOSTOLIC OFFICE AND HIM- 
SELF AS THE HOLDER OF IT, HIS FEEL- 
INGS, SUFFERINGS, AND HOPES, PARTLY 
WITH REGARD TO HIS CONNEXION WITH 
THE CORINTHIANS, BUT FOR THE MOST 
PART IN GENERAL TERMS. 1—3. | 
He disclaims a spirit of self-recommenda- 
tion. 1.] apx., are we beginning ? 
aaAwy, alluding to a charge probably made 
against him of having done this in his 
former epistle: perhaps in mat opening sec- 

ie 


642 
vi. 2 ‘ Ul Lf h 
cRom.svi2 uty & xpytomev ws ™ Teves 
h = 1 Cor. iv. CR DY b) Clan : 
1B reff upas,  €& vpov; 
i here only t+. 
Arrian, 


Epictet. ii. 3. 
k here bis. Luke ] 2 


IIPOS KOPIN@IOTS B. 


III. 


, e, ‘\ , ’ 6 , 3 mn 4 
Sault | AVAYW@TKOMLEVN UTO TAVTMOV avUpwTrer, havepovupevot 


1 Mace. xiii. 
40 only. 

1 Acts viii. 28, 
30 (reff,). 

m Rom. 1.19 
reff. 

n John iii. 21. 
1 John ii. 19. 

0 pass., ch. vill. 19, 20. 

a Acts xiy. 15 note. 

only. Exod. 1. c. al. 


17 vss Thdrt lat-ff. 


act., 2 Tim. i. 18. 


t Rom. vii. 14 reff. 


wstep AD! m. 


” 6Tt €oTé ETMLATOAN YpLaTOU ° SiaKkovnbetca UP par, 
/ , p / > \ f q 6 lal q Lal 

yeypaumevn ov PwéXavt, adda Trvevmate 4 Oeod 4 CowTos, 

ove ev ' Trak SrLOivats, AXN ev * TAaEW Kapdiats ' cap- 


1 Pet. i. 12. iv. 10. 
r here bis. Heb. ix. 4 only. 


k ey- 


p =2John 12. 3 John 13 only$. 


Exop. xxxi. 18. s John ii. 6. Rev. ix. 20 


rec at end adds ovoratixwy, with DELP 


rel syrr goth Thdrt-ms Damasc; cvotatixwy emotoAwy F, the words commendaticiis 
epistolis are written over the greek in F(as also in G, the latin being there always so 
written) : om ABC 17 vulg(and F-lat) copt th arm Chr Thdrt(exe ms,) Ambrst. (ovv- 


DF: -cratiucas D!.) 
2. for 2nd nuwy, vuuwy Xb ko 17. 


for maytwv, rwv F. (omnibus vulg with F-lat.) 
3. ins kat bef eyyeypauuevn B a® 677.74 vulg arm Jer Pel Bede. 


rec Kapdias 


(see note), with FK rel latt Syr copt (goth) sth arm Orig,(and int;) Dial Eus Chr Cyr, 
fhdrt Damase Iren-int Hil: txt ABCDLX rel syr Eus-mss ec. 


tion, and in some passages of 1 Cor. v., ix. 
and xiv. 18; xv. 10 al.: see our ch. x. 18. 

4 pn xp-|] Or do we want (the 
wh gives an ironical turn to the question, 
which is more strongly expressed in the 
rec. reading ei w,—‘ unless it be thought, 
that’?....) a8 some (so tives, 1 Cor. iv. 
18; xv. 12; Gal. i. 7, of the teachers who 
opposed him. Probably these persons had 
come recommended to them, by whom 
does not appear, whether by churches or 
Apostles, but most likely by the former 
(e€& tudv), and on their departure re- 
quested similar recommendations from the 
Corinthian church to others), letters of re- 
commendation to you (émor. cvotatiral 
are fully illustrated by Suicer, Thes. in voce. 
Among other passages he cites the 13th 
canon of the council of Chalcedon: Eévous 
KAnpikovs Kal ayvaorous ev érépa méAEL 
Sixa cvoTaTiKGy ypappdtwv Tod idiov 
émiokdtrov unde bAws pndauod Aerroup- 
yey; and Kpist. celxxi. [al. xi.] of Basil, 
vol. iv. p. 417, which has this inscription : 
EvoeBiy étalpw ovoratixh emt Kupiacd 
mpeaButépw, “ Eusebio sodali commenda- 
titia Cyriaci presbyteri”’) or from you? 
The rec. cvotatixay at the end, as well 
as ovot. émictoA@y, have probably been 
glosses, inserted (the ancient Mss. having 
no stops) to prevent é€& ju. being taken 
with 7 émor. following. 2.| Ye are 
our epistle (of commendation), written on 
our hearts (not borne in our hands to be 
shewn, but engraven, in the consciousness 
of our work among you, on our hearts. 
There hardly can be any allusion, as Olsh. 
thinks, to the twelve jewels engraven with 
the names of the tribes and borne on the 
breast-plate of the High Priest, Exod. 


xxviii. 21. The plural seems to be used, 
as so often in this Epistle,—see e.g. ch. 
vii. 3, 5,—of Paul himself only), known 
and read (a play on yu. and avayiv., as at 
ch. i. 13) by all men (because all men are 
aware, what issue my work among you 
has had, and receive me the more favour- 
ably on account of it. But ‘all men’ in- 
cludes the Corinthians themselves; his 
success among them was his letter of re- 
commendation fo them as well as to others 
Srom them), 3.] manifested to be 
(that ye are) an epistle of Christ (i.e. 
written by Christ,—not, as Chrys. al., 
concerning Christ:—He is the Recom- 
mender of us, the Head of the church and 
Sender of us His ministers) which was 
ministered (aor.) by us (i.e. carried about, 
served in the way of ministration by us as 
tabellarii,—not, as Meyer and De W. and 
al., written by us as amanuenses: see 
below), having been inscribed, not with 
ink, but with the Spirit of the living 
God (so the tables of the law were yeypau- 
evar TH SaxtTVAwW Tov Beod, Exod. xxxi. 
18), not on stone tables (as the old law, 
ib.), but on (your) hearts (which are) 
tables of flesh (Meyer calls the reading 
Kapdiats a mistake of the pen. But surely 
internal as well as external evidence is 
strong in its favour, the correction to kap- 
dlas being so obyious to those who found 
the construction harsh). The apparent 
change in the figure in this verse requires 
explanation. The Corinthians are his Epis- 
tle of recommendation, both to themselves 
and others; an Epistle, written by Christ 
ministered by Paul; the Epistle itself bemg 
now the subject, viz. the Corinthians, them- 
selves the writing of Christ, inscribed, not 


i guoTaTiK@V eTIOTON@Y pos ABCD 

2 émictToN) nuav wpEls E€oTE, dcde 
/ ’ lal / ¢e fa) / \ 

K éyyeypaupevn ev tais Kapdiais nuov, \ywooKopéevn Kain 


2-—6. 


Kivats. 
xptaTtoD Yampos Tov Oedv: 


®dcvaxovous * kawhs % diaOnens, 
h 


a Ist pers., ver. 1. b = ch. i. 11. ii. 2 
e = Eph. ili. 7. Col. i. 23 al. 
g Rom. ix. 4 reff. 

xii. 4. Rey. vi. 11. 


4. for exomev, exw A. 
5. AoyilerOar CDF 1 n. 


IIPOS KOPINOIOTS B. 


44 Tlerofnow S& tovadtny éxyouev Sia Tod 
5Wovy Vote * ixavol éopev 
YNoyicacGal te *afp’ ™éavTdv ws *é& *éavT@v, GAN 4 
ixavorns nuav »éx tod Oeod, §d5 Kai “ikavwcev was ” x, 


mvevpatos’ TO yap »ypaupa ‘amoKrévver, TO Sé ™ Tvedpa 


f 1 Cor. xi. 25 ||. 
h Rom. ii. 29. vii. 6. 


643 


u ch. i. 15 reff. 
v = Rom.y.1 


reff. 
w ch. i. 24 reff. 
x ch. ii. 16. 

1 Cor. xy. 19 

reff. 

= Rom. iii. 
(Jer, xi. 


19, 
2 oh / > \ e 
z Luke xii. 57. 
OU" YPAaMMATOS ANNA * Luke x 
John y, 19. 
x. 18. xvi. 13 
al 


c here only +. d Col. i, 12 only +. 
Heb. viii. 8 (from Jer. xxxviii. [xxxi.] 31). ix. 15. 
i (-KTevv-) Matt. x. 28. Mark xii.5. Luke 


rec af’ eavtwy bef Aoyioaca Tt, with KL rel syr Did 


Chr Thdrt Damase: bef travor ecuey BCR copt arm Bas Antch: bef ecuev m (attempts 
to connect ikavor and ap eavtwyv): om 17. 139 Syr Aug,: txt ADF(P) latt goth lat-ff. 


—t bef Aoy. P: om vz B. 


om ws C. 


for 2nd cavtwy, avtwy BF. 


6. rec amoxrewe, with Bbd Orig: amoxrevee ACDL (aroxtéves D3L) rel Orig-ms 
Cyr-p: txt F(-«rnvva:)K PN e f1 m? 17 Did Chr-2-mss. 


on tables of stone, but on hearts, tables of 
flesh. The Epistle itself, written and worn 
on Paul’s heart, and there known and read 
by all men, consisted of the Corinthian con- 
verts, on whose hearts Christ had written 
it by His Spirit. JZ bear on my heart, as 
a testimony to all men, that which Christ 
has by His Spirit written in your hearts. 
On the tables of stone and of flesh, see 
Exod. as above; Prov. ili. 3; vii. 3; Jer. 
xxxi. 31—34, and on the contrast, also 
here hinted at in the background, between 
the heart of stone and the heart of flesh, 
Ezek. xi. 19; xxxvi. 26. 

4—11.| His honowr of his apostolic 
Office was no personal vanity, for all the 
ability of the Apostles came from God, 
who had made them able ministers of the 
new covenant (4—6), a ministration infi- 
nitely more glorious than that of the old 
dispensation (7—11). 4.| The con- 
nexion with the foregoing is immediate: 
he had just spoken of his consciousness of 
apostolic success among them (which asser- 
tion would be true also of other churches 
which he had founded) being his world- 
wide recommendation. It is this confidence 
of which he here speaks. Such confidence 
however we possess through Christ to- 
wards God: i.e. ‘it is no vain boast, but 
rests on power imparted to us through 
Christ in regard to God, in reference to 
God’s work and our own account to be 
given to Him?’ 5.]| not that (i.e. «I 
mean not, that’ ...:—not, ‘not decause,’ 
as Winer in his former editions: see edn. 
6, § 61. 5. f) we are of ourselves able to 
think any thing (to carry on any of the 
processes of reasoning or judgment, or 
faith belonging to our apostolic calling: 
there is no ellipsis, ‘any thing great,’ or 
‘good, or the like) of ourselves, as if 


from ourselves (a éavr. and é éavr. are 
parallel : the latter more definitely pointing 
to ourselves as the origin),—but our ability 
(Acylcac@a Ta mdvra) is from (as its 
source) God, 6.| Who also (= ‘qui 
idem; so Eur. Bacch. 572, ratra kab 
KabvBpio’ avtdy, ‘hee eadem illi expro- 
bravi.’ See Hartung, Partikellehre, i. p- 
132) hath enabled us as ministers of the 
(or, as Stanley, “a:’ but not necessarily 
from the omission of the art.: cf. Heb. 
xil. 24, kal Siadhens véas peolry *Inood) 
new Covenant (i.e. the gospel, Eph. iii. 7 ; 
Col. i. 23, as distinguished from the law: 
see 1 Cor. xi. 25; Gal. iv. 24:—the wAdkes 
AlOwar and odpxiwa are still borne in 
mind, and lead on to a fuller comparison 
of the two covenants),—not of (governed 
by dSiardvous, not by kawAs 5100.—* minis- 
CETS, NOL Of”... «..6 ) letter (in which, viz. 
in formal and literal precept, the Mosaic 
law consisted), but of Spirit (in which, viz. 
in the inward guiding of the Spirit of God, 
the gospel consists. Bengel remarks: 
‘Paulus etiam dum hee seripsié, non liters, 
sed spiritus ministerium egit. Moses in 
proprio illo officio suo, etiam cum haud 
scripsit, tamen in litera versatus est’): for 
the letter (mere formal and literal precept, 
of the law) killeth (as in Rom. vii.,—brings 
the knowledge of sin, its guilt and its 
punishment. The reference is not, as 
Meyer, to natural death, which is the 
result of sin even where there is no law; 
nor as Chrys. to the law executing punish- 
ment), but the Spirit (of the gospel, i.e. 
God’s Holy Spirit, acting in and through 
Christ, Who éyévero cis rvetpa Lworro.odv, 
1 Cor. xv. 45. See also below, ver. 17) 
giveth lif (not merely life eternal, but 
the whole new life of the man of God, see 
Rom. vi. 4, 11; viii. 2, 10). On the his- 


T T2 


644 IIPOS KOPINOIOTS B. THE, 
* - a lal , 
kRomiv.17 Kk Lyoqroue?. 7 ef dé 1 Scakovia Tod Oavatov év " ypaypate ABCDF 
1 Acts i. 17 al. > , / 3 a) no 2,, op 5 ' o \ 5 , KLPNa 
hoe only+. ™ €vretuT@mevn NiOors éeyevnOn ™° ev P doEn, wWsTE M1 OU- dedet 
n Luke iv. 32 : 4 A : g m 
a. Ps. paoOat Iatevicat Tovs viovs ‘IopandA els TO TpOSwTOY no17.47 
xv a > lal \ 
ole Mavoéws Sia THY ? do€ayv TOU mpos@TroU avTodD THY * KaT- 
p = Acts xxii. = san = 5 1 a F 
aoe apyoupéevnv, & Tas ovyi maAXov 1) \Siakovia Tod P TvEV- 
i Q SRA pie / a 
and ver, 13, watos gota év  S0En; 9 et yap 7 | Ovaxovia THs * KaTa- 
10 reff. , A cr , ¢c 
(Exon. kpicews So€a, trodd@ 'wadrov “Tepiccever 7 ovako- 
xXxxiy. 29, 
la THS YO iyns ? don. 10 Kal yap ov Y ded0EacTat 
ree i2s via Ths % duxatoovvys ? 0&7. yap 
ase ret 6. s ch. vii. 3only+. Numb. xiii. 33 alius in Hexapl. t Rom. v. 9, 10 reff. 


u = Rom. iii. 7 reff. constr., ch. viii. 7 (wlo7et, K.7.A.). Sir. xi. 12. 


xi. 13. Judg. ix. 9. 


7. for @avarov, Seov X1(txt N-corr’). 


vy see ch. xi. 15. w= Rom. 


rec (for ypaupatt) ypappact (see note), 


with ACD?:3KLPNX rel latt(litteris aut littera G-lat) syr copt goth Orig,(and int,) Mac 


Chr Thdrt Damasc lat-ff: evyeypaumevn 17: txt BD'F Syr. 
rec ins ev bef Ac@ots, with D?-3K LN? rel vss Orig,(and int,;) Mac Chr Damase 


lat-ff: om ABCD!FPN?! 17 G-lat Orig, Did Epiph Thdrt Aug). 


pevn F. 
(but av erased) R?. 


for evTeT., TeTUTW- 


for Tov, avtov 


8. for ovxi, ovd: N'(but x written above by N! or -corr’). 
9. for 1st 7, 77 ACD!FX a 17 am syrr eth Orig,(and int,) Cyr Ambrst Ruf Sedul : 
txt BD23KLP rel vulg(and F-lat) G-lat copt goth Mac Chr Thdrt Damase Aug Pel. 


aft dof ins eotw D'F (vss) Orig-int, lat-ff. 
Orig-int, Mac, abundabit G-lat Ambrst: abundavit D-lat. 


mepiooevoet D-gr k o syrr 
rec ins ev bef d0&n (prob 


from ev 6. above, ver 8, and below, ver 11), with DFKLPR3 rel latt syr copt goth 
Orig, (and int,) Mac Ambrst : om ABC 17 tol Syr.—doéa RX}. 

10. rec ovde (mistake, from de being the first syllable of the next word), with h latt 
Thdot-ancyr(ovde yap) Thl-ed Orig-int,: txt ABCDFKLPRX rel copt goth «th arm 


tory of this meaning of ypduua, see 
Stanley’s note. 7—11.] And this 
ministration is infinitely more glorious 
than was that of Moses under the old 
Covenant. He argues from the less to 
the greater: from the transitory glory of 
the killing letter, to the abiding glory of 
the life-giving Spirit. 7. | But (pass- 
ing to another consideration,—the compa- 
rison of the two S:akovlar) if the minis- 
tration of death in the letter (of that 
death which the law, the code of literal 
and formal precept, brought in. This not 
having been seen, it was imagined that 
ypdupat: belonged to évteturwpévn, and 
hence it was altered, as more according to 
fact, into ypdupacty, the received reading. 

No art. is required before ypdupati, 
as Meyer objects,—on account of the pre- 
position év) engraven on stones (it seems 
strange that évrer. Ai@. should be the pre- 
dicate of diaxovia; but the ministration 
is the whole putting forth of the dispensa- 
tion, the purport of which was summed up 
in the decalogue, written on stones. The 
decalogue thus written was, as in ver. 3, 
StaxovnSeica it) Mavoéws) was [con- 
stituted] in glory (as its state or accom- 
panying condition:—the abstract as yet, 
to be compared with the glory of the 
other: the concrete, the brightness on 
the face of Moses, is not yet before us), so 
that the sons of Israel could not fix their 


eyes on (they were afraid to come nigh 
him, Exod. xxxiv. 30—so that wh dtivacbat 
is not said of physical inability, but of 
inability from fear) the face of Moses, on 
account of the glory of his face, which 
was transitory (‘transitoria et modici 
temporis,’ Estius;—supernaturally con- 
ferred for a season, and passing away 
when the occasion was over), how shall 
not rather the ministration of the Spirit 
(= 7 Sdiakovia Tis (wis év mvedmari, as 
formally opposed to the other :—but not 
so expressed, because the Spirit is the 
principle of life, whereas the Law only 
led to death) be (future, because the glory 
will not be accomplished till the manifesta- 
tion of the kingdom: according to Billroth, 
‘esse invenietur si rem recte perpenderi- 
mus :’ or as Bengel, ‘loquitur ex prospectu 
veteris Testamenti in novum ? but I much 
prefer the above, as giving the contrast, 
by and by expressed, between 7d katapyov- 
pevov and 7d weévoy) in glory ? 9.] 
For (an additional reason ‘a minori ad 
majus’) if the ministration of condemna- 
tion was (or, is) glory (the change of 
7 Siaxovla to the dat. has been made ap- 
parently because a difficulty was found in 
the ministration itself being glory), much 
more does the ministration of righteous- 
ness abound in glory. The ministration 
of condemnation, because (Rom. vii. 9 ff.) 
the Law detects and condemns sin :—the 


7—13. IIPO> KOPINOIOTS B. 645 
TO * ded0Eacpévov Y év ToUT@ THY pépet, elvexev THs ” UTrEp- = Exop. | 
Bardovons So€ns. 11 ef yap TO *Katapyovpmevov * dia S0- ¥ 25% %, 


a a , 1 Pet. iv. 16 
Ens, ‘ roAA@ * wadArov TO ” pwévov, ™ év  SoEy. 1% EyovTes os r) only. 


x. 14 


ovy ToravTny édrida TOANH ° rappnoia *ypameba, 3 Kat FPh-i19, 

> 6é M a b] 42) r eapeple aN \ I only. P.+ 
OU Ka aTrep @vons eTLvel KANUL La e€7Tl TO TT POS@TrOv 2 Mace. iy. 
Bea eg \ \ Wana / \ oa 5) \ > 13al. (vmep- 

avTov &mpos TO wy “atevicat tovs viovs ‘Iopanr Els  Badrrév- 
TWS, ch. xi. 


23. -BoAn, ch. i. 8.) a= ch. il. 4. v. 7. b = Heb. xii. 27. 1 Pet- i. 23, 25 (from Isa. xl. 8) 


al. fr. ce (Gospp. Tappyota, Mark viii. 32. John vii. 13 al6, év m., John vii. 4. xvi. 29 
only.) Acts ii. 29 al4. Paul, ch. vii. 4 al6. Heb. iii. 6 al3. 1 John ii. 28 al3. only. _‘Proy. i. 20 al. 
d ch. i. 17 om. iv. 6 reff. f here 4 times only. Exop. xxxiy. 33—35. g constr., 


= Thess. ii. 9. (see note.) h ver. 7. 


Orig, Mac Bas Chr-2-mss Jer, Aug. rec (for ew.) evexev, with CF!KL rel Orig, : 
txt ABDF°GPX ¢ m 47 Damasce, jvexev 17. 
18. ree eavrov, with DEX rel Chr Thdrt: txt ABCFLP Frag-coisl a c d m 17 Chr- 


2-mss Damasc Th] ec. 


ministration of righteousness, because 
(Rom. i. 17) therein the righteousness of 
God is revealed and imparted by faith. 
10.| For (substantiation of the 
foregoing 7oAA@ maAAorv) even that which 
has been glorified (viz. the dick. 7. kata- 
kplo., which was ev 56én by the brightness 
on the face of Moses) is not glorified (has 
lost all its glory) in this respect (i.e. when 
compared with the gospel,—kara toy Tis 
ovykploews Adyov, Chrys. Hom. vii. p. 481. 
De W. takes év 7. TG mép. with d5edo- 
Eaopevoy, ‘that which was in this particular 
glorified,’ viz. in the brightness on the face 
of Moses: —but that would more naturally 
be 7d év robtw TG péper SeSotacuévov :— 
as it now stands, I cannot divide other- 
wise than ov deddtacra | Td Sedotaopévov 
| év rotTrw TG pwépe. Meyer takes 7d 
dedot. as abstract, and ev ToiTw TH méper 
as pointing to the concrete: ‘that which 
has been glorified [general and abstract ] 
has in this particular department [con- 
crete, viz. the Siac. Tt. Kkataxplo. which 
was dedokacu.| no glory: q.d. the glori- 
fied is unglorified in this case.’ This may 
certainly be, and is ingenious: but the 
other is simpler) on account of (i. e. when 
we take into consideration) the surpassing 
glory (viz. of the other S:axovla:—pre- 
sent, because spoken of qualitatively). 
11.] For (a fresh ground of superiority in 
glory of the Christian over the Mosaic 
ministry) if that which is transitory (not 
here, as above, the brilliancy of the visage 
of Moses, for that was the Sdéa, but the 
ministry itself, the whole purpose which 
that ministry served, which was paren- 
thetical and to come to an end) was with 
glory (did, see reff., of the condition or 
circumstances in which a thing takes place), 
much more is that which abideth (the 
everlasting gospel) in glory. LEstius says, 
“ner gloriam (ia 68.) innuere videtur 
aliquid momentaneum ac transitorium: in 


gloria, aliquid manens et stabile.” Simi- 
larly, Olshausen : but it is quite in the style 
of our Apostle to use various prepositions 
to express nearly the same relation,—see 
Rom. iii. 22, 30; v. 10. 

12, 18.) From a consciousness of this 
superior glory of his ministration, the 
Apostle uses great plainness of speech, 
and does not, as Moses, use a vail. 

12. édmlda] viz. that expressed by ora 
év 56m, ver. 8: the hope of the ultimate 
manifestation of exceeding glory as belong- 
ing to his ministration. Tappyata | 
mpos tlva, eiwé mor mpds Toy Oedv, 7} mpds 
Tovs wabntas; mpos buas Tovs pabnrtevo- 
pévous, pnot? Touvtéoti, met eAcvOeplas 
TavTaxovd pbeyyducba, ovdey UToaTEAAGME- 
vol, ovdev GmoKpuTTOmevol, OVdEY Kpopmme- 
vol, GAAG Gaps Aé€yovres* Kal ov SedolKa- 
bev ph TAniwpey Hudy Tas OWets, KaOdmep 
Mavojs tas “lovdatwy, Chrys. p. 482. 

18:] kat od, and (do) not (place 
a vail on our face,—so Mark xy. 8, 
6 bxAo0s Hpkaro aireitaOa [moety| Kaas 
Gel émoles avtots. See Winer, edn. 6, 
§ 64,1. 1 b.) as Moses placed a vail on 
his face, in order that (see below) the 
sons of Israel might not look on the 
termination of the transitory (viz. his 
diakovla, see ver. 11, but spoken of as 
dedotacuévn: ‘the glory of his ministra- 
tion’). A mistake has been made with re- 
gard to the history in Exod. xxxiv. 33 —35, 
which has considerably obscured the un- 
derstanding of this verse. It is commonly 
assumed, that Moses spoke to the Israel- 
ites, having the vail on his face; and this 
is implied in our version—‘till Moses had 
done speaking with them, he put a vail on 
his face. But the LXX (and Heb.) gave 
a different account: xa) érerdy KkaTémavoev 
Aadav mpds aitovs, ereOnnev emt Td mpds- 
wmov avTod KéAvuua. He spoke to them 
without the vail, with his face shining and 
glorified: when he had done speaking, he 


646 IIPOL KOPINOIOTS B. III. 


i see Rom. x. 4. ps 
k Rom. xi.7 TO 
reff. ] , > aA 
Ich. ii. ll ref. “ VONMATA AUTOV. 
m = Rom. viil. 

22 reff. 


itéos Tov "Katapyoupévov. 14 arN * érwpwbn Ta ABCD 
™aéypt yap THS “onpwepoy ™ Huépas beam 


n Matt. xxviii. 15. Acts xx. 26. Rom.xi.8only. Josh.v.9. Jer. i. 18. nolj7.é 


om to D'F. 
ten over TeAos in the greek column of F. 


for reds, sposwrov A vulg(and F-lat) Ambrst Bede. (finem is writ- 


The mistake in A and vulg may have 


arisen from the eye of some scribe having passed to the mposwmov in the line above: 
tedos stands just below mposwrov in Matthai’s edn of K.) 


14. adda B. 


erwpwbnaav K (g!?) 


rec om yuepas (as unnecessary, see 


ver 15), with KL rel Archel Did Cyr-jer Bas Chr Thdrt Damase Tert: ins ABCDFPR 


placed the vail on his face: and that, not 
because they were afraid to look on him, 
but as here, that they might not look on 
the end, or the fading, of that transitory 
glory; that they might only see it as long 
as it was the credential of his ministry, 
and then it might be withdrawn from their 
eyes. Thus the declaration of God’s will 
to them was not év mapfpynoia, but was 
interrupted and broken by intervals of 
concealment, which ours is not. The op- 
position is twofold : (1) between the vailed 
and the wavailed ministry, quoad the mere 
fact of concealment in the one case, and 
openness in the other: (2) between the 
ministry which was suspended by the 
vailing, that its réAos might not be seen, 
and that which proceeds amd ddéns «is 
ddtav, having no termination. On the 
common interpretation, Commentators 
have found an almost insuperable difficulty 
in mpds Td wh at. The usual escape from 
it has been to render it, ‘so that the 
Israelites could not,’ as in ver. 7. De 
Wette somewhat modifies this, and sees 
in it the divine purpose: ‘in order that,’ 
but not in the intention of Moses, but of 
God’s Providence. But both these render- 
ings are ungrammatical. mpds 76 with an 
infinitive never signifies the mere result, 
nor, as Meyer rightly remarks against De 
Wette, the objective purpose, but always 
the subjective purpose present to the mind 
of the actor: he refers to Matt. v. 28; vi. 
1; xiii. 30; xxiii. 5; Mark xiii. 22; Eph. 
vi. 11; 1 Thess. ii. 9; 2 Thess. iii. 8; James 
iii. 3 (rec.); and Matt. xxvi. 12 (see my 
note there). I may remark also, that the 
narrative in Exodus, the LXX version of 
which the Apostle here closely follows (see 
below on ver. 16), implies that the bright- 
ness of Moses’s face had place not on that 
one occasion only, but throughout his 
whole ministry between the Lord and the 
people. When he ceased speaking to them, 
he put on the vail; but whensoever he 
went in before the Lord to speak to Him, 
the vail was removed till he came out, and 
had spoken to the Israelites all that the 
Lord had commanded him, during which 
speaking they saw that his face shone,— 
and after which speaking he again put on 


the vail. So that the vail was the symbol 
of concealment and transitoriness: the 
part revealed they might see: beyond that, 
they could not: the ministry was a broken, 
interrupted one; its end was wrapped in 
obscurity. In the réAos Tod Katapy. 
we must not think, as some Commentators 
have done, of Christ (Rom. x. 4), any fur- 
ther than it may be hinted in the back- 
ground that when the law came to an end, 
He appeared. 

14—18.] The contrast is now made be- 
tween the CHILDREN OF ISRAEL, on whose 
heart this vail still is in the reading of the 
O. T., and Us Aww (Christians), who with 
uncovered face behold the glory of the 
Lord. This section is parenthetical. 
Before and after it, the ministry is the 
subject: in it, they to whom the ministry 
is directed. But it serves to shew the 
whole spirit and condition of the two 
classes, and thus further to substantiate 
the character of openness and freedom 
asserted of the Christian ministry. 

14.] But (also) their understandings were 
hardened (on this, the necessary sense of 
émrwpaOn, see note, Eph. iv. 18). These 
words evidently refer, as well as what fol- 
lows, not to the téAos, which they did not 
see, but to that which they did see: to 
that which answers to the present avd- 
yvwows THs maAaas d.a0nKns, viz. the word 
of God imparted by the ministration of 
Moses. And by these words the transition 
is made from the form of similitude just 
used, to that new one which is about to be 
used; q.d. ‘not only was there a vail on 
Moses’s face, to prevent more being known, 
but also their understandings were dark- 
ened: there was, besides, a vail on their 
hearts’ So that dAAd= but also, or 
moreover. To refer this GAA’ érap. to 
mwappnota xpéueba, to the present hard- 
heartedness of the Jews under the freedom 
of speech of the Gospel, as Olsh., De W., 
al., is, in my view, to miss the whole sense 
of the passage. No reference whatever is 
made to the state of the Jews under the 
preaching of the gospel, but only as the 
objects of the O. T. ministration,—then, 
under the oral teaching of Moses,—now, in 
the reading of the O. T. In order to 


————— 


—— 


14—16. 


IIPOS KOPINOIOTS B. 


647 


TO avTo ‘Kaduppa Cert TH Padvayvdces Ths VY Tadaias ° = Jobniv. 


a§ 0 / , \ s > lA ev > Lal 
waOnkns pévet, pn SavakaduTTopevov OTL ev YpLaT@ 
'katapyetrauy 1) aXN “ws “Yonpepov, Y yvika ay “ ava- 


ywweokntat Mavojs, ! 


27. ch. vii. 4. 
Heb. ix. 15, 
26. 

p Acts xiii. 15. 
1 Tim. iv. 13 


only. Neh. 
i.8 


, EN \ bi 2 viii. 8. 
KANUMLLA * ETL TNV KAPOLAV AVTODW 4g here only. 


see ver. 6. 


" 16 V s,/, > dy Ye f y ; 5 Zz = r Rom: vi. 6. 
KEetT aL. nvika & av ¥ émcatpéyn ¥ mpos KUpLoV, ” TrEpE- * Rom. vi 


al. Lev. xxv. 22. 
uhere only. Sir. xlvii. 7. see Matt. xxvii. 8. 

34. Deut. vii. 12. 

Hie conve ks Vile le KX. 1, 


m 17 latt copt Clem Cyr Orig-int, Ambrst. 


shere bis only. Job xii. 22 and Isa. iii. 17 BX. (a7roK, A.) 

Rom. xi. 8. 

w constr., Acts viii. 28. (xiii. 27.) xy. 21. 
y =1 Thess..i. 9. { 


Cor. v. 7, 8 
tvv.7 &e. 

y here bis only, Exod. xxxiv. 
x so Acts x.17. xi. ll. Rey. 

Acts ix. 40.) Amos iy. 6. z Acts xxvii. 20 reff. 


for em, ev DF Chr. 


15. rec om av (from av beginning avaywwor.?), with DFKL rel Orig, Eus, Cyr-jer 


Cxs Chr Cyr, Thdrt,; Damase: ins ABCPR Orig, Cyr, Thdrt,, eav 17. 


rec ava- 


ywookera, with FKL rel vulg Eus Cyr-jer Cas Chr Cyr, Thdrt, Damase Thl Orig-int,: 


txt A B(see table) CDPX ¢ m 17 Orig, Chr-ms Cyr, Thdrt, Gc. 
Kerra bef em: thy Kapd. av. D13F latt goth eth lat-ff. 
de eav AN! 17: om ay Ck Mac Bas. 


vo next ver is repeated by B}. 
16. for nyviuca, orav F Chr,. 


understand what follows, the change of 
similitude must be carefully borne in mind. 

76 avTd KdAUp pA] ‘the vail once on 
Moses’s face,’ is now regarded as laid on 
their hearts. It denoted the ceasing, the 
covering up, of his oral teaching ; for it 
was put on when he had done speaking to 
the people. Now, his oral teaching has 
altogether ceased, and the S:arovta is car- 
ried on by a book. But as when we listen, 
the speaker is the agent, and the hearers 
are passive,—so on the other hand, when 
we read, we are the agents and the book is 
passive. The book is the same to all: the 
difference between those who understand 
and those who do not understand is now a 
subjective difference—the vail is no longer 
on the face of the speaker, but on the 
heart of the reader. So that of necessity 
the form of the similitude is changed. 
For (answering to an understood clause, 
‘and remain hardened’) to the present day 
the same vail (which was once on the face 
of Moses) remains at the reading of the 
Old Testament (7 wad. 5:a0. here, as we 
now popularly use the words, the book com- 
prising the ancient Covenant), the dis- 
covery not being made (by the removal of 
the vail) that it (the O. T.) is done away 
in Christ (that the Old Covenant has 
passed away, being superseded by Christ). 
This I believe to be the only admissible 
sense of the words, consistently with the 
symbolism of the passage. The render- 
ings, ‘remains not taken away—for it 
(i.e. the vail) is done away in Christ,’ 
and (as E. V.) ‘vemaineth . . untaken 
away .. which vail (6 rt) is done away in 
Christ, —are inadmissible: (1) because 
they make karapyetrat, which throughout 
the passage belongs to the glory of the 
ministry, to apply to the vail: and (2) be- 
cause they give no satisfactory sense. It 
is not because the vail can only be done 
away in Christ, that it now remains un- 


from KkaAupma to 


taken away on their hearts, but because 
thew hearts are hardened. Besides, the 
Apostle would not have expressed it thus, 
but ev xpictG yap katapy. The word 
avakadkunTéuevoy has been probably chosen, 
as is often the practice of the Apostle, 
on account of its relation to kaAvumua, 
—it not being unvailed to them that 
ae 15.] But (reassertion of uy 
avakaduTTéuevoy, with a view to the next 
clause) to this day, whenever Moses is 
read, a vail lies upon their heart (under- 
standing. «keira: éi w. acc.,—pregn., in- 
volving the being laid on, and remaining 
there). 16.] Here, the tertium com- 
parationis is, the having on a vail, and 
taking it off on going in to the presence of 
the Lord. This Moses did; and the choice 
of the same words as those of the LXX, 
shews the closeness of the comparison ; 
jHvika 8 av ciseropevero Mwvons evayti 
Kuplov AaAciv avTG, Tepinpetto TO Ka- 
Avppa. This shall likewise be done in the 
case of the Israelites: when it (i.e. 7 Kap- 
dia ad’tay,—not Israel, as Chrys., Theod., 
Theophyl., Erasm., al.—nor Moses, as 
Calv., Estius,—nor rfs, as Orig., al.) shall 
turn to the Lord (here again éemorpabn 
mpés is carefully chosen, being the very ex- 
pression of the LXX, when the Israelites, 
having been afraid of the glory of the face 
of Moses, returned to him after being 
summoned by him :—égoBnOncav éyyioa 
avT@’ Kal exdAecey avTtovs Mavojs, Kat 
éreatpadyoay wpds avTov..... »—and 
képiov appears to be used for the same 
reason) the vail is taken away (not, shall 
be, because 7 Kkapdia is the subject, and 
thus the taking away becomes an indivi- 
dual matter, happening whenever and 
wherever conversion takes place). Let me 
restate this,—as it is all-important towards 
the understanding of vv. 17, 18. ‘ When 
their heart goes in to speak with God, 
—ceases to contemplate the dead letter, 


648 


39 
a ae viii. apenas TO ‘ kadU a. 


b Rom. viii. 21. 
1 Cor. x. 29. 


c here only t+. 
(see note 


ren. 
e constr. here 


ponstr. do€ns els do€av, 


Moulton’s Winer, p. 538, note 1. 
g = Actsii. 22. Jamesi. 13 al. 


17. for ob, mov F. 


TIPO KOPINOIOTS 


Matt. xvii. 2 || Mk. Rom. xii. 2 only +. Ps. xxxiii. 1 Symm. 


for kupiov, To aryiov L. 


TIL 2,48. 


> éXevGepia. 


© wetapoppovpeba aro 


f 4 > \ / / 
kaGarep % amo Kupiov mvEevpmaTos. 


f Rom. iv. 6 reff. 


rec ins exer bef eAcvdepia 


(see notes), with D?-3FKLPN? rel latt syr goth eth arm Ath Epiph Bas Chr Cyr, Thdrt 


Damasce Orig-int; Hil, 
18. amontpiCouevor "F: 
Orig,(and int,) Eus,. Kabwsrep B. 
and begins to commune with the Spirit 
of the old covenant (the Spirit of God), 
then the vail is removed, as it was from 
the face of Moses.’ 17.| Now (6¢€ 
exponentis. 
amoBAéyat ; Theodoret) the Lord is the 
Spirit: i.e. the kvpios of ver. 16, is, the 
Spirit, whose word the O. T. is: the 
mvedua,—as opposed to the ypdyupya— 
which (worote?, ver. 6. But it is not 
merely, as Wetst., ‘Dominus significat 
Spiritum,’ nor is mvevua merely, as Olsh., 
the spiritual sense of the law: but, ‘the 
Lord, as here spoken of, ‘ Christ,’ ‘is the 
Spirit, is identical with the Holy Spirit: 
not personally nor essentially, but, as is 
shewn by T6 tvetpa xuplov following, in 
this department of His divine working : — 
Christ, here, is the Spirit of Christ. The 
principal mistaken interpretation (among 
many, see Pool’s Synops., Meyer, De Wette) 
is that of Chrys., Theodoret, Theophyl., 
(Ecum., Estius, Schulz,—making 7d mved- 
wa the subject, and 6 xvp. the predicate, 
which though perhaps (but would 6€ then 
have had its present position ?) allowable, 
is against the context, 6 5€ xvp. being 
plainly resumed from 6 xvp. in ver. 16. 
The words are then used by them as a 
proof of the Divinity of the Holy Spirit. 
But (5¢ appealing to a known or evi- 
dent axiom, as in a mathematical demon- 
stration) where the Spirit of the Lord 
(see above) is, is liberty (exe? has pro- 
bably been inserted, as being usual after 
ov: but, as Meyer remarks, not in St. Paul’s 
style, see Rom. iv. 15; v. 20). They are 
fettered in spirit as long as they are slaves 
to the letter, = as long as they have the 
vail on their hearts ; but when they turn 
to the Lord the Spirit, which is not mvevua 
dovAelas but mv. viobecias, Rom. viii. 15, 
—and by virtue of whom od« &r: ef 5odA0s, 
GAAG vids, Gal. iv. 7,—then they are at 
liberty. There can hardly be any allusion 
to a vail over the head implying subjec- 
tion, as 1 Cor. xi. 10, (Erasm., Beza, Grot., 


tls 5€ ovTos mpos dy Set 


: om ABCD!X! 17 fri Syr copt Chr Nys. 
evorTpiCoueba Mac. 


peTanoppouvpevor A 23 Mac 


Bengel, Fritz.,) for here the covering of 
the head with a vail is not thought of, 
but merely intercepting the sight. 

18.| But (the sight of the Jews is thus 
intercepted; in contrast to whom) WE all 
(‘all Christians :? not, as Erasm., Estius, 
Bengel, al. m., ‘we Apostles and teach- 
ers:’ the contrast is to the viol *IopanA 
above) with unvailed face (the vail having 
been removed at our conversion: the stress 
is on these words) beholding in a mirror 
the glory of the Lord (i. e. Christ: from 
vv. 16,17. Katomtpifw is to shew in @ 
mirror, to make a reflexion in a mirror; 
so Plutarch, de Placitis Philosophorum, 
ili. 5: Anaxagoras explained a rainbow to 
be the reflexion of the sun’s brightness 
from a thick cloud, that always stands 
opposite tod karonrp{Covros avtTd aorepos. 
In the middle, it is ‘to behold oneself in @ 
mirror: so Diog. Laert., Plato, p. 115, 
Tots weOvovor cuveBovAeve KaTomT ple Gat ; 
—but also, to see in a mirror, so Philo, 
Legis Allegor. iii. 33, vol. i. p. 107, uh yap 
eudavicbeins mor 80 odpavod } ys 7} UbaTos 
}) depos # Twos arA@s TaY ev yevérel, Unde 
KatomTpicaluny ev GAAw Tw Thy chy idéav, 
h ev col t@ Oeg. And such is evidently 
the meaning here: the gospel is this mir- 
ror, the evayyéAov THS SdEys TOD xproTot, 
ch. iv. 4, and we, looking on it with un- 
vailed face, are the contrast to the Jews, 
with vailed hearts reading their law. The 
meaning ‘*eflecting the glory,’ &e. as 
Chrys., Luth., Calov., Bengel, Billroth, 
Olsh., is one which neither the word nor 
the context [see above] will bear [see, 
however, Stanley’s note }), are transfigured 
into the same image (which we see in the 
mirror: the image of the glory of Christ, 
see Gal. iv. 19, which is more to the point 
than Rom. viii. 21, cited by Meyer, and 
1 John iii. 3. But the change here spoken 
of is a spiritual one, not the bodily change 
at the Resurrection: it is going on here 
in the process of sanctification. No 
prep. need be understood before tiv abthy 


x 
18 mets: O€ waves b ¢ del 
\ , £ DD 
S avaKkeKaupmev@ TposoT@ TtHv Oo€av Kupiov © KaT- 017.4 


, A \ oJ la 
akon vives OWTpLCOMEvoL, THY avTHY 4 EiKova 
ff. 


17°O 8€ Kvpios TO TVEDMa éoTLW" ABCDE 
ov S€ TO * veda * KUpiou, 


PV. 1, 2. 


IIPO> KOPINOIOTS B. 


649 


x 
IV. 1 dia todro éxovtes tHv ™ Staxoviay tavTny, Kabas » = Actsxx. 


5 , > ed a 9 2 \ ? 4 \ i Rom. xi. 30, 
inrenOnuev, ovx * éyxaxovmev, * Adda | atrevapweOa Ta ‘RF 
Ni a ? , \ a ) k Luke xviii. 1. 
MKPUTTA THS "AaloxUVNS, 1 ° TEpiTTaTOvVTES ° Ev ? Travoup- aes 
iii. 13. 2 Thess. iii. 13 only. L.P.+ Proy. iii. 11 Theod. lhere only. 3 Kings xi. 2. Job x. 3 al. 
m and constr., Rom. ii. 16 reff. n Luke xiv. 9. Phil. iii. 19. Heb. xii. 2. Jude 13. Rev. iii, 18 
ae oe Ixxxviii. 45. o Rom, yi. 4. ch. x. 3. Eph. y.2al. Prov. viii. 20. p 1 Cor. 
iii. 19 reff. 


Cuap. IV. 1. for ravtny, avrny F. 
ABD'FRS m 17. 


2. [aAAa, so A(perhaps) BCDR cde fghkIn 47.] 


eixéva—the passive verb indirectly governs 
the ace., as in a@mroréuvoua TI Kepadrhy 
and similar cases) from glory to glory 
(this is explained, either [1] «from one de- 
gree of glory to another ;? so most Com- 
mentators and De Wette, or [2] ‘from 
[by] the glory which we see, into glory,’ 
as Chrys. p. 486, ard ddéns, THs Tod mvev- 
Matos, cis Sdtav, Thy hueTepav, THY eyyt- 
yvowevnv,—Theodoret, Gicum., Theophyl., 
Bengel, Fritz., Meyer, al. I prefer the 
former, as the other would introduce a 
tautology, the sentiment being expressed 
in the words following) as by the Lord the 
Spirit. kxuplov mvevuatos = Tov Kuplov Tov 
mvevmatos,—the first art. being omitted 
after the preposition, the second to con- 
form the predicate to its subject, as in 
amd Qeod watpds, Gal. i. 3,—and answers 
to 6 8€ Kipios Td mvedud eotw above. 
This seems the obvious and most satis- 
factory way of taking the words, and, 
from ver. 17, to be necessitated by the 
context ; and so Theodoret, Luther, Beza, 
Caloy., Wolf, Estius, al. The rendering 
upheld by Fritz., Billroth, Meyer, De Wette, 
‘the Lord of the Spirit, i.e. « Christ, whose 
Spirit He is,’ seems to me to convey very 
little meaning, besides being an expression 
altogether unprecedented. The trans- 
formation is effected by the Spirit (rotro 
fetauoppot, Chrys.), the Author and Up- 
holder of spiritual life, who ‘takes of the 
things of Christ, and skews them to us,’ 
John xvi. 14, see also Rom. viii. 10, 11,— 
who sanctifies us till we are holy as Christ 
is holy; the process of renewal after Christ’s 
image is such a transformation as may be 
expected by the agency of (kabdmep amd, so 
Chrys., kal rovadtny olay cixds ard...) the 
Lord the Spirit,—Christ Himself being the 
image, see ch. iv. 4. The two other ren- 
derings are out of the question, as being 
inconsistent with the order of the words: 
viz.: (1) that of E. V. and of Vulg., Theo- 
phyl., Grot., Bengel, ‘the Spirit of the 
Lord, and (2) that of Chrys., Theodoret, 
Calov., Estius, ‘the Spirit who is the 
Lord? Meyer objects to the interpre- 
tation given above as inconsistent with the 
self-evident connexion of the genitives. 


rec ekkakouuey, with CD3KLP rel: txt 
for xpumta, epya K. 


How would he render amd @cod marpéds ? 
IV. 1—6.] Taking up again the subject. 
of his freedom of speech (ch. iii. 12), he 
declares his renunciation of all deceit, and 
manifestation of the truth to every man 
(ver. 2), even though to some the Gospel be 
hidden (vv. 3, 4). And this because he 
preaches, without any selfish admixture, 
only the pure light of the Gospel of Christ 
(vv. 5, 6). 1.] 8a roto refers to 
the previous description of the freeness and 
unvailedness of the ministry of the Gospel, 
and of the state of Christians in general 
(ch. iii. 18). éxovres T. 8. Tavr. 
further expands and explains Sia todro. 
Ka0as nAenO. | even as we received 
mercy (from God, at the time of our being 
appointed ; cf. #Aen@nv, 1 Tim. i. 16): be- 
longs to @x. 7. 6. Tavt., not to what follows, 
and is a qualification, in humility, of 
éxovres— possessing it, not as our own, 
but in as far as we were shewn mercy.’ 
ovK éykaxotpev] We do not behave our- 
selves in a cowardly manner, do not 
shrink from plainness of speech and action. 
eyrkakeéw is the opposite of mappnoid(w. ovK 
exkakovpev would be, ‘we do not give up 
through faintness or cowardice” It is 
hardly possible to decide satisfactorily be- 
tween the tworeadings. ey«.seems to be 
universal, except in the N. T. (rec. text) 
and the Fathers, which have éxx. Did the 
Fathers borrow this form from the N. T., 
or was it the usual form of later Greek, and 
as such introduced into the text by the 
copyists ? In such doubt, I have followed 
manuscript authority. But (cowardice 
alone prompting concealment in sucha case, 
where it does not belong to the character 
of the ministry itself) we have renounced 
(so Herod. iv. 125, tay ameimapévey thy 
ohetépny cumpaxiny: Mlian, N. H. vi. 1, 
Thy akdAaoToOY KoiTHY amelTaTO TaYTEAaS 
macay: and other examples in Wetst.) the 
hidden things of shame (the having any 
views, ends, or practices which such as 
have them hide through shame: not, as 
De Wette, the hidden things of infamy or 
dishonesty. aicxvvn is subjective, =, as 
Meyer, $d6Bos én) mposdoxla adotlas, Plato 
Defin. p. 416. It is plain from the context 


650 


q here only. 
Ps. xiv 3. 
XXxy. 2. 

r 1 Cor, xii. 7 
only +. 

s = Rom. xvi. 
1 reff. see 
ch. iii. 1. 

t Ist pers., ch. 
iii. 1 reff. 


u ch. i. 12 reff. 
v ver. 16. 
ch. y. 16. 


vii. 8 al. 

w 1 Thess. i. 5. 
2 Thess. ii. 
14. see Rom. 
ii. 16. xvi. 25. 
2 Tim. ii. 8. 

x = ch. ii. 15. 

y Rom. ii. 12 reff. 

b Rom, xii. 2 reff. 

e = Matt. xvii. 17 al. fr. 

Acts xx. 11.) 
14. Ixxxix. 8 only. 
i. 26, 27. 


z= 1 Cor. iv. 2, 6 al. 
e John xii. 40. 
f Rom. iy. 11 reff. 


il Tim. i. 11 only. 


IIPOS KOPINOIOTS B. 


1 John ii. 11 only. 


TV. 


\ lal A / lal nr > A lel 
ya, onde %SorodvTes Tov ROYov Tov Geod, ahrAa TH 
, lol > / / € \ \ 
*havepwces THs adnOeias * cunotavtes * éavToUs mpos 
Tacav “ouveldnow avOparwv évaTtov Tov Oeod. 
v A et / X\ Ww > / w ig nr x = a“ 
Kal €oTW KeKadvppévov TO \ evayyédtov Y Huav, * ev Tots 
Y amroAdupévors eotiv Kekaduppévov, * ” év ols 0 *Oeds Tov 
ab ain b , C Aah 7 a A my © ark 
aiavos > rovTou ° érUdAw@CEY TA “ VOHpaTA THY © aTiCTOY, 
fels TO pn Savyacar Tov ' dhwticpov Tov + evayyedtou TIS 
2 nr a ¢ - \ la) fal 
idcEns Tod yxpicTtod, Os éotiv *eik@v Tod GOeod. 


3 V ef 6€ 


B Ae, \ 
ov yap 
ahere only. see John xii. 31. xiv. 30. Eph. ii. 2. vi. 12. 


Isa. xlii. 19 only. d ch, ii. 11 reff. 
ghere only. Levit. xiii. 24, &c. xiv. 56 only. (-y7y, 


h here bis only. notin classics. Job iii. 9 BN®*F. (not ANI.) Ps. xxvi. 1. xiii. 3. Ixxvii. 


k Col. i. 15. Rom. viii. 29. 1 Cor. xi.7 al. Gen. 


rec cuvoterres, with D3KL rel: cvviaravoyvres A(appy) BP 47.°67?. 80: txt CDI FR 17 


Chr. 


4, Stavyaca: A 17 Eus, Archel Cyr-jer Cyr; Damasc: karavy. CD Orig, Eus, (both 
glosses, further to particularize the simple verb): txt BFKLPRX rel Orig, Dial Chr 


Cyr Thdrt Damase Thly.. 


rec adds avtos, with D?-3KL rel vss Orig, Chr; : om 


ABCD'ER 17 old-lat am(with demid fuld hal harl) Orig, Eus, Cyr-jer Epiph Cyr Iren- 


int. for xptorov, Kupiov C. 


for os, o F. 


aft tov @eov ins Tov aopaTou 


(see Col i. 15) LPR a f 1m 47: pref spec syr arm Thl. 


that it refers, not to crimes and unholy 
practices, but to crooked arts, of which 
men are ashamed, and which perhaps were 
made use of by the false teachers), not 
walking (having our daily conversation) in 
craftiness (see ref.) nor adulterating (see 
ch. ii. 17, note) the word of God, but by the 
manifestation of the truth (as owr only 
means, see 1 Thess. ii. 3, 4;—the words 
come first, as emphatic), recommending 
ourselves (a recurrence to the charge and 
apology of ch. iii. 1 ff.) to (with reference 
to,—the verdict of) every conscience of 
men (every possible variety of the human 
conscience; implying, there is no conscience 
but will inwardly acknowledge this, how- 
ever loath some among you may be out- 
wardly to confess it. So that the expres- 
sion is not exactly = mp. Thy cuv. mavTwy 
avOpdérwv. We need hardly extend av@p. so 
wide as Chrys. [Hom. viii. p. 493], od .. 
miorots Lévov, GAAG Kal arlorots omer KaTa- 
5nAo1:—he is speaking as a teacher, and the 
men spoken of are naturally his hearers and 
disciples), in the sight of God (as ch. ii. 17; 
not merely to satisfy men’s consciences, 
but with regard to God’s all-seeing eye 
which discerns the heart). 3.| But if 
(‘which I concede ;’—see note, 1 Cor. iv. 7) 
it is even so, that our gospel (the gospel 
preached by us) is vailed, it is among (in 
the estimation of) the perishing that it 
is vailed. The allegory of ch. iii. is con- 
tinued,—the hiding of the gospel by the 
vail placed before the understanding. 

4.] In whose case (it is true, that) the god 
of this world (the Devil, the ruling princi- 


ple in the men of this world, see reff. It is 
historically curious, that Irenzeus (Heer. iv. 
39.2, p. 266), Origen, Tertull. (contra Mare. 
iv. 11, vol. ii. p. 499), Chrys., Augustine 
(c. advers. leg. ii. 7 [29], vol. viii. p. 655), 
(Ecum., Theodoret, Theophylact, all repu- 
diate, in their zeal against the Marcionites 
and Manicheans, the grammatical render- 
ing, and take taév admictwy Tod aidvos 
rovrov together) blinded (the aor. of a 
purely historical event) the understand- 
ings of the unbelieving (i.e. who, the 
amroAAvmevot, are victims of that blinding 
of the understandings of the unbelieving, 
which the Devil is habitually carrying on. 
Meyer well remarks, that if it had merely 
been 7a vohuara, it would have only ex- 
pressed in the concrete the voju. of those 
signified by év ois,—whereas now, by the 
addition of réy ariot., the blinding in- 
flicted on the aod. is marked as falling 
under its category. The rendering tay 
aniatwy ‘so that they believe not,’ Fritz., 
Billroth, is out of all question) in order 
that the illumination of (shining from, 
gen. subj.) the gospel of the glory of 
Christ, who is the image of God (recur- 
rence to the allegory of ch. iii. 18 ;—Christ 
is the image of God, aratyaoua tis ddéns 
avTov, Heb. i. 3, into which same image, 
Thy adriy eixdva, we, looking on it in the 
mirror of the gospel, are changed by the 
Spirit; but which glorious image is not 
visible to those who are blinded by Satan), 
might not shine forth (‘unto them:’ adrots 
was a correct gloss :—the rendering, ‘that 
they might not see,’ Grot., al., is inadmis- 


Se 


3—7. 


léavtods ™ xnpvocomev, AAA YpLoTOV 
fal ’ an 

Eavtovs 5€ SovAous tuov "dia “Inoodv. 

° efr@v ©’ Ex oxotous 4 has 2 haprpet, os 4 eAaperprey év Tats ° 


1 


IIPOS KOPINOIOTS, 


651 


) lal i 96 
Inoovy Kuptov" 1 ch. ifi, Lees, 


m Acts vill. 5 
6 OTe 6 Oeds O ater, be 


= James ii. 


p Job xxxvii. 


xapdias 7 dees ‘ mpos h porta pov THs Syvaces THS *OOENS | Pe. siz-7 


Tov Oeod * ev ‘ mpos@m@ \VploTov. 


7”"Eyouev dé Tov “Oncavpoy todroy ev YY datpakivos . 


tch. ii. 10. Prov. viii. 


x. 21. Luke vi. 45 a8, Josh. vi. 19. 


5. mo. bef xp. ACDN vulg syr goth: 


6. om Ist 6 B(sic: see table) n. 


u Epp., Col. ii. 3. 
v 2 Tim. ii. 20. 


aft exmwy ins o (but erased) X!. 


ie }. Isa. 
ix. 

Tee ‘Cor. vii. 
35 reff. 
s see Hab. ii. 14. 


Mark 
Levit. vi. 28. 


Heb. xi. 26 only. Gospp., Matt. ii. 11 al8. 


w as above (v) only. 


kup. in. xp. F: om ino. 47: om kup. Pd: txt 
BKL rel Syr copt arm Mcion-e Cyr-jer Chr Thdrt Damase Ambrst. 
ale for 2nd inoouy, incov A2CR! 17 Mcion- -e): 


nuwy(sic) & 
xpiotou N-corr? 5, 
rec 


Aaquva:, with CD3FKLPN® rel latt goth Mcion-e Epiph Orig, Dial Mac Ath Chr Cyr 


Thdrt Damase lat-ff: txt ABD‘! Clem. 
Did Tert Ambrst. 
(Thl-comm) Tert, : 


vuwyv C 3. 47 Chr. 


om os DIF old-lat demid(and harl) Chr 
for tov Qeov, avtov C!1D'F xth Dial C yr 


txt ABC3D3K LPR rel vss (Orig) Ath Chr Thdrt Damase hoa st 


Ambr, (Tov Gov ts certainly original ; for, as Meyer observes, had avrov been origl, it 
is hardly possible that tov Beov should have been a gloss on it, as o Bcos occurs just be- 
fore). rec ins inoov bef xp., with CKLPN rel tol vss Orig, Thdrt Damasce: aft 
xp-, DF latt Cyr lat-ff: om AB 17 arm-mss Orig, Dial Ath Chr Thl-comm Tert,. 


sible). 5, 6.] We have no reason to 
use trickery or craft, having no selfish ends 
to serve: nor concealment, being ourselves 
enlightened by God, and set for the spread- 
ing of light. 5.| For we preach not 
(the subject of our preaching is not) our- 
selves (Meyer understands xuplous, ‘as 
lords ;? but as De W. observes, this would 
anticipate the development of thought 
which follows, the contrast between xp. 
*Inoovy as Kiprov, and ourselves as your 
dovaAous, not being yet raised),—but Christ 
Jesus as Lord, and ourselves as your ser- 
vants for Jesus’ sake (on account of Him 
and His work). 6.] Because (explains 
and substantiates the last clause,—that we 
are your servants for Jesus’ sake) (é¢ is) 
God, who said Out of (not, ‘ after the dark- 
ness ;? this meaning of ex, though allow- 
able, e.g. éx Kuudtwv yap atdis ad ydAny 
6p@, does not occur in N. T.) darkness 
light shall shine (allusion to Gen. i. 3: 
the change to Adua: appears to have been 
made because the words cited are not the 
exact ones spoken by the Creator), who 
shined (Grot., Fritz., Meyer, would render 
ZAquwpev, ‘caused light to shine,’ using the 
verb in the factitive sense, as dvaréAro, 
Matt. v. 45, and @ Adurovoa wétpa mupds 
dicdpupov oédas, Eur. Phen. 226. But 
this usage of the word seems entirely poeti- 
cal, and the intransitive sense would as well 
express the divine act) in our hearts (the 
physical creation bearing an analogy to 
the spiritual) in order to the shining forth 
(to others) of the knowledge (in us) of the 
glory of God in the face of Christ (= rijs 
ddéns T. Ocod THS Ev mposémw xp., ‘the 


glory of God manifested in Christ’). The 
figure is still derived from the history in 
ch. ii., and refers to the brightness on the 
face of Moses :—the only true effulgence of 
the divine glory is from the face of Christ. 
Meyer contends for the connexion of év 
tposém. xp. with pwricudy, but his ex- 
planation fails to convey to my mind any 
satisfactory sense. He says that when the 
yveors is imparted by preaching, it shines, 
and its brightness illuminates the face of 
Christ, because it is His face whose glory is 
looked on in the mirror of preaching. But 
I cannot think that any thing so very far- 
fetched would be in the Apostle’s mind. 
As to the necessity of the art. r#s before 
év, none will assert it who are much versed 
in the many varieties of expression in such 
sentences in the Apostle’s style. 7—18.] 
This glorious ministry is fulfilled by weak, 
afflicted, persecuted, and decaying vessels, 
which are moreover worn out in the work 
(7—12). Yet the spirit of faith, the hope 
of the resurrection, and of being presented 
with them, for whom he has laboured, bears 
him up against the decay of the outer man, 
and all present tribulation (13—18). We 
are not justified in assuming with Calvin, 
Estius, al., that a definite reproach of per- 
sonal meanness had induced the Apostle to 
speak thus. For he does not deal with any 
such reproach here, but with matters com- 
mon to all human ministers of the word. 
All this is a following out in detail of 
the ov« éyxaroduey of ver. 1, already en- 
larged on in one of its departments,—that 
of not shrinking from openness of speech, 
~—and now to be put forth in another, viz. 


652 


x Acts ix. 15 


reff. 
y Rom. vii. 13 

” reff. Joseph. 
Antt. i. 13. 4. 
ii. 2. 1. 

= ch. vi. 4. 
vii. 5, 11. 


N 


viii. 7. xi. 6. 

a ch. i. 6 reff. 

b ch. vi. 12 (bis) 
only. Josh. 
xvii. 15. Isa. . 

xxviii. 20. xlix. 19 only. (-pta, Rom. ii. 9.) 
15 only. e = 1 Cor. iv. 12 reff. 
31. 2 Tim. iv. 10,16. Heb. xiii. 5. 
h = Matt. ii. 13 al. fr. i Rom. iy. 19 only + 


9. eykaraAipravouevor F Eus Chr Max. 


bearing up against outward and inward 
difficulties. If any polemical purpose is 
to be sought, it is the setting forth of the 
abundance of sufferings, the glorying in 
weakness (ch. xi. 23, 30), which substan- 
tiated his apostolic mission : but even such 
purpose is only in the background ; he is 
pouring out, in the fulness of his heart, 
the manifold discouragements and the far 
more exceeding encouragements of his 
office. 7.| tov Ono. ToUT., viz. ‘the 
light of the knowledge of the glory of God,’ 
ver.6. émeid}) yap ToAAG kal peydaAa ele 
rep THs dmoppntov ddins’ iva wh Tis A€yn 
Kal m@s tocattns d6&ns amoAavoyTes peé- 
vouev ev OvnT@ comati; pnoly bTt TovTO 
pev obv avTd wdAwoTa eott Td Oavpaordy, 
Kal Seiypa weyiorov 77S TOU Oeod Suvduews, 
Sti ckevos doTpaKiwoy TooalTny 7jdvyhOn 
Aaumpdétnta eveyKeiv, Kat THALKOUTOY ovu- 
Adta: @noavpdv. Chrys. p. 496. Some 
(Caly., al.) think the 60. to be the whole 
diaxovla: but it seems simpler to refer it 
to that which has immediately preceded, in 
a style like that of Paul, in which each 
successive idea so commonly evolves itself 
out of the last. The oxetos is the body, 
not the whole personality; the 6 & av- 
Opwros of ver.16; see ver.10. And in the 
troubles of the body the personality shares, 
as long as it is bound up with it here. 

The similitude and form of expression is 
illustrated by Wetst. from Artemidorus 
vi. 25, Odvarov pev yap cikdtTws eohmatve 
TH yuvaikl 7d elvac ev doTpakiyw oKever,— 
Arrian, Epict. iii. 9, radta Exw avr) ray 
dpyvpwudtrwy, dvtl tTav xpvowudtwy od 
xpuca oxe’n, darpdkivov Se Toy Adyoy, and 
Herod. iii. 96, rodrov thy pdpoy OnaavpiCer 
56 Bactred’s tpdrp Toipde. és wlBous Ke- 
populous thkas Kataxéer, mAnoas Be 7d 
tyyos mepiaipeet, ewmeav 5€ SenOH xpnud- 
Tw, KatakédnTe: TooovTOY, Boov by Exda- 
orote denrat.  trepB. THs Suv. 
not = } bmepBdddovoa Sivauis, but, the 
divauis contemplated on the side of its 
brepBoah,—the power consisting in the 
effects of the apostolic ministry (1 Cor. 
ii. 4), as well as in the upholding under 


IIPOS KOPINOIOTS B. 


ec Acts xxv. 20 reff. 


1 Chron. xxviii. 20. 


‘X cxeveow, iva 7 4% brrepBori THs Suvayews 7 TOD Oeod 
Kal pn €& quay: 84 év *mavTl *OrAuBopevor GAN ov ” oTe- 
voyw@povpevot, °amropovpevor adr ovK “4 é€amropovpevot, 
9 © Sumxopevot AXX ovK ! éyKaTadevTromevol, ® KaTaBad-~ 
Nopevot GAN ovK " atrorAdvpevot, 19 ravtote THv ‘ véxpaow 


dch.i.8 only. Ps. lxxvii-. 
f Matt. xxvii. 46!| Mk. Acts ii. 27 (from Ps. xy. 10), 
g = here (Heb. vi. 1) only. 4 Kings iii. 19. 


trials and difficulties. The passage com- 
monly referred to (even by Stanley) to 
prove the hendiadys, may serve entirely to 
disprove it: Jos. Antt. 1.13. 4, waday d¢ 
avtod Td mpd0umoy Kk. Thy brepBoArny Tijs 
Opnokelas: “ the readiness and surpassing- 
ness of his obedience.” 7 TOU Geo | 
may belong to (i.e. be seen to belong to) 
God. Tertull., Vulg., and Estius, render 
it ‘ut sublimitas sit virtutis Dei, non ex 
nobis,’ which is hardly allowable, and dis- 
turbs the sense by confusing the antithesis 
between 6 Oeds and jets. 8—10.] 
He illustrates the expression, ‘ earthen 
vessels,’ in detail, by his own experience 
and that of the other ministers of Christ. 
8.]| in every way (see reff.) pressed, 

but not (inextricably) crushed (or. ‘an- 
gustias h. 1. denotat tales, e quibus non 
detur exitus,’ Meyer, from Kypke) ;—in 
perplexity but not in despair (a literal 
statement of what the last clause stated 
Siguratively: as Stanley, ‘ bewildered, but 
not benighted’’):—persecuted but not 
deserted (eyxatadcimduevor, see reff., used 
of desertion both by God and by man. 
Hammond, Olsh., Stanley, al., would refer 
diwkdu..... to the foot-race, and render 
it ‘ pursued, but not left behind, as Herod. 
Vili. 59, of 5€ ye eykaraAeitéuevor ov oTeE- 
pavodytat,—but the sense thus would be 
quite beside the purpose, as the Apostle is 
speaking not of rivalry from those who as 
runners had the same end in view, but of 
troubles and persecutions): struck down 
(as with a dart during pursuit: so Xen. 
Cyr. i. 3. 14, Onpla.... rotedwy kai 
dkovTi(wy KataBareis. It is ordinarily 
interpreted of a fall in wrestling; but 
agonistic figures would be out of place in 
the present passage, and the attempt to 
find them has bewildered most of the 
modern Commentators), but not destroyed: 
10.| always carrying about in our 

body (i.e. ever in our apostolic work 
having our body exposed to and an example 
of: or perhaps even, as Stanley, “ bearing 
with us, wherever we go, the burden of the 
dead body.” But see below) the killing 


IV. 


ABCD 
KLPR 
bede 
ghkli 
nol7.4 


* 


8—12. 


IIPO> KOPINOIOTS B. 


655 


a? ae a , k , 7. ee | ™ j Gal. vi. 17. 
Tov Inoodiév TH Jow@pate * repidépovtes, va Kat 7 | Soi} Gavi. 


Tov ‘Inood év TO chpari yuav ™davepwO7 11 del yap 
nmeis of CavTES els OdvaTov ™ Trapacidoucba ° dia "Inooby 

padidou noody, 
vA \ is lal ? a an a n 
wa kat » 'far tov “Inood ™ davepwOn ev tH ? Ovnth 


Eph. iv. 14 
(Heb. xiii. 9, 
and Jude 12 
y.r.] only. 
Proy. x. 24, 
Eccl. vii. 8. 
2 Mace. vii. 
27 only. 


Ney wn 12 $f © 6d ? co gq. 2 a € be 
CAPKL MLW. “WSTE O VAVATOS EV NLLV * EVEPYELTAL, 7) OE Vee v. 10. 


n Matt. x. 21. Mark xiii. 12. 


reff, 
q Rom. vii. 5 reff. 


Isa. liii. 12 a. 


om. 1.19 


o yer. 5. p Rom. vi. 12 reff. 


10. rec ins kupiov bef 1st maou, with KL rel syr goth Chr Thdrt Damase Tert, Ambrst- 
ms: om ABCDFPN 17 (latt) Syr copt eth arm Origsepe Cyr, Iren-int Did-int Tert,.— 


xpiorov D!F(and their lat) Orig-int, Tert, 


ins nuwy DF vss Iren-int Orig-int, lat-ff. 


D-lat G-lat (spec) Iren-int Orig-int;.—om tov F, 


: xp. ino. D3 Tert,. 


aft Ist cwpare 
aft 2nd [rov] mo. ins xpiorov D1F, and 


TOUS cwuaow XN vulg Orig). 


pavepw0n bef ev Tw cwpmatt nuwy A vulg(not am fuld demid al) Orig, Tert;. 


11. for we, ec F(not F-lat) k Tert Ambrst. 
for Tov ino., ino. xpiotov Di(and lat) F G-lat: tou xp. C. 
12. o is written over the line by N}(appy). 


om cat C 0 3 Tert. 


for mapad.d., Sidoueba FP. 


rec ins pev bef davatos (to corre- 


spond to de below), with KL rel syr-w-ob Thl Gc Ambrst-ms: om ABCDFPR 17 latt 
Syr copt (goth) arm Chr Thdrt Damasc lat-ff. 


(the word seems only to occur besides, 
in ref. Rom., where it signifies, figura- 
tively, utter lack of strength and vital 
pewer, in a fragment of the Oneirocritica 
of Astrampsychus (Meyer), vexpods dpav, 
véxpwow eters mparyudtwy, where the sense 
is also figurative, and in its primary phy- 
sical sense in the medical works of Are- 
tzus and Galen. But here the literal sense, 
‘the being put to death, must evidently 
be kept, and the expression understood as 
1 Cor. xv. 31, and as Chrys.: of @dvaror oi 
Kabnuepivol, dC av Kal 7 avdoracis edelK- 
vuto. Hom. ix. p. 498. The rendering, 
‘the deadness of Jesus to the flesh, as 
opposed to the vitality, 7 (w#% Tod “Inood 
below,’—see Dr. Peile’s Annotations on 
the Epistles, i. 383,—is beside the present 
purpose, and altogether inconsistent with 
Gel els Odvarov mapadidducba 51a “Inoody, 
ver. 11. See Stanley’s note) of Jesus (as 
Ta TAabhuaTa TOU xpioTOd, ch. i. 5 :—not 
‘ad exemplum Christi,’ as Grot., al.), in 
order that also the life of Jesus may be 
manifested in our body: i.e. ‘that in our 
bodies, holding up against such troubles 
and preserved in such dangers, may be 
shewn forth that mighty power of God 
which is a testimony that Jesus lives and 
is exalted to be a Prince and a Saviour :’°— 
not, ‘ that our repeated deliverances might 
resemble His Resurrection, as our suffer- 
ings His Death,’ as Meyer, who argues 
that the literal meaning must be retained, 
as in the other member of the comparison, 
owing to é€vy 7G caHpatt nu. But, as De 
W. justly observes, the bodily deliverance 
is manifestly a subordinate consideration, 
and the (wn of far higher significance, 
testified indeed by the body’s preservation, 
but extending far beyond it. 11.] Ex- 


planation and confirmation of ver. 10. 
For we who live (favres asserting that to 
which death is alien and strange, an an- 
tithesis to eis @dvaroy mapad., as in the 
other clause (#) to év TH Ovnti capkt. 
No more specific meaning for (@yvres must 
be imagined, as ‘¢antis mortibus super- 
stitem,’ Bengel, Estius, al.,—or ‘as long 
as we live,’ Beza, al.,—or ‘ qui adhue vivi- 
mus, qu nondum ex vita excessimus ut 
multi jam Christianorum,’ as Grot.) are 
ever delivered to death (in dangers and 
persecutions, so ch. xi. 28, évy @avdrois 
ToAAdKis) on account of Jesus (so in Rev. 
i. 9 John was in Patmos 3:4 roy Adyov 
Tod Geov K. Sia THY pwaptuplay *Inood), 
that also the life of Jesus may be mani- 
fested in our mortal flesh (the antithesis 
is more strongly put by 9n7f capt than 
it would be by @vnT@ ocdmati, see Rom. 
viii. 11, the flesh being the very pabulum 
of decay and corruption). By this anti- 
thesis, the wonderful greatness of the di- 
vine power, 7 bdmepBoA} THs Suvduews, 
is strikingly brought out: God exhibits 
DEATH in the living, that He may exhibit 
Lire in the dying. 12.] By it is 
also brought out that which is here the 
immediate subject,—the vast and unex- 
ampled trials of the apostolic office, all 
summed up in these words: So that death 
works in us, but life in you; i.e. ‘the 
trials by which the dying of Jesus is ex- 
hibited im us, are exclusively and pecu- 
liarly OUR OWN,—whereas (and this is 
decisive for the spiritual sense of (wh) the 
life, whereof we are to be witnesses, ex- 
tends beyond ourselves, nay finds its field 
of action and energizing IN YoU.’ Kstius, 
Grot., and apparently Olsh., take évepye?- 
Tat passively, ‘is wrought’ (‘mors agitur et 


654 


r = & constr., 
Rom. viii. 15 
reff. (xi. 8 
reff.) 

s PSA. CXv, 


IIPOS KOPINOIOT® B. 


iN: 


] A ’ ig lal 13 4 be \ poet r nr nm vA 
fon ev vpir. éyovtes 8€ TO adTO * TVEdMA THS TITTEWS 
Kata To yeypaupévov *’Eniotevoa, S10 €dadn~oa, Kat 


by Is fon tol 
(xiv) «Hels TruoTevouev, S10 Kal Aadodpwev, | elooTes OTL O 


t 1 Cor. xv. 4 tes f \ 4 "i a NX, SO05 A \ os | at2 a 
cor ard t évelpas Tov [Kuptov] “Inoodv Kai nuas cuv Iynaou “ eyEpel oa, 
Isa. xxvi. 19. 1 

hkl 
017, 


13. aft Ist 8:0 ins xa: FX syrr goth arm. 

14. om xvpiov B 17. 71-3 vulg(with am fuld 
ins CDFKLPNX rel D-lat(and G-lat, but not 
(corrn, on account of the difficulty found in o vy 
verb, His Resurrn being past), with D?KLN3 rel syrr 
Damase: txt BCD!F PN! 17 latt copt 2th arm (Tert) Ambr Ambrst(not ed 


Damase-comm Thl Tert Pel Sedul Bede: 
fri) gr-lat-ff rec (for ovy) d.a 
"Inoov being joined to a future 
goth Thdrt 


rom) Pel Bede.—In § a superfluous « has been written and erased before w. 


DIF, suscitat et constituit goth. (P def.) 
exercetur ... perficitur vita.’ Est.) : but it 
is never so used in N.T. Chrys., Calv., 
al., take the verse ironically, 7a wey emiktv- 
Suva fuets brouevouey, Tay Be XpynoT@y 
Speis amoAavere,—but such a sentiment 
seems alien from the spirit of the passage. 
Meyer, as unfortunately, limits (wh to 
natural life, whereas (as above) the context 
plainly evinces spiritual life to be meant, 
not merely natural. In Rom. viii. 10, 
11, the vivifying influence of His Spirit 
who raised Jesus from the dead is spoken of 
as extending to the body also; here, the up- 
holding influence of Him who delivers and 
preserves the body, is spoken of as vivifying 
the whole man: LIFE, in both places, 
being the higher and spiritual life, includ- 
ing the lower and natural. ‘And, in our 
relative positions,—of this life, yr are the 
examples,—a church of believers, alive to 
God through Christ in your various voca- 
tions, and not called on to be Searpi(dpevor 
as WE aré, who are (not indeed excluded 
from that life,—nay it flows from us to 
you,—but are) more especially examples of 
conformity to the death of our common 
Lord :—in whom DEATH WORKS.’ 

13—18.] EncouraGEMENTs: and (1) 
FAITH, which enables us to go on preach- 
ing to you. Meyer connects this verse with 
h dt (wh ev juiv: for, he says, by means 
of morevouev 51d Kal Aadroduer, is that 
(wy év bu. evepye?ra, wrought. But, 
not to mention that thus the context is 
strangely disturbed, in which we and our 
trials form the leading subject, it would 
surely be very unnatural that @xovres 5¢ 
should apply not to the principal but to the 
subordinate clause of the foregoing verse. 
But (contrast to the foregoing state of 
trial and working of death in us) having 
the same spirit of faith (not distinctly 
the Holy Spirit,—but as in reff., not 
merely a human disposition: the indwell- 
ing Holy Spirit penetrates and character- 
izes the whole renewed man) with that 
described in the Scriptures (7d aid kara 


demid al, agst tol F-lat) arm Chr-comm 


eytpet 


rd yeyp., i.e. either as Billroth, 7d adrd 
[exely@] wep) ob yéypamrat, or as De W., 
= 7d avtd ds yeyp., ésmep being some- 
times found after 6 aitds, tcos, and the 
like, and xar& here being equivalent to it. 
I prefer the former: but at all events the 
connexion of 7d a’rd and Kara Td ‘yeyp. 
must be maintained, and we must not, with 
Meyer, connect kara 7d yeyp. - - - with 
Kal fucis mortevouev, which makes the 
Apostle say that his faith is according to 
the words of the citation, and thus con- 
fuses the whole process of thought), I be- 
lieved, wherefore I spoke (the connexion 
of the words in the Psalm is not clear, nor 
the precise meaning of »3, rendered by the 
LXX 8:6. See Pool’s Synopsis in loc. for 
the various renderings), we too believe, 
wherefore we also speak (continue our 
preaching of the gospel, notwithstanding 
such vast hindrances within and without): 
14.] knowing (fixes, and expands 

in detail the indefinite miorevouer, and thus 
gives the ground of Aadotpev,—not as 
commonly understood, the matter of which 
we speak) that He who raised up (from 
the dead) the Lord Jesus, will raise up us 
also (from the dead hereafter, see 1 Cor. 
vi. 13, 14:—not in a figurative resurrec- 
tion from danger, as Beza, who afterwards 
changed his opinion, al., and lately Meyer, 
whose whole interpretation of this passage 
is singularly forced, and his defence of it 
unfair, see below) with Jesus (abv *Incov 
is not necessarily figurative, as Meyer; even 
in the passages where a figurative sense is 
the prevailing one, it is only as built upon 
the fact of a literal ‘raising with Christ,’ to 
be accomplished at the great day: see Eph. 
ii. 6; Col. iii. 1, 8; 1 Thess. v. 10) and 
present us with you (i.e. as in Jude 
24, TG Svvauevw .. . oTHTa KaTevemiov 
Tis ddkns avToD aGudmous ev ayadrArdoe 
...,and in reff., at the day of His coming). 
Meyer’s objection to the meaning 
above given,—that the Apostle could not 
thus speak of the resurrection, because he 





138—16. 


Kal “tapactnoe: ody viv. 


IIPOS KOPINOIOTS B. 


655 


ST Tee 


15 \ \ , Py hot. la) (7 u 
Ta yap TTAVTG OL VMAS, WA Eph. ¥. 27. 
\ a 
n ‘ xapis ¥ wAEovacaca bia “ THY © 


Col. i. 22, 28. 


TAELOVOY THY X EVYapEe- ¥ Rom. v. 30 
eff.) 


(reff.). 
Vf , a a \ ! 7 . 
otiay Ymepiacevon eis tHv Sdfav Tov Geov. 1° dtd odK ™}.G" 


x Acts xxiy. 3 


na a ld 
4 éyKaxoumev, GAN *et *Kxal 6 -&€w nuav ” avOpwmTros © ref 


°SuapOeiperar, aAN 16 %écw[Oev] nudy ° avaxawodrat 


Rom. y. 15 al. z ver. 1 


y transit., ch. 
ix. 8. Eph. i. 
8. 1 Thess. iii. 
12 only f.intr., 


a ver. 3. b here only. see Rom. vii. 22 reff. 


c Luke xii. 33. 1 Tim. vi. 5. Rev. viii. 9. xi. 18 only. 2 Kings i. 14. Dan. vii. 14 Theod. d see 


1 Cor. y. 12 reff. [-Oev, = Luke xi. 39, 40 only.} 


cii. 5.) 


e Col. iii. 10 only+. (-viGeuv, Heb. vi. 6. Ps. 


15. B! wrote rap (whence Mai gives an omn of ra) but corrd perhaps eadem manu. 


16. rec exxarouuey (see ver 1), with CD3KLP rel: txt BDFN e m. 


73. 137 Bas Thdrt,(txt,). 
Thi. 


expected (1 Cor. xv. 51,52; i.8; ch.i.18, 
14) to be alive at the day of Christ, is best 
refuted by this very passage, ch. v. 1 ff., 
where his admission of at least the possi- 
bility of his death is distinctly set forth. 
The fact is that the éyepe? here, having 
respect rather to the contrast of the future 
glory with the present suffering, does not 
necessarily imply one or other side of the 
alternative of being quick or dead at the 
Lord’s coming, but embraces all, quick and 
dead, in one blessed resurrection-state. 

This confidence, of being presented at that 
day ovv diy, is only analogous to his ex- 
pressions elsewhere ; see ch.i. 14; 1 Thess. 
li. 19, 20; iii. 18. 15. | Explanation of 
ovy vptv as a ground of his trust: with re- 
ference also to 7 5¢ (wh ev vpiv, ver.12; viz. 
that all, both the sufferings and victory of 
the ministers, are for the church: see the 
parallel expression, ch. i. 6, 7. For all 
things (of which we have been speaking; 
or perhaps hyperbolically, atL THINGS, 
the whole working and arrangements of 
God, as in 1 Cor. iil. 22, ere €veot Gra elre 
MéAAOvTa, mavTa buoy) are on your be- 
half, that Grace, having abounded by 
means of the greater number (who have 
received it), may multiply the thanks- 
giving (which shall accrue), to the glory 
of God. Such (1) is the rendering of 
Meyer, and, in the main, of Chrys., Erasm., 
al., and recently, Riickert and Olshausen. 
Three other ways are possible; (2) ‘ that 
Grace, having abounded, may, on account 
of the thanksgiving of the greater number, 
be multiplied (‘rAcovaw habet vim posi- 
tivi: mepiooedw, comparativi,’ Bengel) to 
the glory of God. So Luther, Beza, Es- 
tius, Grot, Bengel, al. :—(3) ‘ that Grace, 
having abounded, may, by means of the 
greater number, multiply the thanksgiving 
to the glory of God.’ So Emmerling and 
De Wette :—(4) ‘ that Grace having mul- 


efwOey D!-r 


for diapberp., pOciperar KL a? d 461-7. 114 Thdrt,(txt,) 
ecw (for uniformity ?) BCD! FPR d m 47 Orig, Ath Chr Thdrt, Damase : 
ecwOev D?KL rel Thdrt, Thl Gc. (17 def.) 
G-lat) Syr copt goth Orig Ath Chr Thdrt, Thl Gc Tert, Lucif Ambrst : 
uniformity ?) BCDEFX syr xth arm Thdrt,. 


rec om nuwy, with KL rel latt(not 


ins (for 


tiplied (see 1 Thess. iii. 12, for the transitive 
sense) by means of the greater number the 
thanksgiving, may abound to the glory of 
God. This last has not been suggested 
by any Commentator that I am aware of, 
but is admissible. I prefer (1), as best 
agreeing with the position of the words, 
and with the emphases. If (2) had been 
intended, I should have expected ta 
TAcovaraca 7) Xapis,—mAcovdcaca in its 
present position standing awkwardly alone. 
The same remark applies to (3), and 
this besides, that in that ease I should 
expect mAcidvwy, and not tay mA., in 
which the art. rather regards the matter 
of fact, the many who have received 
the grace, or who give thanks, than the 
intention, to multiply the thanksgiving 
by the (possible) greater number of per- 
sons. If (4) had been intended, I should 
have looked for va 7 xdpis thy evxapi- 
otlav mwAcov. 51a TOY TAEL., TEpLOo. K.T.A- 
By adopting (1), we keep the words and 
emphases just where they stand: fa 7 
xdpis, mAcovdoaca bid THY TAELdvwY (not 
d.a 7. WA. TAcov., Which would give an un- 
due prominence to 6:4, r@v mAeidv., whereas 
those words only particularize A covdoasa), 
Thy evX. Teptacevon, cis THY Sétay T. Beov. 
As to the sense, (see the very similar senti- 
ment, ch.i. 11,) thanksgiving is the highest 
and noblest offering of the Church to God’s 
glory (@voia aivécews Sotdcoe: me, Ps. xlix. 
23, LXX): that this may be rendered, in 
the best sense, as the result of the working 
of grace which has become abundant by 
means of the many recipients, is the great 
end of the Christian ministry. 

16—18.| Second ground of encouragement 
—HOPE. 16.] Wherefore (on account 
of the hope implied in the faith spoken of 
ver. 14, which he is about to expand) we 
do not shrink (as in ver.1: but now, owing 
to despair), but (on the contrary) though 


656 
f here only. 


h here only. 
Ps. lxix. 3. 
Tobit iy. 14 


IIPOS KOPINOIOTS B. 


IV. 17, 18. 


, € lal \ , \ A , 
only. on ~=Pajyu@v Ta * BAeTOMEva AANA Ta p12) * BrETTOMEVA’ TA Yap 


only. Exod. 
xvii. 26. 
(-dpia, ch. i. 
iP 
n = Rom. ii.7 reff. 
ii. 4. (Rom. xvi. 17 reff.) 


k here only. 
o = Rom. iv. 15 reff. 


1 Rom. vii. 13 reff. 


r = Rom. viii. 24. 


t BNerropeva *mposkaipa, Ta Sé€ pt) * BAeTrOpmEeva aiwvia. 


m = here only, (Acts xy. 28 reff.) 
p constr., see Acts xxi. 17 reff. = Phil. 
s Matt. xiii. 21|| Mk. Heb. xi. 25 Sieg 


17. ins rposkapoy ka bef eAappov D!F latt (Syr) goth arm Orig-int, lat-ff. (Thdrt says: 


31a TOD mapautixa eeike TH Bpaxd Te kal mpdskaipov. So also Thi.) 
om eis vrepBoAny C!KX}(ins X-corr!) 38. 80 Bas. 
18. for oxo. nuwy, cxowovytes D'F D-lat G-lat Orig, Ambrst-ed. 


(appy: see Tischdf’s Cod Ephr) Chr. 
koupa ins ect F, so also latt Orig-int,. 


even (not ‘ even if, putting a case ; i Kat 
with ind. asserts the fact, as in ei kal omev- 
Souq, Phil. ii. 17) our outward man is 
wasted away (i.e. our body, see Rom. vii. 
22, is, by this continued véxpwors and évép- 
yea Tod Oavdrou, being worn out :—he is 
not as yet speaking of dissolution by death, 
but only of gradual approximation to it), 
yet (ZAAd in the apodosis after a hypothe- 
tic clause, introduces a strong and marked 
contrast :—so Hom. Il. a. 81,—etrep yap 
Te xbdov ye Kal avTiuap Katameyy, AAG 
re kal peTémoabev exer Kérov, dppa TEAET- 
on: see other examples in Hartung, Parti- 
kellehre, ii. 40) our inner (man) is renewed 
(contrast, subordinately to diapbelpera, 
but mainly to éyxaxovmev) day by day 
(jy. Kar Hp., SO Hebr. oy) OY, Esth. iil. 4; 
an expression not found [Meyer] even in 
the LXX): i.e. ‘our spiritual life, the life 
which testifies the life of Jesus, even in our 
mortal bodies (ver. 11), is continually fed 
with fresh accessions of grace: see next 
verse. So Chrys.,—m@s avaxawodta; TH 
mloret, TH eCAidL, TH mpoOuula, To omy 
Se? (al. TG AouTby) KaTaToAMGy THY dewav. 
dow yap by pupla mdoxn Td TGA, TOCOUTH 
xpnorotépas exer Tas eAmldas 7 puxh, kal 
Aaumporépa yivetat, Kabdmep xpucloy mu- 
povmevoy emimd€ov. p. 500. lrg a4] 
Method of this renewal. For the pre- 
sent light (burden) of our affliction (the 
adject. use of mapaurika is common with 
Thucyd., e.g. li. 64, ) mwapautixa Aam- 
apérns, Kal és T) Ereira ddta: viii. 82, 
thy te mapavtixa eAmlda: vii. 71, ev 7@ 
mapavtixa, where Schol. év T@ évert@rt 
rére xpévy;—and with his imitator 
Demosthenes, e.g. p. 72. 16, 7 map- 
avtlix’ Hdovh) K. parrdyvn peioy ioxver 
tov 100 tatepoy cuvoicew meAdovTos ; 
—see also pp. 34. 24; 215. 10: and more 
examples in Wetst. éXadpov as a sub- 
stantive, contrasted with Bapos; see reff.), 
works out for us (‘e¢/ficit,’ ‘is the means 
of bringing about’) in a surpassing and 
still more surpassing manner (ka. om. 


om nuwy BC? 


aft mpos- 


eis tmep. must belong to the verb, as 
Meyer and De W.; for otherwise it can 
only qualify aidviov, the idea of which for- 
bids such qualification, not Bdpos, which 
is separated from it by the adjective :— 
i.e. so as to exceed beyond all measure the 
tribulation) an eternal weight of glory 
(aidviov Bdapos opposed to mapautixa 
crappy). 18.| Subjective condition 
uniler which this working out takes place. 
While we regard not (‘propose not as 
our aim,’ ‘spend not our care about,’— 
reff.) the things which are seen (ref. = 
va emtyera, Phil. iii. 19. Chrys. strikingly 
says, ubi sup., Ta BAeréueva mavra, Key 
KéAacls T, Kav avdmavois’ Sst unre exeidev 
xavvovoba, unte evtevOev BidCecOa), but 
the things which are not seen (‘aliud 
significat adépata, invisibilia, nam multa 
que non cernuntur, erunt visibilia, con- 
fecto itinere fidei. Bengel. p72 BA., 
not ov, perhaps because wq stands with 
participles in clauses of a subjective cha- 
racter, SO oThKETE . . . . My TWTUpdmevor ev 
pnder). .«, Phil. 1.927; 2829) Winer 
edn. 6, § 55. 5. g. B,—or rather perhaps, 
as ib. a, as hypothetic [see also Moulton’s 
note, p. 606. 1]: 7a od BAérou. would 
be the things which as a matter of fact 
at any given time we do not see, cf. oi 
ovk HAenuevor, 1 Pet. ii. 10: 7a pH BA., 
generally and hypothetically, the things 
not seen. So 6 uh dv per’ euod, Matt. xii. 
30, in a case indefinite and hypothetical. 
This amounts to much the same as when 
in the ordinary account of such clauses, we 
say that uA belongs to the subject, od to 
the predicate,—but is a better explanation, 
inasmuch as that account gives only the 
logical fact,—this, the logical reason of the 
usage): for the things which are seen 
are temporary (not ‘ temporal,’ ‘ belonging 
to time,’ but ‘fleeting,’ ‘only for a time,’ 
see reff. ;—i.e. till the day of Christ): but 
the things which are not seen are eternal. 
Chrys. again: K&v Baoirela, kay Kédaots 
fi wadw &ste kal exeiev poBjoa, Kat 


fyuepa ‘Kat fyuépa. 17 £70 yap » rapavtixa ' éXadpov THs BCDPI 

. a é a 

peut Cr, OXAbews nov | cal” * darepBornv * eis * brepBodnv ai@vov cdef 
/ tal 

m Bapos " d0&ns °Katepyaterat Pnuiv, '8 ur) I oKoTrovyTMV 017.4) 


. 


mW. 1, 2. 


IITIPOS KOPINOIOTS B. 


657 


t ” \ t 2% \ Co bee / e n w bl lal oe 
V.1 oldapev yap ‘oTt €av 7 “ ETriyelos NMMWY “ OLKLA TOV t Rom. vii. 14 


a re» ae 4 
*oxnvous ¥ katadvOn, * oixodouny €x Beod Eyomuev “ otKiav 
“ayelpoTrointov aimyioy €v Tos ovpavots. 


(-vwma, Acts vii. 46. -vovv, John i. 14.) 
z = 1 Cor. iii. 9 reff. 


only +t. Wisd. ix. 15 only. 
vi. 14. Ezra v. 12. 


u 1 Cor. xv. 40 
reff. 

w = Job iv, 19, 
(xxx. 23.) 

x here bis 

y = Matt. xxvi. 61 ||. 

a Mark xiv. 58. Col. ii. 11 only +. 


9 \ x > 
~ Kal yap €V 
Acts 


Cap. V.1. ins ot: bef’ orxodounv DF latt goth Chr, Cypr Ambrst Pel Sedul (not 


fri Tert Aug al). 


exeioe (al. evredOev) mporpevacGar. ib. 
Seneca, Ep. 59 (Wetst.), has a very similar 
sentiment: ‘ista imaginaria sunt, et ad 
tempus aliquam faciem ferunt. Nihil 
horum stabile nec solidum est .. . Mit- 
tamus animum ad ea, que eterna sunt.’ 
Cuap. V.1—10.] Further specification 
of the hope before spoken of, as consisting 
in anticipation of an eternity of glory after 
this life, in the resurrection-body : which 
leads him evermore to strive to be found 
well pleasing to the Lord at His coming: 
seeing that all shall then receive the things 
done in the body. 1.] For (gives the 
reason of ch. iv. 17,—principally of the 
emphatic words of that verse, xa@’ uzep- 
Bodhy cis brepB.,—shewing how it is that 
so wonderful a process takes place) we 
know (as in ch. iv. 14,—are convinced, as 
a sure matter of hope) that if (‘supposing ;’ 
—not = Kay, ‘ etiamsi,’ but indefinite and 
doubtful : if this delivering to death con- 
tinually should end in veritable death. The 
case is hypothetical, because many will 
be glorified without the kardAvois taking 
place: see 1 Cor. xv. 51, 53) our earthly 
tabernacle-dwelling (rod oxhvous is gen. 
of apposition. The similitude is not de- 
rived from the wandering of the Israelites 
in the wilderness, nor from the tabernacle, 
but is a common one with Greek writers, 
see examples in Wetstein. ‘‘The whole 
passage is expressed through the double 
figure of a house or tent, and a garment. 
The explanation of this abrupt transition 
from one to the other may be found in the 
image which, both from his occupation 
and his birthplace, would naturally occur 
to the Apostle,—the tent of Cilician hair- 
cloth, which might almost equally suggest 
the idea of a habitation and of a vesture.” 
Stanley. Chrys. observes: efmay oixlay 
oKhvous, kal TO evdidAvTOY Kal mpdskalpoy 
deltas evredOev, avTeOnke THY aiwviav’ Td 
yap THs oKnvns ovoua Td mpdskatpoy 
moAAd«is Selkvvor. Hom. x. p. 506) were 
dissolved (‘mite verbum,’ Bengel: i.e. 
‘taken down,’ ‘done away with: but 
‘ dissolved, as well as the vulg. ‘dis- 
solvatur, is right), we have in the 
heavens (as Meyer rightly remarks, the 
present is used of the time at which the 
dissolution shall have taken place. But 
Vou. II. 


ins ovr bef axetporointov F (non manufactam). 


even then the dead have it not in actual. 
possession, but only prepared by God for 
them against the appearing of the Lord: 
and therefore they are said to have it im the 
heavens. Chrys., &ec., Beza, Grot., al., 
join év rots ovp. with oikiay, which can 
hardly be: it would be either éemroupdviov 
or é& ovpavov. The E. V. according to 
the present punctuation, yields no sense: 
‘not made with hands, eternal in the 
heavens’) a building (no longer a crjvos) 
from God (‘in an especial manner prepared 
by God,’ ‘pure from God’s hands : not as 
contrasted with our earthly body, which, 
see 1 Cor. xii. 18, 24, is also from God), a 
dwelling not made with hands (here 
again, not as contrasted with the fleshly 
body, for that too is a&xetporoinros, but 
with other oixiat, which are xeporoinro:. 
Remember again the Apostle’s occupation 
of a tent-maker), eternal. A difficulty 
has been raised by some Commentators 
respecting the intermediate disembodied 
state,—how the Apostle here regards it, 
or whether he regards, it at all. Butnone 
need be raised. The oixta which in this 
verse is said, at the time of dissolution, 
to be év Tots odpavots, is, when we put 
it on, in the next verse, our oiknt/pioyv 
To @& ovpavod. Thus the intermediate 
state, though lightly passed over, as not 
belonging to the subject, is evidently in the 
mind of St. Paul. Some Commentators, 
Photius, Anselm, Thomas Aq. (in Estius), 
Wolf, Rosenm., al., understand these words 
themselves (oir. axetp. aidy. év Tt. odp.) of 
the interinediate state of absence from the 
body ; Usteri and Flatt, of an immediate 
glorified body in heaven, to be united with 
the body of the resurrection. Calvin hesi- 
tates: “ Incertum est, an significet statum 
beat immortalitatis, qui post mortem fide- 
les manet, an vero corpus incorruptibile et 
gloriosum, quale post resurrectionem erit. 
In utrovis sensu nihil est incommodi: 
quanquam malo ita accipere, ut initium 
hujus edificii sit beatus anime status post 
mortem : consummatio autem sit gloria 
ultime resurrectionis.” Butif this be so, 
(1) the parallel will not hold, between the 
oixkta in one case, and the oixia in the 
other,—and (2) the language of ver. 2 is 
against it, see below. a For also 
U 


658 IPOS KOPINOIOT®S B. ¥. 


ne / b ‘ \ c ? / id lal ‘ , , “ 
b Rom. viii. 23 TOUT@ aotevacoper, TO “OLKNTNPLOVY NMLOY TO e& OUpaVOU BCDF 


Roe a , LPR a 
edudesonly. d eareyOSucacbar © érriToOobytes: ° *f ef frye Kal ® évdvodpevol c det 


(Jer. xxxil. 


(xxv.1 30 : ; , ; hkimn 
Ald.) d here bis only +. (-d079s, John xxi..7.). e w. inf., Rom. i. 11 reff. fGal. 917.47 
iii. 4. E h. iii. 2. iv. 21. Col. i. 23 only. e€tmep, Rom. viii. 9 reff. g 1 Cor. xv. 53, 54 reff. 


3. * elzrep 
evdutdmevol. 


BDF 17 mss-in-Chr(tiés 5€ gaoww, 6 kal udAvora eyxpitéov, Eltrep rab 
So also Gic) Max-conf : et yap 52: st tamen latt Aug Pel: si quidem Tert 
Ambrst: et ye CKLPR rel Clem Did Mac, Chr Thdrt Damase Th] Ge. 


ekduca- 


pevot (see notes) 1)! spee Chr(explaining it k&v aro8déucda 7d cGua) Tert Ambr Paulin 
‘Primas Quest, exAvoauevor expoliati F. (vestiti vulg with F-lat, expol. is written 


over the greek in F.) yupvov D!. 
(our knowledge, that we possess such a 
building of God, even in case of our body 
being dissolved, is testified by the earnest 
desire which we have, to put on that new 
body without such dissolution taking place. 
See the similar argument in Rom. vii. 18, 
19) in this (viz. oxjve., as Beza, Meyer, 
Olsh., al. The rendering év rodr@, ‘ where- 
fore,’ —some referring it tothe foregoing, — 
‘propter hoe quod dictum est,’ Est., some 
to the following,—is inconsistent with 
dvres ev TS oKhver, which is parallel with 
it, ver. 4. The stress is not necessarily 
on év, ‘in this,’ as contrasted with ‘out 
of this,’ as Meyer, who joins nal with éy 
tovtw; but see above) we groan (see 
Rom. viii. 23), longing (i.e. because we 
desire, the reason of otevaouev.  émt- 
mo9., not ardently desire: the prep. does 
not intensify, but denotes the direction of 
the wish, as dvéuov mw) mpose@vtos, Acts 
xxvii. 7) to put on over this (‘superin- 
duere ? viz. by being alive at the day of 
Christ, and not dissolved as in ver. 1 :—see 
on ver. 4 below. The similitude is 
slightly changed: the house is now to be 
put on, as an outer garment, over the 
fleshly body) our dwelling-place (‘oixla 
est quiddam magis absolutum,—oixnrhpioy, 
domicilium, respicit ixcolam ? Bengel. So 
Eur. Orest. 1113,—&s@ “EAAGs abT7 opin- 
poy oixnthpwov) from heaven (i.e. = é« 
Geo ver. 1, but treated now as if brought 
with the Lord at His coming, and put 
upon us who are alive and remain then. 
“Itaque,’ says Bengel, ‘hoe domicilium 
non est celum ipsum’): 3. | seeing 
that (et ye [see var. readd.] is used ‘de re, 
que jure sumta creditur : etep, when ‘in 
incerto relinquitur, utrum jure an injuria 
sumatur.’ Herm. ad Viger., p. 834. So 
Xen. Mem. ii. 1. 17, GAAa yap, & &., of eis 
Thy BaowWikhy Téexvnv matdevduevor, Iv 
Soxets wor od voulCew evdaimoviay elva, rb 
Siapépovar TaY ef avdyKns KakoTwabotyTwr, 
et ye mewhoovor x. dupjoovar, K.7.A.,— 
‘if they are to hunger and thirst, &e.’ 
And for etaep, Alsch. Ag. 29 f. efrep “Alou 
médts Eddwkev, @S 6 ppuKTds ayyéAAwy 
apémret,—if, that is, the city, &c.’) we shall 


really (xal, ‘in very truth :? so Soph. An- 
tig. 766, &upw yap aita kal Katakreiva 
voets ; ‘dost thou intend verily to kill 
them both?’ and Aisch. Sept. Theb. 810, 
exci. KHAOoV ; * have they really come to 
that ?? See more examples in Hartung, 
Partikellehre, i. 132) be found (shall prove 
to be} clothed (‘having put on clothing,’ 
viz. a body), not naked (without a body 
—“évdva., ov yuuy., aS yada, ov Bp@ua, 
1 Cor. iii. 2 and often, cf. ver. 7.” Meyer 
See Stanley’s note). The verse asserts 
strongly, with a view to substantiate and 
explain ver. 2, the truth of the resurrec- 
tion or glorified body ; and, with Meyer, I 
see in it a reference to the deniers of the 
resurrection, whom the Apostle combated 
in 1 Cor. xv.: its sense being this: “ For 
I do assert again, that we shall in that 
day prove to be clothed with a body, and 
not disembodied spirits.” Several other 
renderings have been given :—(1) ‘ Si nos 
iste dies deprehendet cum corpore, non 
exutos a@ corpore,—si erimus inter mutan- 
dos, non inter mortuos,’ Grot.: Estius, 
Bengel, Conyb., al. To this there are 
three objections,—that eye should be etarep 
(the force of this objection is however 
much weakened by the amount of autho- 
rity which can be adduced for e%re¢),—that 
kal is not rendered at all,—and that évdv- 
oduevor, the aor. mid., should be évdedu- 
Hévoi, the perf. pass. (2) The same objec- 
tions apply to Billroth’s rendering, ‘ Z/' we, 
having been once clothed (with the earthly 
body), shall not be found naked’ (without 
the body). (3) De Wette renders: ‘seeing 
that when we are also (really) clothed, we 
shall not be found naked :’ i. e. ‘setting 
down for certain as we do, that that hea- 
venly dwelling will also be a body? To 
this Meyer rightly objects, that it is open to 
the difficulty of making &dvers and yuurd- 
Ts, and that in the very sense in which 
they are opposites, to co-exist ;—no cloth- 
ing but that of a body is thought of here, 
or else 0 g@patos yuuvol must have been 
expressed, (4) This latter objection ap- 
plies to the rendering of Chrys., Theodoret, 
Theophyl., CZcum., al., who take évdued- 


3—5. 


ov yupvoi ‘etpeOnodpucba. 


ig \ a fol 
uo THs Cwijs. 


Matt. xix. 9. Acts iii. 16. 

m = 1 Cor, xv. 54 (reff.), from [sa. xxv. 8. 
here only. p Acts xxiv. 15 reff. 
18, 20 only. 


IIPO> KOPINOIOTS B. 


4 \ \ e A > n 
Kat yap ol ovTeS EV TM” 
. : 
*oxnver” crevatopuev ) Bapovpevor, * ép’ @ od OéXopev ! éx- 
, ? lol \ 
dvcacbat, adn’ 4 érevdvcacOat, iva ™ KataTroO7 TO ™ Ovntov 
e lal \ 
5 6 5€ °KaTEepyacdpevos Nuas eis ? adTo 
p an 6 / € } \ e a \ q pe a lal rh 
TovTo Oeds, 6 Sods nuiv Tov 1appaBava Tov mvevpaTos. 


659 


so Plato, 

Cratyl. p. 

277 ¢,N 

Wuxn youn 

TOV Twy.a- 

TOS. see 

1 Cor. xv. 37 

i = 1,Cor. iv. 2 

reff. 

j ch. i. 8 reff. 

k Rom. v.12.see 

1 Matt. xxvii. 28, 31 || Mk. Luke x. 30 only. Gen. xxxvii. 23 
n Rom. vi, 12 reff. o Rom. ii. 9 reff. constr. 

qch.i.22. Eph. i. 14 only. Gen. xxxvii. 17 


4. aft oxnve: ins tour» DF d vss Chr Thdrt, Thl Orig-int, Tert, Ambrst: om 


BCKLN® rel am arm Orig, Eus Thdrtni. Damase ec Tert,. 


Orig-ms, Thl. 
adda &. 


Bapvvoueva: DIF 


Steph (for ep w) eresdy, with rel: txt BCDFKL P(o) & ¢ Eus;. 
aft @vnroy ins TovTo F(and G-lat spec) copt goth Tert. 


5. karepyatouevos DF latt(exe fuld) syrr Iren-int Ambrst. (katapyac. C.) 


ins 6 bef deos XN! Origy. 


rec ins kat bef dous (ef ch i. 22), with D2 3K LN3 rel syr 


goth Iren-gr Chr Thdrt Damasc(«a: d.d0uvs, omg 0) Ambrst: txt BCD! FPN? latt Syr 


copt eth arm Orig, Iren-int Aug Pel Sedul Bede. 


Mevot cana upOaprov AaBdyTes, and 
yumvol to mean yuuvol dd6éys. Similarly 
Anselm explains yuuvol, ‘nudi Christo ;’ 
Pelagius, Hunnius, and Baldwin, ‘vacui 
fide? Erasm. Paraphr. ‘si tamen boc 
exuti corpore non omnino nudi reperiamur, 
sed ex bon vite fiducia spe immortalitatis 
amicti:’ in part too Calvin,—restricting it 
however to the faithful only,—‘if at least 
we, having put on Christ in this life, shall 
not be found naked then.’ Olshausen too 
takes od yuuvo! as an expansion of évdvod- 
pevot, ‘provided that we shall be found 
clothed with the robe of righteousness, not 
denuded of it.’ Of all these we may say, 
that if the Apostle had meant by yuuvot 
to hint at any other kind of yupurydrns 
than that which the similitude obviously 
implies, he would have certainly indicated 
it. (5) The rendering of ef ‘ wtinam,’ ‘ uti- 
nam etiam induti, non nudi reperiamur !’ 
as Knatchbull and Homberg, need hardly 
be refuted. (6) Another class of render- 
ings arise from the reading é«dvcduevor in a 
few cursives, which in connexion with evep 
was evidently adopted in consequence of 
the views of expositors. It stood as a 
conditional sentence,—‘ provided, that is, 
that’....,and in the idea that it referred 
to the time after putting off the mortal 
body, év was altered to é«. For much 
of the reference to opinions in this note I 
am indebted to Meyer and De Wette. 
4.| Confirmation and explanation of ver. 
2. For also (a reason, why we émuoGov- 
pev emevdtcac0a ....asin ver. 2) we who 
are in the tabernacle (before spoken of, 
i.e. of the body), groan, being burdened 
(not by troubles and sufferings, nor by 
the body itself, which would be directly 
opposite to the sense: but for the reason 
which follows), because (ep @ as in ref. 
Rom.) we are not willing to divest our- 
U 


apaBwva DX m o 47. (P ?) 


selves (of it), but to put on (that other) 
over it, that our mortal part may (not, 
die, but) be swallowed up by life (ab- 
sorbed in and transmuted by that glorious 
principle of life which our new clothing 
shall superinduce upon us). The feeling 
expressed in these verses was one most 
natural to those who, as the Apostles, re- 
garded the coming of the Lord as near, 
and conceived the possibility of their living 
to behold it. It was no terror of death as 
to its consequences—but a natural reluct- 
ance to undergo the mere act of death as 
such, when it was within possibility that 
this mortal body might be superseded by 
the immortal one, without it. 5. ] 
This great end, the katamoOjva Td Ovn- 
Tov Urd Tis (wis, is justified as the ob- 
ject of the Apostle’s fervent wish, seeing 
that it is for this very end, that this may 
ultimately be accomplished, that God has 
wrought us (see below) and given us the 
pledge of the Spirit ;—But (and this my 
wish has reason: for) He who wrought 
us out (prepared us, by redemption, jus- 
tification, sanctification, which are the 
qualifications for glory) unto this very 
purpose (viz. that last mentioned—rd 
Kkatamobjva To OvnToy judy bmd T. Cwijs, 
—not 7d érevdtoac@a1, a mere accident of 
that glorious absorption: see below) is 
God, who gave unto us (a sign that our 
preparation is of Him: ‘ quippe qui dede- 
Tile eelte ) the earnest (reff. and note) of 
(gen. of apposition) the (Holy) Spirit. 
The Apostle in this verse, is no longer 
treating exclusively of his own wish for 
the more summary swallowing up of the 
mortal by the glorified, but is shewing that 
the end itself, which he individually, or in 
common with others then living, wishes 
accomplished in this particular form of 
erevdvoac0at, is, under whatever form 
U 2 


[eal T 

660 IPOS) KOPINOIOTS B. Vy 

(PP here 6 T AappodvTES OV TAVTOTE, Kal ElooTEs OTL * EvONMODYTES BCDFK 
a. " ogh a rn ‘ a \ 
Heb. a s téyt@' c@pate ® exdnpoduev a76 Tod Kupiou: 7“ dva TLaTEWS cdetg 
only. P.H. = fal \ 
Prov 71 gap Y mepimatobpev, ov “dua ™ eldovs: 8° Oappodpev 8€ 017.47 
ae a n a 5) rn , \ 
Alpe Kat * evdoKodpuev PaANoV * ExOnpNoal €K TOV TwWpAaTOS Kal 


part. constr., 
ch. vii. 5. 
2 Pet. i. 17. 
Lev. iv. 5. 
Winer, edn. 6, 3 45. 6. b. 
u Rom. ii. 27 reff. 
y. 22 only. Exod. xxiv. 17. 


v Rom. vi. 4. 


6. for evd., emdnuovytes D'F. 
ur F. 
7. ins cat bef ov F vulg. 


8. Gappouvtes (see ver 6) N17 Syr Orig Tert Ambrst. 


[aut autem] G) 17: om b! d o 67? Orig. 
xup., Geov D' 17 am arm Clem Ambrst. 


brought about, that for which all the pre- 
paration, by grace, of Christians, is carried 
on, and to which the earnest of the Spirit 
points forward. Meyer would limit this 
verse entirely to the wish expressed in the 
last: but he is certainly wrong: for it 
forms a note of transition to @appovyTes otv 
mdvrote in the next: see below. 

6—8.] He returns to the confidence ex- 
pressed in ver. 1; that however this may 
be, whether this wish is to be fulfilled or 
not, he is prepared to accept the alterna- 
tive of being denuded of the body, seeing 
that it will bring with it a translation to 
the presence of the Lord. Being con- 
fident then (because it is God’s express 
purpose to bring us to glory, as in last 
verse) always (either under all trials: or, 
always, whether this hope of érevdvoacba, 
or the fear of the other alternative, be be- 
Sore us,—which latter I prefer), and know- 
ing (not as the ground of our confidence, 
as Calv., al., nor as an exception to it, 
‘though we know, as Est., Olsh., al.,— 
but correlative with it, and the ground 
of the eSoxotpev below) that while at 
home in the body, we are absent from 
the Lord (the similitude of the body as our 
oixta being still kept up: see similar senti- 
ments, respecting our being wanderers and 
strangers from our heavenly home while 
dwelling in the body, Phil. iii. 20; Heb. 
xi. 13; xiii. 14),—for (proof of our éxdnufa 
amd 7. kup.) we walk (the usual figurative 
sense,—‘go on our Christian course,’ 
not literal, as of pilgrims) by means of 
(not ‘in a state of,’ nor ‘through,’ as the 
element through which our life moves, 
Meyer; who is thereby necessitated to in- 
terpret the two prepositions differently, see 
below) faith, not by means of appearance 
(elds cannot possibly be subjective, as ren- 
dered in E. V. and by many Commenta- 
tors; see reff.—i.e. ‘faith, not the actual 





c na \ 4 
Sévonunoat ™mpos Tov KupLov. 


s here (each 3ce) only +. 
Acts xxi. 21 reff. 
x = Rom. xy. 26 reff. 


for exd., amodnuovpey DF Chr,. 
for kup., Geov DF old-lat copt (not Tert Lucif &c). 


9 80 Kal ¥ hiroTmovpeba, 


see ch. viii. 19. tch. xii. 2,3. Heb. xiii. 3, 
w Luke iii. 22. ix. 29. John vy. 37. 1 Thess. 


y Rom. xv. 20. 1 Thess. iv. 11 only +. 


for azo, 


for 5¢, ovy F(ouy be ergo 
for ex, aro m: om WN! a?, for 


appearance of heavenly things themselves, 
is the means whereby we hold on our 
way,’ a sure sign that we are absent from 
those heavenly things),— notwithstanding 
(I say) (he resumes the @afgfodvres, which. 
was apparently at first intended to belong 
to evdoxoduev,—by the indicative, insert- 
ing the 5€ because the last clause seemed 
something like a dash to that confidence) 
we are confident, and are well pleased 
rather to migrate out of the body and 
come to our home with the Lord: i.e. 
‘even if (as in ver. 1) a dissolution of the 
body be imminent,—even that, though not 
according to our wish, does not destroy 
our confidence: for so sensible are we that 
dwelling in the body is a state of banish- 
ment from the Lord, that we prefer to it 
even the alternative of dissolution, bring- 
ing us, as it will, into His presence.’ 

Meyer regards éxdnu. and évdnu. as equiva- 
lent to the putting off of the mortal (but 
how?) and putting on the immortal body at 
the coming of the Lord :— but surely by this 
the whole sense is destroyed. The Apostle, 
it seems to me, carefully chooses the words, 
new to the context, éxdnuezty and évdnuety, 
to avoid such an inference, and to express, 
as he does in Phil. i. 23, then in the actual 
prospect of death, that 7d davaddoa is 
equivalent to oby xpiot@ elva: for here 
is no hint of the new house from heaven, 
only of a certain indefinite évinula mpbs 
Tov Kupiov, which is all that is revealed 
to us, and it would seem was all that was 
revealed to him, of the disembodied state 
of the blessed. I may remark that Meyer, 
whose commentary on this Epistle is most 
able and thorough, has been misled in this 
passage by an endeavour to range the 
whole of it under the specific wish of vv. 
2—4, 9, 10 |} Wherefore (this being 
so,—our confidence, in event whether of 
death, or of life till the coming of the 


6—11. 


IIPO> KOPINOIOTS B. 


661 


elite * evdnwobvTes cite * éxdnuovdvTes, * evapertoe adT@ *R™, 1, 


> 
elval. 


big \ \ a , 
Exagtos ® Ta Sid TOD TwmaTOS, 
ayadoy eite Kaxov. 
plov, avOparrous * rreiBopev, Ped 5é 

al. 


xii. 47. 
k = Acts xii. 20. 


Ps. xxxix. 15. 2 Mace. viii. 33. 
Gal. ii. 14. i 
Gal. i. 10. 


1 Kings xxiv. 8. 

10. &! has written « bef cowrontra:, but 
omg mpos a, DIF.—om ta 6. 7. o. L. 
Ephr Ath, Epiph Nys, Bas, Cyr,, Damasc, 
Orig, Eus, Chr Thdrt.ep-e Damasey,1, 


Lord, being such)—it is also (besides our 
confidence) our aim, whether dwelling in 
the body or absent from the body (at the 
time of His appearing), to be well pleasing 
to Him, i.e. ‘whether He find us evinu. 
or exdnu., to meet with His approval in 
that day.’ That this is the sense, the next 
verse seems to me to shew beyond ques- 
tion. For there he renders a reason for 
the expressions, and fixes the participles 
as belonging to the time of His coming. 
But this meaning has not, that I am 
aware, been seen by the Commentators, 
and in consequence, the verse has seemed 
to be beset with difficulties. The ordinary 
rendering is represented by Chrys., p. 508, 
7d. . (ntovmevoy TovTd eor1, pnaoly. &y TE 
€KEL Omer, ay Te yTAVOa, KATA yyounv avToD 
¢jv'—the objection to which of course is, 
that when there with Him, there will be 
no striving to be evdpecro: avt@, the 
acceptance having taken place. Nor is 
De Wette’s interpretation free from ob- 
jection—‘ whether we live till His coming, 
or we die: because no sufficient account 
is given of the present participles. Of 
all renderings, Meyer’s is in this place the 
most absurd, misled as he is by his inter- 
pretation of ver.8. He would make evd7- 
povvres and ex. here merely literal, the 
similitude being dropped :—‘ whether at 
home, or on travel” But, all else aside, 
can he tell us where Paul’s home was, sub- 
sequently to Acts ix.? For this would be 
necessary, though he shrinks from any 
“ geographifde Beftimmung.’ 10. | 
For (explanation and fixing of eddpeora 
avT@ elva, as to when, and how testified) 
we all (and myself among the number) 
must be made manifest (‘appear:’ not 
= rapaorjva merely, but ‘ appear in our 
true light, appear as we have never done 
before, as in reff., where the word is used 
of our Lord Himself: see also 1 Cor. iv. 5) 
before the judgment-seat (on Bijpa, see 
Stanley’s note) of Christ, that each may 


Warods yap *ravtas uds »davepwOAvar ° det 
‘éumpocbev tod  Byuatos Tod 4 ypicTtod, iva f Koulonrat 
hapos & émpakev, ElTE 
11 Kidotes ody tov ‘1 doBov tod xKv- 


i = Acts ix. 


a Rom. xi. 32 
e 


b= (see note). 
Col, iii. 4. 
1 Pet. v.4. 
1 John ii. 28. 
= Acts iv. 12 
reff. 
d Acts xviii. 17. 
e Acts xii. 21 
r, 3 1 reff. 
' repavepopeOa: éXtrilw t= pn. vis. 
Col. iii, 25. 
g constr., Eph. Col. as above (f). h = Luke 
31. Rom. iii. 18. ch. vii. 1. Eph. v. 21 (not Rom. xiii. 3). 
1 — Mark iv. 22. John iii. 21 al. 
marked it for erasure. for ra, &, 
for Kaov, pavdov CX d m 17 Orig, Eus, 
Thl-comm(appy): txt BDFKLP rel Clem 


receive (the technical word for receiving 
wages) the things (done) through the 
body (as a medium or organ of action. 
Meyer cites tay jdovav ai dia TOO odma- 
Tés eiow, Plato, Phedo, p. 65, and aic6h- 
ges ai ia TOV oduatos, Pheedr. p. 250), 
according to the things which he did (in 
the body), whether (it were) good, or bad 
(singular, as abstract). I may observe that 
no more definite inference must be drawn 
from this verse as to the place which the 
saints of God shall hold in the general 
judgment, than it warrants ; viz. that they 
as well as others, shall be manifested and 
judged by Him (Matt. xxv. 19): when, or 
in company with whom, is not here so much 
as hinted. I cannot pass on, without 
directing the student to the passage on this 
verse in Chrysostom’s tenth Homily, p. 510 
ff., as one of the grandest extant efforts of 
human eloquence. 11—13.] Having 
this pirotipta,—being a genuine fearer 
of God (see below)—he endeavours to 
make his plain dealing EVIDENT TO MEN, 
as it I8 EVIDENT TO GoD. He will give 
the Corinthians whereof to boast concern- 
ing him in reply to his boastful adver- 
saries: this his conduct being, whatever 
construction may be put on it, on behalf 
of God and them. 11.] Being then 
conscious of (‘no strangers to: so Homer 
freq., e.g. Gbeuloria eidms) the fear of 
the Lord (not, as Chrys. and most of the 
ancient Commentators = 7d goBepdy r. 
kup.,—so also Beza and Estius, ‘¢errorem 
Domini,’ and E. V., ‘the terror of the 
Lord ;’—but as Vulg., ‘timorem Domini,’ 
—this wholesome fear of Christ as our 
Judge: see reff. The expression is par- 
ticularly appropriate for one who had been 
suspected of double dealing and insin- 
cerity : he was inwardly conscious of the 
principle of the fear of God guiding and 
leading him),—we persuade men (the 
stress on av@pémous, ‘it is MEN that we 
attempt to persuade.’ Of what ? Beza, 


662 


m 1 Cor. ili. 7, 
&c. reff. 

n ch. iii. 1 reff. 

o Rom. xvi. 1 


6€ Kat €v Tats ™ 


IIPOS KOPINOIOTS B. 


8 , 9 lal ] lel 0, 

cuveronceow vpuov | repavepaoaPat. 
4 a ‘ 

Tadw “éavtovs ™ouvictavomev vpiv, ara Madoppnyc dete 


v, 


12 9} BCDFK 
LPRab 


hkimn 


Tim. 1.14 P dwdovtes tiv * kavynpatos UTép juov, wa *&ynte Tpos 017.47 
x oy TOUS ev trpos@TT@ KaVY@LEVO i tov'xapdia, 13 “¢itTe 
ad. A\apB., P tf XOPEVOUS, Ka U pod. 
Rom. vii. 8, \ v Je 6 ea ee Ww a € oan 1a \ 
1. yap ‘ e€éornpev, Gem “cite Y cwppovovdpev, vpiv n yap 
; ae 12 (bis). Gal. v.13 only. P. Ezek. v. 7 only. r Rom. iy. 2 reff. s see 
TXH TL ypaw, Acts xxv. 26. t 1 Thess. ii. 17. uconstr., ch. i. 6. 1 Cor. xii. 26. 
vy Paul, here only. = Mark iii. 21. Acts viii, 11. x. 45. xii. 16. Jer. ii. 12. w Rom. xii. 3 reff. 

12. rec aft ov ins yap, with D3KLP rel Damase Thl @e: om BCD!FX yss Chr 
Thdrt Ambrst Pel Bede. for 2nd vay, nuw B}, nobis D-lat. vuwy BR 17 
G-lat eth. for ov, un ev BN wm 17: ove ev D'F: txt CD3KLP rel syr goth Chr 
Damase. 

Grot., al., of the truth of Christ’s re- whether we have been mad (there is no 
ligion; win them to Christ, which how- need to soften the meaning to ‘inordinately 
ever suits the rendering ‘tevrorem Domini,’ praise ourselves, as Chrys., al.; or ‘ act 
better than the right one:—Chrys., Theo- foolishly,’ as others; or ‘ultra modum 
doret, 'Theophyl., ‘of our own integrity,  agimus, as Bengel, Luther: —jalvp, 
and so in the main, Estius, Bengel, Olsh., TatAe, was once said, Acts xxvi. 24, 
De Wette,—and Meyer, though he seems and doubtless this charge was among the 
to object to it, for he connects the words means taken to depreciate his influence 
with the g:Aotmia of ver. 9:—Erasm., at Corinth), it is to God (in God’s work 


Luther, Wolf, Hammond, al., understand 
melOouev of the endeavour to make our- 
selves acceptable to men; Cornel.-a-La- 
pide, Le Clere, al., ‘eundem hune ti- 
morem hominibus suademus.’ But from 
the context, it must have reference to owr- 
selves; and I| therefore agree with Chrys., 
al., as above), but to God we are already 
manifested (we have no need to persuade 
Him of our integrity, for He knows all 
things) ;—and I hope (am confident) that 
we have also been manifested (Meyer 
remarks, that é€Awi@ in the N. T. else- 
where has only the inf. aor.; here however 
the inf. perfect is logically necessary. He 
hopes, that the manifestation 7s complete. 
Cf. Acts xxvii. 138, Sdfavres tis mpo- 
Oécews Kexparnkeva, and Hom. Il. o. 110, 
Hin yap viv €Arow ~Apnt ye mijua Te- 
7Ux at) in your consciences. 12.] We 
are not again recommending ourselves 
to you (see ch. iii. 1), but (say this as) 
giving you an occasion for matter of 
boasting (Kavxnua,—not = kabxnots as 
De W.,—‘a source, whence matter of boast- 
ing may be derived’) on our behalf (of us, 
as your teachers, and to the upholding of 
our ministry), that ye may have it (viz. 
Kavxnua, matter of boasting) against 
those who boast in face (fair outward 
appearance), and not in heart (i.e. in 
those things which they exhibit, and are 
outwardly = xat& Thy odpxa, ch. xi. 18, 
not in matters which are in their hearts : 
implying that their hearts are indifferent 
about the matters of which they boast). 

13.] For (ye have good reason to 
boast of me as your teacher; seeing that 


and to His glory): whether we be of 
sound mind, it is for you (on your be- 
half). ‘So that you have reason to glory 
in us either way; if you will ascribe to us 
madness, it is a holy madness, for God: 
if you maintain and are convinced of our 
sobriety, it is a soundness iz your service. 
On the interpretation of Chrys. above, 

he explains the last clause,— ay Te ber pidy 
TL K. TaTeivov (pbeyEdpeba), dv buas, va 
pdOnre tamevodpoveiy. Hom. xi. p. 513. 
But he gives our interpretation also, as 
an alternative: walvecOal tis tas dnol; 
dia Toy Bedy ToadTa pawdueba. 

14—19.| And his constraining motive 
is the love of Christ; who died for all, 
that all should live to Him; and accord- 
ingly the Apostle has no longer any mere 
knowledge or regards according to the 
flesh, seeing that all things are become 
new in Christ by means of the reconcilia- 
tion effected by God in Him, of which 
reconciliation Paul is the minister. 
14.| For (reason of his devotion under all 
reports and circumstances, deg and dpiv, | 
as in last verse) Christ’s love (not, love 
to Christ, as Hc., Beza, al..—but Christ's 
love to men, subjective, as most Commen- 
tators; as shewn in His Death, which 
is the greatest proof of love, see Rom. 
v.6—8. Meyer remarks that the gen. of 
the person after ayd7n is with Paul always 
subjective,—Rom. v. 5,8; viii. 35, 39; ch. 
vill. 24; xiii. 13; Eph. ii. 4; Phil. i. 9 al. 
[but see his own note on 2 Thess. iii. 5, 
where he maintains the objective sense], 
whereas with John it is not always so, 
1 John vy. 3. Paul usually expresses love of, 


12—16. 


IIPOS> KOPINOIOTS B. 


663 


’ / fol fe] al = ’ 
*ayatTn Tod * yptatov Y auvéyer Huds, 1 * Kpivavtag «= Rom. vii 


r A e e \ f > / a ” b e b & 19 
TOUTO, OTL eis UTEp TavTwV aTréBaver, *dpa » of  TapTes , 
’ / , / e lal 
°améBavoyv. xal vuTép wavtwv améOavev, iva oi CovTes 
/ d e a a 1AXa d ~ £ \ ? lal > fa) / 
penxete “éautois Caowv, adda “To vVIrép avT@V atroPavorTt 


Ee , 
Kat © éyepOevte. 
al Cor. xy. 14. Gal. iii. 29. see Rom. vii. 3, 25. 


Rom. vi. 2, 10, 11. xiv. 7 al. 
6 (Paul) reff. 


e 1 Cor. xv. 4, and passim. 


35. Eph. iii. 


Luke xii. 
50. Acts 
xviii. 5. 
Phil. i. 23 
(L.P., exc. 
Matt. iv. 24). 
Job xxxi. 23. 


16 4 ¢e lal if > \ nr a ] } , ” 
@MSTE MELS “ATO TOV VUI OVOEVA oldapev z= Acts xv. 
19, 


b ver, 10. c = Rom. vi. 8. 


= d dat., 
Isa. xxvi. 19. 


f Acts xviii. 


14. for xpiorov, Geov CP 17. 39. 42-6. 120. 238 syr Chr Thdrt, (txt y1.) Thl-marg. 


15. kpivaytes F: -vovras 17. 


rec ins et bef eis, with C!N% rel vulg(and F-lat) 


copt arm Ath-mss Chr), Cyr, Thl Ambrst-ms Aug,(elsw mss vary) Bede: om B(sic: 
see table) C?DFKLPN! d el n 17. 47 syrr goth xth Ath-edd Chr, Cyr, Thdrt Damase 


Cic-comm(appy).- 
F yulg(not am harl) some-lat-ff. 


i.e. towards, by ets, Col. i. 4; 1 Thess. iii. 
12) constraineth us (a better word could 
not be found : the idea of cvvéxw is that of 
forcible limitation, either in a good or a 
bad sense,—of confining to one object, 
or within certain bounds, be that one 
object a painful or glorious one,—those 
bounds the angustize of distress, or the 
course of apostolic energy, as here. ‘ Con- 
straineth us,’ generally :—limits us to one 
great end, and prohibits our taking into 
consideration any others. ‘ Metaphora est 
in verbo constringendi: qua notatur, fieri 
non posse, quin, quisquis mirificum illum 
amorem quem testatus est nobis Christus 
morte sua, vere expendit et reputat, quasi 
ei alligatus, et arctissimo vinculo constric- 
tus, se in illius obsequium addicat.’ Calv. 
The varieties of interpretation, some as 
Meyer, urging more the sense cohibendi, 
others as Chrys., that excitandi, ovt apt- 
now judas jovxd¢ey, all in fact amount 
to one—that of the forcible compression 
of his energies to one line of action), 

15.] because we formed this judgment 
(viz. at our conversion :—learned to regard 
this as a settled truth) that one died on 
behalf of all (not only, for the benefit of 
all, as Meyer,—but instead of all, suffered 
death in the root and essence of our hu- 
manity, as the second Adam. This death 
on behalf of ad men is the absolute objec- 
tive fact: that a// enter not into the benefit 
of that Death, is owing to the non-fulfil- 
ment of the subjective condition which 
follows),—therefore all died (i.e. therefore, 
in the death of Christ, a//, the all for whom 
He died, of ravres, died too: i. e. see be- 
low, became planted in the likeness of His 
death,—died to sin and to self, that they 
might live to Him. This was true, objec- 
tively, but not subjectively till such death 
to sin and self is realized in each: see Rom. 
vi. 8 ff.). The other renderings,—‘ ought 
to die, as Thomas Aq., Grot., Estius, al., 
—‘were under sentence of death,’ as Chrys., 


for ameOavoy, areOavey &}. 


aft 2nd ame@avey ins xpiotos 


Theodoret, Beza, al.;—‘ as good as died, 
Flatt ;—are shewn to be erroneous by 
carefully noticing the construction, with or 
without ei. The ved is common to both 
members of the sentence ; the correspon- 
dent emphatic words in the two members 
being (1) ets twép wavrwv, (2) waves: 
‘(One on behalf of all) died, therefore (all) 
died: if One died the death of (belonging 
to, due from) all, then a@/Z died (in and 
with Him).’ Meyer’s rendering of 671 
because, can hardly be right, as it would 
leave kpivaytas Tovro standing awkwardly 
alone. And He died for all, in order that 
they who live (in this life, see juets of 
(évtes, ch. iv. 11; =in sense, ‘as long 
as they are in this state, as De W.:—not, 
‘those who live spiritually,’ as Beza, Flatt, 
which would altogether strike out the sense, 
for it is, that they may live spiritually, &e. : 
nor, ‘superstites, they whom He left be- 
hind at His death, (@yres in contrast with 
Him who aréGavev, as Meyer ;—for, not 
to insist on the more general reference to 
all time, many to whom the Apostle was 
now writing were not born at the time of 
His Death) might no longer (now that 
His Death has taken place: or, as they did 
before they apprehended that Death as 
theirs,—but I prefer the former, see amd 
tov viv below) live to themselves (with 
selfas their great source and end of action, 
to please and to obey) but to Him that 
died and rose again for them (t1ép, not 
merely even as connected with éyep0évri 
‘for the benefit of, as Meyer again ; but 
strictly ‘in the place of :’ as the Death of 
Christ is ou death, so His Resurrection is 
our resurrection). 16.] So that (ac- 
cordingly,—consistently with our judg- 
ment expressed ver. 15) we (in opposition 
to our adversaries, the false teachers: not 
general, of all Christians, as De W.,—but 
as yet spoken, as the emphatic position oz 
jjmets shews, of the Apostle himself [and 
his colleagues ?]) from this time (since 


TIPOL KOPINOIOTS 


7. 


, 
Exata &oapKa’ el Kal eyvMKapev ® KaTa % capKa ypLOTOV, BCDF 
P Y i e xP 7 LPRa 


o a U , a > nr 
b1Cr i ONG vov ovK ere ywooKomer. 17 OsTe el Tis » ev Xplore, 
i Gal. vi. 15. + i 2 ’ \ > = ~ Py , 

Acts xv. 7 1 1 . k i 
k ny = Tan. KQALV?) KTLOLS Ta apxata Tapirber, idov, 
xlii. 18. 1 = Matt. v. 18. xxiv. 35 al. see Acts xxvii. 9 reff. 


16. rec aft « ins de, with C?D?-3(K)LPN® rel syr (copt goth) Chr, Thdrt, Damase 


Thi &e: 
copt goth. 


kau bef ex F latt lat-ff: txt BD'X! 17 Orig, Eus. (C! uncert.)—om fat K115 
xpioroy bef kara oapka D eth Orig,(and int,) Jer. 


aft ywe- 


oKomev ins kata capka DF Jer,. (not vulg F-lat.) 


this great event, the Death of Christ) 
know no man according to (as he is in) 
the flesh (Meyer well remarks: “Since all 
are [ethically | dead, and each man is bound 
to live only to Christ, not to himself, our 
knowledge of others must be altogether 
independent of that which they are kara 
odpka,—must not be regulated kara odpka. 
And the connexion of ver. 16 with ver. 
15 shews that we must not take kata 
odpka as the subjective rule of ofSapev,— 
so that the explanation would be, ‘ accord- 
ing to mere human knowledge,’ ‘ apart 
from the enlightening of the Holy Spirit,’ 
ef. ch. i. 17; 1 Cor. i. 26,—but as the 
objective rule, cf. ch. xi. 18; John viii. 15; 
Phil. iii. 4,—so that eidévar ria Kara 
odpka = ‘to know any one according to 
his mere human individuality, — to know 
him as men have judged him by what he 
is in the flesh,’ not by what he is xara 
mvevua, as a Christian, as kaw) Kriots, 
ver. 17. He who knows no man kata 
odpka has, e.g. in the case of the Jew, 
entirely lost sight of his Jewish origin,— 
in that of the rich man, of his riches,— 
in that of the learned, of his learning,— 
in that of the slave, of his servitude, &c., 
cf. Gal. iii. 28”): if we have also (<i 
kal concedes what follows: méAw wer, 
ei Kal wh Brémets, ppoveis & duws, ola 
vow tiverri, Soph. Cid. Tyr. 302,—but 
also, as distinguished from xa) ei, intro- 
duces no climaz, and distributes the force 
of the kal over the whole concessive clause, 
whereas in kal ef it is confined to the con- 
ditional particle ei,—see Hartung, Parti- 
kellehre, i. 139) known Christ according 
to the flesh, now however we know Him 
(thus) no longer. The fact alluded to in 
the concessive clause, is, not any personal 
knowledge of the Lord Jesus while He was 
on earth, but that view of Him which Paul 
took before his conversion, when he knew 
Him only according to His outward ap- 
parent standing in this world, only as Jesus 
of Nazareth. yxprordv is not = rdv xpic- 
tév, ‘ the Christ,’ but merely as a proper 
name designating Him whom he now knew 
as Christ. Observe, the stress is not on 
xpiordév, q. d. ‘If we have known even 
Christ ufter the flesh,’ &c., as usually un- 


derstood ;—the position of xp. forbids this, 
which would require ei kal xpiorby éyv. k. 
odp.,—but on éyvekapev, as belonging to 
the past, contrasted with our present know- 
ledge. Observe likewise, that the position 
of kata odpra, see above also, forbids its 
being taken as the subjective qualification 
of éyvékapev, as = ef kal Kata oapka 
éyv. xp.» or ei kK. eyv. xp. kK. oapK., and 
fixes it as belonging to xpiorév,—* Christ 
according to the flesh’ He now, since 
his conversion, knew Him no longer as 
thus shewn, but as dpiobevra viby be0d 
év duvduet, Kate med pa ayiwobvns. At 
that time, ebddnqoev 6 apopioas plete 5 
arokahvipar Tov vidy avrod ev eyol, Gal. 
i. 15, 16. See by all means Stanley’s re- 
marks, on the absence of all local and 
personal recollections of our Lord’s life, 
in the apostolic age. 17.) So that 
(additional inference from what has gone 
before: hardly as Meyer, from ver. 16 
only: the death of ver. 15, as well as the 
new knowledge of ver. 16, going to make 
up the kawh xrlois) if any man is in 
Christ (far better than ‘whoever is in 
Christ.” See note on Phil. iv. 8. ‘Jn 
Christ, i.e. in union with Him: Christ 
being ‘the element in which by faith we 
live and move,’ as Meyer), he is a new 
creature (xtlous, ‘creation, —the act, im- 
plying here the result of the act. See ref. 
and Col. iii. 10,11; Eph. ii. 10; iv. 23. 
‘He has received,’ ‘ passed into,’ ‘a new 
life,’ John iii. 3): the old things (of his 
former life—‘all the old selfish and im- 
pure motives, views, and prejudices,’ —De 
Wette) have passed away (there does not 
appear to be any allusion, as in Chrys., 
Theophyl., to the passing away of Judaism, 
but only to the new birth, the antiqua- 
tion of the former unconverted state, with 
all that belonged to it): behold (a remi- 
niscence of Isa. xliii. 18, 19—ph pvn- 
fovevere TA TMpOTa, kal Ta Gpxaia wh 
avdAoylCecbe dod, eye moi® Kawa), they 
have become new (see var. readd.). The 
arrangement of the sentence followed by 
the Vulg., al., ‘Si qua ergo in Christo 
nova creatura, vetera transierunt,’ is in- 
admissible, because the second member 
would be a mere reassertion of the first. 


ryéyOvEV 017.4 


17—20. 


IIPOS KOPINOIOTS B. 


665 


\ \ fal lal fo 5 
kawa. '8 ta O€ ™rravta ™éx Tod Oeod rod ™ KaTtadddEap- ™1 00" xi.12 


Tos muds éavT@ Sia xypiotod 


°diaxoviay THs PKatadrAayis, 9 4as Ide Beds Fv * ev 
XpleT@ KOoWov “KaTadAdocwy EavTe, pI) *AoyiLopwevos 
avtois ta ‘rapaTT@epata avToy, Kal “ Oéuevos év tpiv 
Tov Y Xoyov THs P KaTaAXayijs. 


r 1 Cor. xv. 22 reff. 


only. 
t Rom. iv. 25 reff. u Ps. ciy. 27. 


(Amos y. 7.) 


n Rom. vy. 10 
reff. 

o Acts xx. 24 
reff. 

p here bis. 
Rom. y. 11. 
xi. 15 only. 
Isa. ix. 5. 

2 Mace. v. 20 
only. 


\ , Cllr \ 
Kat Sovtos uly thy 


on) ©. a 5 =h h. 
0-umép ypioTov opp %5; ‘er 
2 Thess. ii. 2) 
s = Rom. ii. 26. iv. 4,8 al. fr. Num. xviii. 27. 
v Acts xiil. 26 reff. 


17. rec aft awa ins ta mavra, with D?-3KLP rel syr goth eth-pl Orig, Constt Did 
Athy, Chr Damase ic Tert,: bef rawabdfko 17. 46. 672 vulg-ed Syr Ath, Dial 
Meth Naz Cyr, Thdrt Procl Thl Orig-int, Jer Ambrst Salv: om BCD!FN latt copt 
wth-rom arm(1805) Clem Ath-ms, Nys Cyr, Tert, Hil Aug Promiss. 


18. om Ist tov D!F. 


rec ins iqaov bef xpiorov, with D3KL rel Thdrt Damase: 


om BCD!FPR 17 latt syrr copt goth eth arm Chr Tert Hil Ambrst Aug. 


19. ins o bet @eos FK b! o Thdrt Chr. 
ev D}, for Aoy., actiCouevos F. 


add 
ins [Tov | 


KaTaAagowy(sic) Nef h' k. 
om 2nd ey K fh} n 47. 


evaryyeAwov bef tov Aoyor D)F ; adnuntiationem D-lat, evangelii G-lat(and so over the 


greek in F).—om tov F. 


20. for umep xp. ovv, ov umep xpiotov D'F; pro quo Christo D-lat; quod pro quo 


18.] And all things (in this new 
creation: he passes toa more general view 
of the effects of the death of Christ—viz. 
our reconciliation to God) are from God 
(as their source), who reconciled us (all 
men, from next verse, where kocpoy is 
parallel with it) to Himself by means of 
Christ (as an atonement, an expiatory 
sacrifice, ver. 21, for sin which made us 
€x9pol deod, see Rom. v. 10), and gave 
(committed) to us (Apostles, not mankind 
in general; for had it been so,—in the next 
verse, which is parallel, év adrots, not év 
nmiv, must have stood, after adrots and 
aiTay just preceding) the ministration of 
the reconciliation (the duty of ministering 
in that office, whose peculiar work it is 
to proclaim this reconciliation: so d:axovla 
Tis Sikatocvyys, ch. ili. 9. Observe, that 
the reconciliation spoken of in this and the 
next verse, is that of God to us, absolutely 
and objectively, through His Son: that 
whereby He can complacently behold and 
endure a sinful world, and receive all who 
come to Him by Christ. This, the subjec- 
tive reconciliation,—of men to God,—fol- 
lows as a matter pf exhortation, ver. 20), 

19.] how that (the as imports that 
the proposition following it, introduced by 
ér1, is matter of indirect reference. So 
Xen. Hell. iii. 2.14, cimay 7G Bdpari ws 
br oKvoln mh 6 Tiwcad. k.7.A., and argum. 
Isocr. Busir. p. 220 [cited by Winer, edn. 
6, § 65. 9], xarnydpour adtod, as bt Kawd 
daydvia eispepe:) God in Christ was re- 
conciling the world to Himself (qv kar- 
ahAdoowv not exactly = KarhAAaccer, 
any more than #v Knptoowr Luke iv. 44 
= éxhpvocev: in both cases the habitual 


state is more emphatically implied than 
could be done by the imperfect merely : 
the shade of difference can, however, hardly 
be expressed in English. jv cannot, as 
in Erasm., Luther, Calv., Beza, al., and 
E. V., belong to ev xpior@, ‘ God was in 
Christ, reconciling’ &c.,—partly on ac- 
count of the position of éy xp., which 
would thus probably be before jv, but prin- 
cipaily (Meyer) because of incoherence 
with @¢uwevos évy juiy «.7.A.: for in that 
case the two latter clauses must express 
the manner of reconciliation by Christ, 
which the second of them does not. 
Kkéopov,—without the article, as governed 
words placed for emphasis before their 
verbs often are—it would not be kuraa- 
Adoowy kécpov, but Tov Kéo0v,—the whole 
world,—man, and man’s world, entire, 
with all that therein is, see Col. i. 20, but 
considered, cf. aitay below, as summed up 
in man),—not imputing to them their 
trespasses (present : on the expression see 
reff.), and having placed in us (past :— 
not merely = ‘ committed to us,’ but ‘ laid 
upon us, as our office and charge, and, 
besides, ‘empowered us for, ‘put in our 
souls by His Spirit? < Us,’ viz. Apostles 
and teachers) the word of the recon- 
ciliation (as 6 Adyos 6 Tov ctavpod, 1 Cor. 
i. 18). 

20, 21.] He describes his office as that 
of an ambassador for Christ, consisting 
in beseeching them, ON THEIR PART, to be 
reconciled to God; and that, in consi- 
deration of the great Atonement which 
God has provided by Christ. On Christ’s 
behalf then (i.e. in pursuance of the impo- 
sition on us of the Adyos Tijs kar.) We are 


666 IIPO> KOPINOIOTS B. V. 21. 
w Erb. vi 20 W arpegBevouev, *@s TOD Geod Ytapaxadovvtos 8¢ tuev BDF 
‘Med ay rua o , a a Ra 
, bake x) SequeOa vmrép yploTtov, "Katadraynte TO Oe@, *1 TOV cdef 
1 Cor. iv. 18 , , ‘ a c m 
reff. uy *yvovta duaptiav bTép uov auaptiav eroincey, wa 017.4 


y absol., 1 Cor. 
iv. 13 reff. 

z = Eccles. viii. 
5 


a = Rom. i. 17 reff. (Phil. iii. 9.) 


b Mark xvi. 20. 


nuets yevoueba * duxaocivn* Geod €v av7@. VI. 1” cuvep- 


Rom. viii. 28. 1 Cor. xvi. 16. James ii. 22 


only t. 1 Macc. xii.1. Esdr. vii. 2only. ( ‘yos, 1 Cor. iii. 9.) 


Christo G-lat. 
aut obsecrantes G-lat. 
G-lat lat-ff(not Jer Bede). 


Seouevor D}(and lat) F Chr-ms Hil Ambrst(not Aug al); orantes 
katadAaynvat D}!(and lat) F syr-mg goth, reconeiliari 
om tw F, 


21. rec aft Tov ins yap (see note), with D3KLPN3 rel syrr goth eth arm Chr Eucher 
Thdrt; Damase Ambrst-ms: om BCD!FN' 17 latt copt Orig, Eus, Ath Chr,-comm 


Did Thdrt, Hil Ambrst-ed Aug Pel Alcim. 
Orig, Eus Chr Thdrt.2pe Damase Thl (Ec, evwuia F. 


rec ytrwueba: txt BCDKLPR rel 
Geou bef Sixatoovvn KP d 


93. 109. 219 Eus,(txt,) Sev Chr Thdrt,: om @eov 46. 114 Thdrt,. 


ambassadors, as if God were exhorting by 
us: we beseech (‘ you,’ but not uttered as 
an integral part of the present text, not a 
request now made and urged, as Rom. xii. 
1; he is describing the embassage; we 
are ambassadors, and in our embassage it 
is our work to beseech—‘ Be ye,’ Kc.) on 
Christ’s behalf, Be reconciled to God :— 
kataAX. strictly passive: ‘God was the 
ReEconciLeR—let this reconciliation have 
effect on you—enter into it by faith. Our 
E. V., by inserting the word ‘ye,’ has given 
a false impression, making it appear as if 
there were an emphasis on it, correspond- 
ing to God being reconciled to us, as if it 
had been katadAdynte Kal duets TH 0eG,— 
whereas it is the simple being reconciled in 
that reconciliation in which God was, in 
Christ,.the Reconciler. 21.] States 
the great fact on which the exhortation to 
be reconciled is grounded :—viz. the un- 
speakable gift of God, to bring about the 
reconciliation. It is introduced without 
a dp (which has been supplied), as still 
forming part of the Adyos Tijs KaTaAAayijs. 
Him who knew not sin (tov ob yvdvta 
would merely assert the fact, that up to the 
time of érolnocev, He was ignorant of sin. 
But “4 with a participle, as has been ob- 
served since the doctrine of the particles 
has been more accurately studied, always 
denies subjectively, i.e. in reference to the 
view of some person who is the subject, or 
to the hypothesis of some person who is the 
direct or indirect utterer of the assertion. 
Cf. note on ch. iv. 18. With what refer- 
ence then is the particle here used ? Fritz. 
[in Meyer } thinks, to the Christian’s neces- 
sary idea of Christ, “quem talem virum 
mente concipimus, qui sceleris notitiam 
non habuerit :’’ Meyer, and Winer, edn. 
6, § 55. 5. B, to God’s judgment of Him. 
I much prefer to either regarding it as 
subjective with reference to Christ Him- 


self, Who said, John viii. 46, ris €& tuav 
éAeyxet me mept auaptias; He was thus 
6 wh yvous auapriay [see Hartung, Parti- 
kellehre, ii. 131, who gives among other 
examples, one very similar, from Thucyd. 
i. 118, jovxaév te Td TAKOY TOD xpédvou, 
évtes Kal mpd Tod pH TaxEts ievar és TOS 
moA€uous |,—‘knew not,’ i.e. by contact, 
by personal experience, ‘sin.’ See, for 
the sense, 1 Pet. ii. 22; Heb. vii. 26), on 
our behalf (or, instead of us: I prefer 
here the former, because the purpose of 
the verse is to set forth how great things 
God has done for us :—the other, though 
true, does not seem so applicable. The 
words iatp ju. are emphatic) He made 
(to be) sin (not, ‘a sin-offering, as 
Augustine, Ambros., (cum., Erasm., 
Hammond, Wolf, al., for the word seems 
never to have the meaning, even in the 
LXX [see however the remarkable read- 
ing of the Codex A at Lev. vi. 25]; 
and if it had, the former sense of the 
same word in this same sentence would 
preclude it here: nor = GuaprwaAds, as 
Meyer, al.: but, as De Wette, al., Sry, 
abstract, as opposed to RIGHTEOUSNESS 
which follows; compare xatdpa, Gal. iii. 
13. He, on the Cross, was the Represen- 
tative of Sin,—of the sin of the world), 
that we might become (the present, yiuwou. 
as in rec., would signjfy, as Stallbaum, 
Crito, p.43 [Meyer ]—‘id quod propositum 
fuerit, nondum perfectum et transactum 
esse, sed adhue durare.’ The aor., which 
is supported by all the mss., also yields 
the best sense, as joining the whole 
justification of all God’s people, as one act 
accomplished, with the Sacrifice of Christ) 
the righteousness of God (see above: re- 
presentatives of the Righteousness of God, 
endued with it and viewed as in it, and 
examples of it) in Him (in union with Him, 
and by virtue of our standing in Him). 


VI. 1—3. 


IIPO> KOPINOIOTS B. 


667 


A N \ n \ ’ \ A mo as 
ryouvTes S€ Kal © Tapakadovpev, wn TELS de Kevov THV NapLV © Rep: 1 


Tod Oeod SéEacbar buds * (Néyer yap Kaupo * dexto & érr- 
nkovod Gov, Kai ev » Hwépa cwTnpias ‘é€BonOnod cot. 
vov Katpos jevmposdextos, (dod viv iuépa owrnpias:) 
év * unodevi 1Sovtes ™ rposkomiyy, wa py 


/ 
3 undepiay * 
35. Phil. iv. 18 only. 
i Acts xvi. 9 reff. 
11 Cor. ix, 12. 
Rom. ix. 32.) 


j Rom. xy. 16 reff. 


Cuap. VI. 1. rapaxadovvtes DIF goth. 
4. 17. 89 xth. 


2. katpw yap Aeyet D'(and lat) F(not F-lat) Sedul. 
for cot, cov F(not G). 


by &-corr?. | 


Cuap. VI. 1—10.] He further describes 
his apostolic embassage, as one of earnest 
exhortation not to receive the grace of God 
in vain (vv. 1, 2), and of approving him- 
self, by many characteristics and under 
various circumstances, as the minister of 
God (vv. 3—10). 1.] cuvepyodvres, 
viz. T@ 0G, Whose representatives they 
were, and Whose grace they recommended. 
This is implied not only in what went 
before, but in the rod Oeov of our verse 
itself. Meyer makes it 7¢ xpio7@, refer- 
ring it to the brép xp. above: Chrys., Theo- 
doret, Bengel, Olsh., al., Suiv, which cer- 
tainly would have been expressed, and does 
not suit the sense, nor Paul’s habit of 
speaking of the ministry, see 1 Cor. iii. 9. 
Flatt and Emmerling would make the civ 
imply, working with our exhortations, aid- 
ing them by our example: which sense, 
though occasionally belonging to ctv and 
ampés in composition, could hardly have 
place here without some plainer indication 
in what went before, of that to which the 
preposition refers,—and would not suit the 
kal, which severs cuvepy. from tapakaa. 

The 6¢ is one of transition, introducing 
a new feature. Moreover also, while 
working with God, we exhort, that you 
(when preaching to you,—or others, when 
preaching to others: he still is describing 
his practice in his ministry, not using a 
direct exhortation to the Corinthians) re- 
ceive not (‘ recipiatis ;;—not ‘ receperitis,’ 
‘that ye will not have received,’ i.e. ‘ will 
not by apostasy shew that ye have received 

. . as Erasm., al., and De Wette. This 
mistake arises mainly from regarding the 
words as directly addressed to the Corin- 
thians instead of a description of his apos- 
tolic practice) the grace of God (i.e. the re- 
conciliation above spoken of) to no purpose 
(i.e. unaccompanied by sanctification of 
life; so Chrys., @va. . uw voutowow rt TOU- 
76 €oTl KaTaAAGY?) Mévoy, TO TIDTEDTAL TE 
KaAdobpT:, emdyer Tata, THY mepl Toy Blov 


g here only l. c. 


d Gal. ii. 2. 
Phil. ii. 16 
bis. 1 Thess. 
iil. 5 only. 
Isa. lxv. 23. 

e 1 Cor. xv. 10 
reff. 

f [sa. xlix. 8. 
Luke iv. 19, 
24, Acts x. 
h = 1 Cor. i. 8 reff- 

Amos i. 4. see ver. 4- 


idov 


Ps. xix. 1. 


k ch. vii. 9. Phil. i. 28. 


m here only+. Siddvar apopwas mposkomys, Polyb. xxvii. 6.10. (-Koupa>s 


om vuas DI: quas CX1(txt N-corr'3) 


[xTw of Sextw are supplied 
for evmposSextos, Sextos F. 


omovdiny aratev. Hom. xii. p. 521.) 

2.| Ground of theexhortation: viz. the im- 
portance of the present time as the day of ~ 
acceptance,—shewn by a Scripture citation. 
For He (God, with whom we cuvepyotmev 
and whose grace we recommend) saith, ‘In 
an accepted time (Heb. jx} nya, ‘7 a sea- 
son of grace’) I heard thee, and in the day 
of salvation I helped thee:’ behold (in- 
serted for solemnity—to mark the import- 
ance of what follows), Now is the favour- 
ably accepted time (cdmpdsdextos, a far 
stronger term than dexrds, q.d. the very 
time of most favourable acceptance, said 
from the fulness of his feeling of the great- 
ness of God’s grace),—behold, now is the 
day of salvation. 6 yap ev To.olTw Kaipe 
aywviCdmevos, ev @ ToTavTH KeXUTAL Swped, 
ev @ ToTavTn Xapis, eUKdAwWS emiTEvEETAL 
Tav BpaBelwy. Chrys. p.522. The prophecy 
is one directly of the Lord Jesus, as the 
restorer and gatherer of his people; and the 
time of acceptance is the interval of the offer 
of the covenant to men, conceded to Him by 
the Father. 38—10.] And this doing, he 
approves himself as the minister of God by 
various characteristics, and under mani- 
fold circumstances in life. 3.] d:- 
Sovtes, resumed from ovvepyovvres, ver. 
1; ver. 2 being parenthetic. It, and all 
the following participles, vv. 9,10, qualify 
Tmapakadoumev, shewing the pains and 
caution used by him to enforce this ex- 
hortation by his example as well as his 
precept. So Grot.: ‘ostendit enim, quam 
serio moneat, qui, ut aliquid proficiat, nul- 
lis terreatur incommodis, nulla non com- 
moda negligat.’ But evidently, before the 
list is exhausted, he passes beyond the 
mere confirmation of his preaching, and is 
speaking generally of the characteristics 
of the Christian ministry. év pndevt, 
in nothing, compare év zayti, below: 
not, ‘in no man’s estimation, as Luther. 
pndeu..—pndevi, are not = ovdeu.—ovdevt, 
but, see on ch. v. 21, subjectively said— 


668 


n ch. viii. 20 
only. Prov. 
ix. 7. Wisd. 
x. lt only. 
(-os, 2 Pet. 
ii. 13.) 

o Actsi. 17. 
xx. 24 (reff.). 
Rom, xi. 13 ¢. 

p =ch.iv.8 
reff. 

q ch. iii. 1. iv. 
2. v.12. vii. 11. x. 12. 

u Acts xvi. 23. 


n woundn 7 ° dvaxovia, 


r Rom. ii. 7 reff. 
v ch. xi. 23. 


TIPO KOPINOIOTS B. 


/ > ya U 6 ’ 
TTVLALS, EV VIHOTELALS, €V 


w 1 Cor. xiv. 33 reff. 


WL 


4 aX’ Pév Prravtt IourotavtTes 
Véavrovs ws Oeod Sudxovor, év 'bramovhn wordy, ev * OXI- 
“aberw, év ‘avayxas, év Sotevoxwpias, * ev “Y rdnyais, 
év “ hudraxais, év “ axkatacraciats, év ‘Y KoTrows, év ¥* aypu- 


b t , , c , , d 
ayVvoTnTt, €V YYooel, eV ~ Pa- 
t = 1 Cor. vii. 26 reff. 


s Rom. ii. 9 (reff.). 
x as above (v). 1 Cor. iii. 


8. xv. 58 al. Gen. xxxi. 42. y ch. xi. 27. z as above (y) only+. 2 Macc. ii. 26. (-mvetv, 
Eph. vi. 18.) a as above (y) (1 Cor. vii. 5 v. r.) only in Paul. (Matt. xvii. 21|| Mk.) Luke ii. 37. Acts 
xiv, 23. xxvii. 9only. 2 Kings xii. 16. b ch. xi. 3 only+. (-v0s, ch. vii. 11.) c =1 Cor. 
i. 5. xii. 8 al. d Rom. ii. 4 (reff.). 


3. uw6n(sic) B' f: weuwdn D'. 


aft 7 diakova ins nuwy DF d 662. 73 latt syrr 


sah Chr Thdrt Thl @e-comm Ambrst Aug Pel. 
4. rec cuviotwytes, with D?K LN? rel Chr Thdrt Damasey,.: curiorovtes f: cuvicta- 


vovtes BP 31. 73 Damase,: txt CD! FR! 17 Clem Cyr. 


tros aut -i G-lat. 


we exhort, being such as give, &c.: so 
1 Cor. x. 33, eye mavTa maow apecKw, 
BH Cnt@v K.7.A. ™mposkomy = cKdy- 
dadov, or mpdskouua, Rom. xiv. 13. 
popndg)] ueuacba, ‘to reproach’ (see 
Winer, edn. 6, § 38. 7. a, and Moulton’s 
note), is one of those deponent verbs 
which have an aorist passive: so d:a- 
A€yeoOat, BovrAccOar, SivacOa1, osmrAay- 
xuicerba, &e. The d:axovia, the office 
itself, would be reproached, if cause of 
offence were found in the character of 
its bearers. 4.) Meyer well remarks 
the position of cumor. éavtovs. When 
the words signified ‘to recommend ouwr- 
selves,’ in a bad sense, ch. iii. 1, v. 12, 
—éavut. preceded the verb: but here and 
ch. iv. 2, where used in a good sense, and 
without any stress on éauTods, it follows 
the verb. This is only one of continually 
occurring instances of the importance of 
the collocation of words with regard to the 
emphasis. Sidkovor| not diaxdvous : 
recommending ourselves, aS ministers 
of God should do. The ambiguity of 
the E. V. might have been avoided by 
a different arrangement of words: ‘ia 
all things, as the ministers of God, ap- 
proving ourselves.’ The following 
datives are a specification of mavri; but 
not all of the same sort: some signify 
instruments by which, some, situations 
in which, some both these. Bengel re- 
marks: ‘“Insignis gradatio. Sequuntur 
ter tria patienda (i.e. from @Ahpeow 
to vnoretas), quibus patientia (imomovh) 
exercetur; pressur@,—plage,—labores. 
Primus ternarius continet genera, se- 
cundus, species adversorum: tertia spon- 
tanea”’ (but qu?: see below). So that 
the brouovh moAAH belongs to vv. 4, 5, 
and ver. 6 goes on to other points. 
artevox.] See ch. iv. 8, note. 
5.] On wAny,., see reff. ouAak. | 
At Philippi only as yet, as far as we 


diaxovous D' vulg: minis- 


know from the narrative of the Acts ; 
—but there must have been many other 
occasions, see ch. xi. 23. He may have 
been imprisoned at Antioch in Pisidia, 
Acts xiii. 50, and at Lystra, xiv. 19, and 
at Corinth, xvili. 12, 14: and we cannot 
tell what may have befallen him during 
his journeys, Acts xv. 41; xvi. 6; xviii. 23. 
év Gkataor. | in tumults, see Acts 
xiii. 50; xiv. 5,19; xvi. 22; xvii.53; xviii. 
12, and above all, xix. 23—41. The sense 
given by Chrys. (p. 522), al., 7d unSauod 
SvvacOa oThvat éAavvduevoy, is philo- 
logically allowable, cf. Demosth. 383. 7, 
akatdatatov dsmep ev OadrdtTn mredua, 
and James i. 8, and Polyb. xxxi. 13. 6, 
brodekviwy avTois Thy akaTactaclay Tis 
BaoiAclas,—but not found in N. T. 
év xétrois] usually, and here, signifies 
‘labour in the Lord, for his sake, see 
reff. So also xomidw, Rom. xvi. 6, 12 
(bis), and reff. Chrys., al., interpret it of 
his manual work, 1 Cor. iv. 12; and 
aoratodmev and komi@uey occurring there 
together certainly gives some semblance 
to the view: but see ch. xi. 23, where 
this can hardly be; it is most probable 
that the weariness of his excessive apos- 
tolic labour was in his mind. 
ayputviats | Chrys. says, p. 523, Tas rbKras 
év ais edl5acKev, } bri Kal ev adtais eipyd- 
¢ero. But I would rather believe the 
aypuviat to have been watchings through 
anxiety forthe churches. —_ év vnoretats } 
This is generally, and by De W. against 
Meyer, taken to refer to involuntary hun- 
ger and thirst. But, as the latter remarks, 
the word does not appear to be ever so 
used; and in ch. xi. 27, Paul himself dis- 
tinguishes évy vnorelais from ev Am@ Kk. 
dive. The meaning of fastings must 
therefore be retained. So Chrys., Theo- 
doret, and Calvin. 6.] The nine pre- 
ceding datives (see on ver. 4) have ex- 
panded drouovf. We now resume the 


ee 


BCD 
LPx 
edef 
bhklm 
ol7. 


4—9, 


TIPO] KOPIN@IOTS B. 


669 


KpoOumia, ev “ypnaotoTnTL, év TvevpaTe aylw, ev ayarrn © Rom. xii.9 
povupla, XP ) li Ym, Yar) 


*avutrokpitw, 7 év troy ‘adnOelas, ev ® duvdper © God, 


reff, 

f Eph, i. 13. 
2 Tim. ii. 15. 
James i, 18, 


lal fol / lal =) ral e 
Sia tov “OTrAwWY THs SiKavocvvyns Tov + deELOv Kal ¢—200r.i.18 


Kk apiatepov, § dia 1 SdEns Kat ™atiypias, dia ™ duspnplas ” jonn silts 
kat °evpnulas, @S Pdavor Kai 1 adnGeis, 9 ws * ayvoov- 


Mark x. 37. 
1 = John vy. 41, 44 al. 
only+. 1 Mace. vii. 38. Esdr. i. 43 (40) Ald. (Svaa€Beva, AB) only. (-setv. 1 Cor. iy. 13.) 
Ps. xcix. 2 Symm. (-0s, Phil. iv. 8.) 


iii. 3. i (see note.) Matt. vi. 3. 
above (i) only. Gen. xiv. 15. 


only t+. 
(bis) only. Job xix. 4. 


Jer. xxiii. 32 only. 
r1 Cor. xiv. 38. Gal. i. 22. i 


2 Pet. ii. 12 al. 


a 


(Rom. vi. 13 
bis. xiii, 12) 
only. Nah. 
Luke xxiii. 33 only. 1 Chron. xii. 2. KN. T. as 
m Rom. i. 26 reff. n here 
o here 
p Matt. xxvii. 63. 1 Tim.iv.1. 2John7 


q subj., Matt. xxii. 16. John iii. 33. Rom. iii. 44. 


main catalogue, with év Gyvotym, in faith. That panoply, part of which only 


purity: which is variously explained: of 
bodily chastity, Grot.:—of unselfishness, 
Theodoret, and Chrys., as an alternative (7) 
cwhpoovvny ...7) Tiv ev &ract kabapdTyTa, 
} 7d Gdwpoddxnnrov, 7 Kal Td Swpedy Td 
evayy. knpUTTewv. ib.):—I prefer the second 
of Chrys.’s meanings, general purity of 
character, cidikplveca, — unblamableness 
of life, and singleness of purpose. év 
yvooe.| knowledge of the Gospel, in a 
high and singular degree; see 1 Cor. ii. 
6 ff. So Chrys.: cogiqg ri mapa tod 
Beod Sedouery. xXpyotétyT.| kind- 
ness : a kind and considerate demeanour. 

év wv. Gyiw| in the Holy Spirit, 
as the Power by Whom all these motives 
are wrought. The omission of the article, 
aft. ev, constitutes no objection to this ren- 
dering, as Bp. Middleton (in loc.) sup- 
poses: cf. da my. aylov tod d500évTos 
jmiv, Rom .v. 5,—and the very same words 
as these, 1 Thess. i. 5,—in both which 
places the meaning is undoubted; neither 
of which, however, is noticed by Middleton. 
The words do not appear to hold any logi- 
cal place in the list, any more than ev dur. 
6cov below. 7. év Ady. adn9.] is taken 
by De W., Meyer, al., as subjective,—‘ in 
speaking, or teaching truth’—‘in discourse, 
the contents whereof were truth: but 
their objection against the sense in the 
word of truth, = ev Tg Adyw Tis GAn- 
@elas, as it is expressed Col. i. 5, is not 
valid,—on account (1) of the government 
by a preposition, which would make the 
insertion of the article optional,—(2) of the 
whole catalogue being anarthrous, which 
would cause the article to be omitted for 
uniformity’s sake. év Suv. Geod | 
viz. the Power spoken of ch. iv. 7,— 
the power manifested in every part of 
our apostolic working, — not merely in 
miracles. Sia tT. SA. tT. Sux.] By 
means of (ev is changed for 6:d, first ap- 
parently on account of 7& brAa, marking 
them more distinctly as znstruments,—and 
then continued) the weapons of righte- 
ousness (belonging to,—or as Meyer, fur- 
nished by,—the righteousness which is of 


in the more particular specification of Eph. 
vi. 13—17, viz. the @épat, is allotted to 
dixaootvn,—is here all assigned to it. 
Some of the ancient Commentators,— 
Chrys., @cum., al., and Grot., Estius, al., 
understand by émAa, ‘instruments,’ as in 
Rom. vi. 13, and interpret these instru- 
ments to be, situations and opportunities 
of life, whether prosperous, Sed, or ad- 
verse, dpiorepa: but the other interpreta- 
tion is in better accordance with the 
Apostle’s habit of comparison,—see ch. 
x. 4; Eph. vi. 13 ff; 1 Thess. v. 8). 
tov Sef. «. aptor.] which are on the 
right and left: i.e. encompassing and 
guarding the whole person. Grot., Bengel, 
and most recent Commentators, even De 
W. and Meyer, explain it, both right- 
handed,—i.e. of attack, the sword and 
spear, —and left-handed, —i. e. of defence, 
the shield: but it seems to me that this 
would require ray Sefi@y kat Tay apiore- 
pav: whereas now, no article being in- 
serted before apior., it is implied that the 
panoply (7a bwAa) is on both sides (Sekid 
k. Gpiotepd) of the person. On the in- 
terpretation prosperity and adversity, see 
above. 8.] Perhaps the instrumental 
signification of did need not be strictly 
retained. The preposition, once adopted, 
is kept for the sake of parallelism, though 
with various shades of meaning. I would 
understand it in d:a dof, &e., as in da 
ToAA@Y dakpiwy, as pointing out the 
medium through which. Thus understood, 
these two pairs in ver. 8 will form an easy 
transition from instrumental, through me- 
dial, to the passive characteristics which 
follow. ®s mAdvor] From speaking 
ot repute, he passes to the character of 
the repute. In all these capacities and 
under all these representations or misre- 
presentations, we, as ministers of God, re- 
commend ourselves. But in these following 
clauses a new point is perhaps brought out, 
viz. the difference of ourreal state from our 
reputed one. That this is the case with 
@s amoby. x. Sov (Suey and all following, 
is of course clear. But is it so with the 


670 IIPOS KOPINOIOTS B. VT. 


s Acts xxiii. 28 1 8@ , ‘ , fal A } id y 
shia sie /eevot Kal ETTLYLUM TO KOMEVOL, @S ATTOUVI)OKOVTES Kat loov 


reff. 
t Luke xxiii. 


ksi Gaev, @s 'mardevopevor, Kal pr) “Oavatovpevor, 1° w 
522, Heb, COMED, feEVvOL, pn * Oavatovpevot, S 


xii. 7, 10. 
2 Chron. x. 
ll. Prov. 
xix. 18. 
u Rom, vii. 4 
reff. 
v ch, ii. 2 reff. 
w 1 Cor. i. 5. 
ch. ix. ll only. Gen, xiv. 23 al. 
XxXii. 22. z pres., 1 Cor. xvi. 9. 


9. arodvnokopvytesvor(sic) F. 
mevor D'F (temptati D-lat G-lat Ambrst). 
11. ins w bef copivOio F vulg Thi. 


two clauses preceding that one? Do they 
mean, ‘as deceivers, and yet true, as un- 
known, and yet well known,’ or,—‘ as de- 
ceivers, and as true men, as unknown, and 
as well known?’ I own am not clear on 
this point. The words kal ido (aper 
may be an indication how the Apostle would 
have the previous two clauses understood ; 
but they also may be a transition, altering 
the previous reference of the second member 
of the clause, now that the subject is no 
longer matter of rumour, as wAdvo. and 
éyvoovmevor, but matter of fact, as azo- 
@vhskovres, and the following. If the 
latter alternative be taken, the two clauses 
will serve as a transition to-the subsequent 
ones, thus: having said, 5: duspnulas x. 
evpnulas, he proceeds as mAdvor (answer- 
ing to dusp.) Kal aAnfets (answering to 
edp.),—Os Gyvootmevo (still having dus. 
in view, —as ‘unknown, of obscure reputa- 
tion), Kal émvywworduevor (stili looking 
back at cdp., seeing that the émiyvwors 
would lead to good repute): then, having 
by the participles of the latter clause ex- 
pressed more a matter of fact than did the 
adjectives of the former one, he passes to 
&s &mobvhcKkovtes, Which has no longer its 
main reference to the repute of others, but 
to the fact, see ch. iv.7 ff., as exhibited in 
himself. I confess that on the whole this 
rendering recommends itself to my mind. 

9.| cal i8od Copev is much stronger, 
more triumphant, than kal (évres. There 
is something still of the idea of one reputed 
dead and found to bealive ; though I would 
not say with Meyer that as ao@v. alto- 
gether refers to a supposed triumph of his 
adversaries, ‘* Now it is all over with him! 
His course is ended!” @s ato. | 
Surely we must now drop altogether the 
putative meaning ofthe as. The sense has 
been (see above) some time verging that 
way, and in the clauses which follow the 
&s expresses just what it does in as dod 
didxovor, viz. ‘quippe qui simus.’ Ps: 
exvii. 18, LXX, seems to have been in his 
mind: madevwv eraldevo€é we 6 (om bN) kd- 


for iSov, ett F. 


YRuTrovpevor det S€ YalpovTes, Ws TTwWYOL TodAods OE 
W qoutilovtes, @S wNdEeVv EYOVTES Kal TaVTA * KATEXOVTES. 


\ , ¢ lal , > / lal 
LTO Yorowa nuav %* avéwyev mpos twas, KopivOvos, 
x = 1Cor. vii. 30. Josh. i. 11. 


y see Eph, vi. 19. Sir. 


for madevomevor, Teipaco- 


for 2nd nuwy, vuwy BR. 


ptos, kal Th Bavary ov TapedwKe ME. . « 

10.} Here even more clearly than before, 
the first member of the clause as Au7. ae? 
de xalp. cannot express the opinion of his 
adversaries. For however madevduevos 
might be wrested to signify ‘a man under 
the chastisement of God’ as a ground of 
reproach, Avrovpevos will surely not bear 
the meaning ‘folcher der nach gewobhnlicer 
menfdlicer Anjicht traurig feyn mufte,’ 
‘one in such a situation, that according to 
ordinary human estimation he must be 
wretched,’ as De Wette,—but must point 
to the matter of fact, that he is really 
‘afflicted’ See reff. amTwxot again 
can hardly have been a reproach, but sets 
forth the fact—as poor men, but enrich- 
ing (not by distribution of alms, as Chrys., 
Theodoret, Estius, but by imparting spiri- 
tual riches, see 1 Cor. i. 5) many:—as 
having nothing (in the sense in which oi 
éxovres are ws ph €xovrtes, 1 Cor. vii. 29, 
—in the improper sense of ‘ to possess’ in 
which we here use the word —thus, we have 
nothing, are destitute), but possessing 
(finally and as our own, our inheritance 
never to be taken away; in that sense of 
the word ‘¢o possess’ which this world’s 
buyers are not to use—oi ayopd(ovrTes, as 
2) Katéxovtes, 1 Cor. vii. 30) all things. 
See a similar ‘possession of all things,’ 
1 Cor. iii. 22: though this reaches further 
than even that,—to the boundless riches of 
the heavenly inheritance. 

11—VII. 1.] KarNnEsT EXHORTATIONS 
TO SEPARATION FROM UNBELIEF AND IM- 
PURITY. 11--13.] These verses form 
a conclusion to the preceding outpouring 
of his heart with regard to his apostolic 
ministry, and at the same time a transition 
to the exhortations which are to follow. 

11.] Our (my) mouth is open (not 
past: the use of dvémya for avéwypat 
is common in later Greek : see Palm and 
Rost’s Lex., and ref.1 Cor. Riickert takes 
it as past, and renders, ‘I have begun to 
speak with you, I have not concealed my 
apostolic sentiments—I cannot shut my 


BCDEK 
LPR al 
cedefs 
hkIim1 
017.47 


10—14. 


n Kapdia nuav *TerdatuvTau 1% ov 


€ n b 
jypiv, 

13 hv b€ avtTny 
TuvOnte Kat bmets. 


only. e = ch. vii. 15, Phil. i. 8. 


e Acts xvii. 22. 1 Cor. x. 15. 


12. om de Cal. 


14. ins kau bef wy F(and F-lat G-lat) D-lat Syr eth arm Ambrst. 


mouth, but must go on speaking to you yet 
further.’ The word seems to refer to the 
free and open spirit shewn in the whole 
previous passage on the ministry, in which 
he had so liberally imparted his inner feel- 
ings to them) towards you, Corinthians 
(cal } mposOhen dé TOU dvduaTos PiAlas TOA 
Ajjs,, rab Biabecews kal Bepudrnros* kal yep 
eidbauey TOY Gryamronweviy gwvexa@s yuuve 
Te dvdéuara TepiaT pepe, Chrys. Hom. xiii. 
p-530f. See Phil. iv. 15; Gal. iii. 1, which 
last is written under a very different feel- 
ing),—our (my) heart has become en- 
larged. These last words are very vari- 
ously explained. Chrys., Theodoret, (c., 
al., understand them of the expansive effect 
of love on the heart: Luther, Hstius, al., 
of dilatio gaudii, which does not how- 
ever agree with mAariv@nte kad Suets be- 
low: nor with the general context, either 
of what precedes or of what follows: for to 
refer it to ch. vii. 4,as Estius, is evidently 
far-fetched, the intermediate matter being 
of such a different character. Alii aliter. 
Meyer holds with Chrys., and refers it to 
the preceding passage, during which his 
heart became expanded in love to them. 
De Wette takes it, ‘ / have poured out, en- 
larged and diffused, my heart to you, viz. 
by speaking thus open-hearted to you. 
I believe the precise sense will only be 
found by taking into account the mAaruvé. 
x. duets below, and the occurrence of the 
expression in the Psalm (reff.: cf. ev 
mAatvone, ib., ver. 45). Some light is 
also thrown upon it by xwphoare jas, 
ch. vii. 2. The heart is considered as a 
space, wherein its thoughts and feelings 
are contained. We have seen the same 
figure in our expression ‘ narrow-minded.’ 
In order to take in a new object of love, 
or of desire, or of ambition, the heart 
must be enlarged: 65bv éevToAdy cov 
€dpauov, Stay emAaTUVas Thy Kapdiav pov. 
The Apostle has had his heart enlarged 
towards the Corinthians: he eould and 
did take them in, with their infirmities, 
their interests, their Christian graces, 
their defects and sins: but they did not 
and could not take him in (xwpicat ad- 


IPOS KOPINOIOTS 


atevoywpeicbe Sé ev Tols CoTrdyyVoIs tudv" 

1 avtyucbiav (“ws Téxvois éyo) 

14 My fryiveoOe % Erepofuryobvtes » ami- 
ty pobury 


Philem. 20. 
f w. particip. = Heb. v. i2. 


g here only+. (-yos, Ley. xix. 19.) see 1 Cor. xiv. 21. 


671 


> srevoywpetae vp *here dis, 


only. Psa. 
exyiii. 32. 
1 Kings ii. 1. 


4 ohKa- b here bis. ch. 


iy. 8 only. 
Josh. xvii. 15 
Isa, XXViii. 
20. xlix. 19 


Prov. xii. 10. d Rom, i. 27 only + 
Rey. iii. 2. Mic. ii, 1. see Acts ii. 5 reff. 
h = 1 Cor, vi. 6 reff. 


13. vuas F. 


for amicrots, 


vév): he was misunderstood by them, and 
his relation to them disregarded. This he 
here asserts, and deprecates. He assures 
them of ¢hezr place in his heart, which is 
wide enough for, and does contain them ; 
and refers back to this verse in ch. vii. 3, 
thus, mpoelpnka 671 év Tals Kapdiats Hpav 
é€oTe. He tells them, ver. 12.] that 
they are not straitened in hzm, i.e. that 
any constraint which they may feel towards 
him, any want of confidence in him and 
persuasion of his real appreciation of their 
state and interests, arose, not from dis being 
really unable to appreciate them, and love 
them, and advise them,—but from their 
own confined view of him, of his love, his 
knowledge of and feeling for them. 
13.| THY adthy avtip., as Tov Buotoy Tpd- 
mov, Jude 7, kAicias, Luke ix. 14, not 
governed by card understood, but in fact 
an accus. of a remoter object, answering in 
many cases exactly to the further removed 
of the two accusatives in the double ac- 
cusative government. The sense seems 
to be compounded of tdy adtby tpdmov, 
and ayrTiuiciay, In the same manner, as 
areturn for my largeness of heart to you. 
@s Tékvots A. explains avTimic Olav,— 
it being naturally expected of children that 
they should requite the love and care of 
their parents, by corresponding love and 
regard. 14—VII.1.] Separate your- 
selves from unbelief and impurity. On 
the nature of the connexion, Stanley has 
some good remarks. He now applies to 
circumstances which had arisen among the 
Corinthians the exhortation which in ver. 
1 he described himself as giving in pur- 
suance of his ministry of reconciliation. 
The following exhortations are general, and 
hardly to be pressed as applying only to 
partaking of meats offered to idols, as 
Calv., al., or to marriage with unbelievers, 
as Estius,—but regard all possible con- 
nexion and participation,—all leanings 
towards a return to heathenism which 
might be bred by too great familiarity with 
heathens. Become not (‘ne fiatis, molli- 
ter pro: ne sitis,’ Bengel: rather, perhaps, 
as expressing, ‘do not enter into those re- 


eee 





672 IIPO> KOPINOIOTS B. VI. 15—18. 
a 


i here only. oust / X i TO \ 8 U4 SM ae la DI y 
reoman GTO Ths yap! weToXN SiKaLocdvy Kat * dvopia, 7) Tis BCDEK 
Ed-vat. F. \ , re , 

(not A-Bdet) | KoLvavia g@wtt mpos aKotos; ris S€ ™ cuudawvynais edete 

only. (-xos, S Noy 7 VO ee \ A \ > , m1! 
aa p ona h Z 

_ Hebi)” yplotov mpos ” Bediap, 7) ° Tis P wepis ImusT@ peta * ari 17.47 


rote atov; 16 cis b€* cvyKaTabeats § va@ * Beod peta * eidHdwr ; 


11 Cor. i. 9. x. 


16. Gal. ii. G a \ s \ s n°) t fal \ e e \ 
gal, Lev. Upels yap Svads * Aeod éote * Gavtos, Kaas eimev 0 Beds 
vi. 2. cd / fa) ‘\ n ‘ 
mhereonlyt. OTL “EVOLKNTW €V AUTOS Kal ‘ EuTrEpLTTAaTHTw, Kal Evomat 
ni nS OF a , \ > Lo» / l y \ » Eek 
niniconly+, @UTOV Beds, Kal avTol Ecovtai wot ads, 17 S10 ¥ €EéMOaTte 
see note. 


q Acts x. 45 reff. r here only+. (-7(@er8at, 
Luke xxiii. 51.) s = 1 Cor. iii. 16. vi. 19. Jer. vii. 4. t1 Cor. x. 19 reff. Acts 
u Rom. viii. 11. Col. iii. 16. 2 Tim. i. 5, 14 only. (not l.c.) Ley. xxvi. 32 al. 
w Acts xvii. 33. Isa, lii. 11 (free). 


o 3 Kings xii. 16. p Acts viii. 21 reff. 


Exod. xxiii. 1. 

xiy. 15 and note. 
v here only. Levir. xxvi. 12. 
peta amiotwy F latt lat-ff. dixarocuvns Kat adikras D!, also (but -v7 x. -1a) D3: 
Sixaoovyns meta, (kat Orig,) avoutas F latt arm Orig,(and int,) some-lat-ff. rec 
(for » Tis) Tes Se, with K rel syr eth Chr Thdrt Cosmas Thl Gc Tert, : txt BCDFLPX 
d m17 latt Syr syr-mg copt goth arm Clem Orig,(and int,) Damase Cypr Lucif Ambrst 
Jer. gwtos (addg 7) D! Cypr Lucif Hil. 

15. ree xpictw (prob corra for conformn to pwr preceding), with D-gr F-gr KL 
rel vss Clem-ed, Orig,(and int,) Can-apost-ed Tert, : txt BCPX 17 vulg(and F-lat) D-lat 
copt Clem,(and ms,) Orig, Can-apost-mss Damase lat-ff. elz BeAwad, with vulg 
G-lat Clem, Tit-ed Orig-int, Tert Lucif: BéAvay D-gr K m 47 syr-mg-gr goth(Beliam) 
many-mentioned-by- Jer(“ corrupte”) Thdrt,: BeAwS F D-lat: txt BCLPRX rel fuld 
(and harl') syr copt eth arm Orthod Clem, Orig, Nys Naz Bas Ephr Chr Thdrtsepe 
Damase. motov B 17 8-pe copt. 

16. ques and eopeyv BDILPR! 17 D-lat copt (Clem) Did Aug,: txt CD§FK(X%) rel 
vulg syrr goth arm Ath Chr Thdrt Damase Jac-nisib Orig-int Lucif Tert.—vaor X! 
Clem,.—eore bef deov X°. for Kadws evmev, Acyer yap D'(and lat) F, dicit enim 
G-lat goth Tert Aug). for avtwy, avtos F(and G-lat) P copt Orig. for mou, 
pov BCPX m17 arm Eus, Damase: txt DFKL rel vss Clem Orig Ath Cyr-jer Thdrt 
lat-ff. 

17. [efeA@are, so BCFX 17. 47 Damasc. | 


lations in which you must become ’”) incon- 
gruous yokefellows (the word and idea 
from ref. Levit. Hesych.: érepé¢uyor of 
uy ovdvyoovtes. Grot. explains it, ‘ alte- 
ram partem jugi trahere, but this does 
not give the force of érepo- :—Theophyl, 
bh adicetre TH Sikatov emikAwouevor kK. 
mposkAwomevor ois od Oeuis: so making the 
simile that of an unequal balance: but this 
could hardly be without more precise noti- 
fication) with unbelievers (Winer explains 
the construction, edn. 6, § 31. 10, Remark 
4, thus, wh ylv. Erepo(uyodrtes, Kat oftws 
duo(vyouvres alotos: better, as De W., 
wh yly. duo. arlorois Kk. o¥tws Erepotu- 
yoovres). petoxy | ‘share in the 
same thing, community. Sikatoc. 
is the state of the Christian, being justified 
by faith: he is therefore excluded from 
avopia, the proper fruit of faith being 
obedience. dori, of which we are the 
children, 1 Thess. v. 5, and not of dark- 
ness. Meyer remarks, that the fivefold 
variation of the term to express partner- 
ship, —peToxh, Kowwvia, TunPaevnais, wepis, 
ouykardbecis, shews the Apostle’s com- 
mand of the Greek language. The con- 
struction of cowwvla with a dat. and pds, 
is illustrated by Wetst. from Stobzeus, 8S. 


28, «i 5€ Tis Cort Kowvwvla mpds Oeods juiv, 
—and Philo, leg. ad Caium, § 14, vol. ii. 
p. 561, tis oty Kowwvia mpds ’AméAAwva, 
TG pndev oiketov 2 ovyyeves emiterndev- 
KOTL; 15.] After a question begin- 
ning with més, rls, and the like, a second 
question is regularly introduced by 6é. 
Thus Hom. Od. a. 225, rls dals, tls 5 
duidos, 85° ErAeto; see Hartung, Parti- 
kellehre, i. 169. BeAtap |] Heb. dy»ba, 
‘ contemptibleness,’ ‘wickedness :’? found 
1 Sam. ii. 12 al., and variously translated 
by the LXX. Theod. has retained the 
original form in Judg. xix. 22. It appears 
to have been subsequently personified, and 
used, as here, for a name of the Evil One 
(see Stanley). The termination -ap is 
stated by Meyer to have arisen from the 
frequent permutation of A and p in the dia- 
lect of the Grecian Jews. 16.| ovy- 
Kxaraé., ‘agreement in opinions :’ see retf., 
and ef. Plato, Gorg. § 122, ob 5& 5% mére- 
pov auykatatlOecat juiy mepl tobrwy Thy 
abriy Sdkav h avtipis ; va@d Beov, 
between you, the Church of God,—see 
below, and 1 Cor. iii. 16 ;—et8éXv, idols, 
as the lords and éemrdévuyo of the heathen 
world. tpeis yap | explanation of vag 
Gcod as applying to them, and justification 


VII. 1, 2. 


IIPOS KOPINOIOTS B. 


673 


Wé« pécou avTav Kal * ddopiaOnte, reyer KUptos, reall » seis xn 9 


YaxaOaptov ur antecbe Kayo * cisdéEowar tuas. 
*Erowat buiv * eis Tratépa, Kai bpmels *érecOE pot *eis viovs 
b , arses 

mavtoxpatwp. VII. | rav- 


\ / / s 
Kat Ovyarépas Neyer KUpLOS 


> » / 
Tas ovy ExovTes Tas ° éTayyeNias, 
owpev ' EavTovs ard TaVvTos § wodhva mod " GapKos Kat 
i > lal k 1) 7 ’ ie 6 lal 
patos, | émuteNod TEs * aytwovuny ev Pow Oeod. 
21 Xapyoate yds: ovdéva noixnoapev, ovdéva ™ épOel- 2. 
d Rom. xii. 19. ch. xii. 19. 


f lst pers., ch. iii. 1 reff. 


(-vvewv, 1 Cor. viii. 7.) 
1 Thess. iii. 13 only. 


ce Acts i. 4 reff. 
xv. 9 reff. 


(80). 2 Mace. v. 27 only. 


6 re k Rom. i. 4 (reff.). 
m 1 Cor. i iii, 17 reff. 


Cap. VII. 2. vuas F(not G). 


of it by a citation from the prophetic Scrip- 
tures. The words cited are compounded of 
Levit. xxvi. 12, and Ezek. xxxvii. 26, 27. 
17.| The necessity of separation from 
the heathen enforced by another citation, — 
Isa. lii. 11,—freely given from memory ; 
Kayo eisdeg. bu. being moreover substi- 
tuted, from Ezek. xx. 34, for mpomopev- 
oeTau yep mpdrepos judy Kuvpios, K. 6 emt 
ovvdyev buas Peds “Iopana. The aka- 
@aprov must be understood of the pollu- 
tions of heathenism generally, not of any 
one especial polluted thing, as meat offered 
to idols. 18. | The citation continues, 
setting forth the blessings promised to 
those who do thus come out from heathen- 
dom. Various passages of the O. T. are 
combined. In 2 Kings vii. 14 (LXX), we 
have éey& Eroum adTe@ eis Tat., K. avTbs éo- 
Tat worcis vidy’'—the expression of viol wou 
and ai @uyarépes mov is found Isa. xliii. 6: 
and Tad Aéyer KUpios mayToKpatwp begins 
the section from which the former clauses 
are taken, 2 Kings vii. 8 (LXX). 
VII. 1.] Inference from the foregoing cita- 
tions :—seecing that we have such glorious 
(rabras in the position of emphasis) pro- 
mises, we are to purify ourselves (not 
merely, ‘keep ourselves pure: purifica- 
tion belongs to sanctification, and is a 
gradual work, even after conversion). 
wapkds, as the actual instrument and sug- 
gester of pollution: avevpatos, as the re- 
cipient through the flesh, and when the 
recipient, the retainer and propagator, of 
uncleanness. The exhortation is general : 
against impure acts and impure thoughts. 
émted. Gyiwo., as De W. remarks, 
gives the positive side of the foregoing 
negative exhortation: every abnegation 
and banishing of impurity is a positive 
advance of that sanctification, in the fear 
of God (as its element) to which we are 
called. 
2—16.| CoNCERNING THE EFFECT ON 
THEM, AND RESULTS IN THEIR CONDUCT, 
Vou. II. 


= ao x. lt 
18 Mon ae 
Z here we 
EZEK, xx. 
34. Zeph. 
iii. 20. 
a Matt. xix. So 





© kadapl- 
yh 


a2 / 
ayaTryTol, is : 
Meters 
VEU XXXVill. 
(xxxi.) 33. 
b here only, 
exc. Rev. i.8 
2 Kincs 
vii, 8. 
1 Pet. ii. 11. 1 John ii. 7 al. e Acts 
g here only. Jer. xxiii. 15, Esdr. viii. 83 
hso Matt. faage 41 || Mk ich. viii. 
= Matt. xix. 11,12. (Gen. xiii. 6.) 


Phil. iy. 1. 


WHICH HIS FORMER EPISTLE HAD PRO- 
DUCED. 2—4.] He introduces the 
subject by a friendly assurance of his love 
and bespeaking of theirs, as before in ch. 
Vises: 2.] xwpyo., see above on 
ch. vi. 138; Séfac0e nuds mAaTéws, kK. M1) 
orevoxwpaucba ev tuiv. Theophyl. De 
Wette, after Bengel, al., renders it, ‘ wnder- 
stand us rightly,’ referring to ref. Matt. : 
but even there the meaning is ‘to take in,’ 
and only ‘to understand rightly,’ because 
Tov Adyov TovTov follows. And as Meyer 
observes, there could not well be any mzs- 
understanding as to what he here says. 

ovdeva 78., «.7.A. | Reasons why they 
should make room for him in their hearts: 
We (when he dwelt among them,—the 
aorists refer to a set time, not to his course 
hitherto) wronged no man (in outward 
acts, namely,—in the exercise of his apos- 
tolic authority, or the like),—we ruined 
no maa (this probably also of outward con- 
duct towards others, not as Caly., al., of 
corrupting by false doctrine),—we cheated 
no man. ‘To understand, with Rickert, 
these verbs as applying to the contents of 
the former Epistle, is very forced. If 75:x. 
had really referred to the severe punish- 
ment of the incestuous person,—e#Oeip. to 
the delivering him over to Satan,—and 
émAeov. to the power which Paul gained 
over them by this act of authority,—surely 
we should have found more express indica- 
tion of such reference in the text. But 
no allusion has as yet been made to the 
former Epistle; and therefore it is much 
better to understand the words generally 
of the time when he resided among them. 
“In how many ways of which history 
says nothing, may such ruining of others 
have been laid to the charge of Paul? 
How easily might his severe visitation 
of sin, his zeal for eleemosynary collec- 
tions, his habit of lodging with mem- 
bers of the churches, and the like, have 
been thus unfavourably cherie 

x 


VIL 


3 °arpos ? KaTaKpiow ov 


/ A / \ [<4 b] Lal r / € lal 9 | 
eyo" IpoeipnKa yap OTL év Tals 'Kapdiais Hud cove c de ti 


4 trod pot YY Trap- 


5 Kal yap €ovtwy 


674 ITPOS KOPINOIOTS B. 

h. ii, 11 reff. Seva, 2 é , 
neh. ti 11 reff. DEEMED, ovdéva ® érrAeovexTHTaper. 

35 reff. 
p ch. iii. 9 

only +. Num. > Re in Va = 

xiit. 38 Seis TO touvatrobaveiy Kai * cuviqv. 

Uexali € ’ Vv \ ec oA ow x s r \ Cy. ae 
qehau2 pnola ‘pos vas, ToXAn pot * KavYNOLS VTEP Uw) 
reff. : , a gz / a £ , a 
rPhilit. ¥ qremAypoyar TH * Tapakhyoel, * uTEpTEpLacEvOMaL TH 
raft te ee , a Orné ¢ a 
tMakxiv.a. Xap@ Pewt tacy TH Orifrer nuov. 

2 Tim. ii. 11 

palace 


xix. 10 only. 
u Rom, vi. 8. 
2 Tim. ii. 11 
only +. 
¥— mond vy. 1 reff. w ch. iii. 12 reff. 
Luke ii. 40. Rom. i. 29 only. 2 Mace. vii. 21. 


x = ver. ld. 
z= ch. i. 3, &c. reff. 
c ch. i. 9 reff. 


id A > } / >) / c vw d » (¢ \ 
nuav eis Maxedoviay ovdeuiav ° éxynkev “dveow 4 cap& 
Huav, GAN © év cavti * OABouevor & EEwlev + wayas, 


1Cor. xv. 31. (Rom. iii. 27 reff.) y constr., 
a Rom. vy. 20 only +. (-@s, 
d Acts xxiv. 23 reff. ech 


g Matt. xxiii. 25, 27, 28 al. h see Deut. 


Mark vii. 37.) b = ch. iii. 14 reff. 
iy. 8 reff. f ch. i. 6 reff. part. constr., ch. v. 6 reff. 
xxxii. 25. i2 Tim. ii. 23. Tit. iii. 9. James iv. 1 only. = Gen. xiii. 7. 


3. rec ov bef mpos kataxpiow, with DFKL rel vss gr-lat-ff: txt BCP 17(appy, from 


the space after karaxp: . .). 
RL om cote B. 

4. aft zpos vuas ins ear D'(and lat). 
tn F: aft maon 77 ins moAAn D!. 


ecx. CF d latt Thdrt, lat-ff. 


Meyer: who remarks, that the emphatic 
position of obdéva thrice repeated is no 
confirmation of Riickert’s view. 

3.] I do not say it (ver. 2) for condemna- 
tion (with a condemnatory view, in a 
spirit of blame: there is no tua@y ex- 
pressed, nor should it be supplied. He 
means, ‘I do not say ver. 2 in any but a 
loving spirit’): for (and this shews it) I 
have said before (viz. ch. vi. 11 f. see note 
there) that ye are in our hearts (this was 
implied in 7 kapdla nuav memAdTuvTaL, Vi. 
11. In the qualifying words, eis 7d our. 
«.7.A., Paul, as Meyer says, is his own 
commentator), to die together and live 
together. This is ordinarily understood, 
‘so that I could die with you or live with 
you, —as Hor., ‘Tecum vivere amem, 
tecum obeam libens,’ Od. iii. 9. 24: which 
Meyer controverts, owing to duets being 
the subject of the sentence, and renders, 
‘in order to die and to live with us:’ i.e. 
‘if our lot is to die, in death,—and if our 
lot is to live, in life, never to be torn from 
our hearts.’ But to this I would reply, 
that though dpe?s is the subject of ev tats 
kapd. ju. eore, it is but an accidental and 
secondary subject as regards the whole sen- 
tence: that they are present in his heart, 
is a sign, not of their state of mind, but of 
his: therefore the purpose, els 76, must 
refer logically to him, the main subject, of 
whom only the purposes can come into 
consideration. 4.| mwappyoia, as in 
reff., confidence, which leads to and justi- 
fies kabxnois: not here ‘liberty of speech,’ 
as Chrys., al. Kavx., to others, in 
speaking of them. f tap., the 
consolation (which I have received), viz. 


aft or: ins ere (but marked for erasure) X!. 


ins ev bef tn xapa B(sic in cod). 
for nuwy, uuwy F(not G) K b co (so FK ver 5.) 
5. for exxnrev, ecxev BFK: txt CDLPR rel Chr Thdrt, Damase. 
OAtBouevos D}. 


UiLwV 
om 8rd 


aveow bef 


that furnished by the intelligence from you. 
Though this is anticipating what follows 
vv. 7, 9, I cannot but believe it to have 
been already before the Apostle’s mind, 
and to have been referred to by the articles 
before mapakA. and yap. On the con- 
struction of wAnpéw with an instrumental 
dative, see reff., and Winer, edn. 6, § 31. 
7. So Eurip. Here. Fur. 372, wedxaow 
X€pas mAnpodyTes,—and Bacche 18, s- 
ydow “EAAnot BapBapois @ éuod mAnpes 
éxovoa KadAurupyaétous méAets. 

tmepr.| I am made exceedingly to 
abound, see Matt. xiii. 12. The pres. in- 
dicates the abiding of the effect. mH 
xapq, with the joy; see above. eri 
waco. TH OA. Hp., in (reff.) all my tribula- 
tion: refers to both preceding clauses. 
What 6Aifis he means, is explained in the 
next verse. maoy here not of all tri- 
bulation, at all times, which the special 
reference of mapakA. and xapda forbids: 
but of various sorts of tribulation as speci- 
fied (év mayrt) below. 5—7.] The 
intelligence received from them through 
Titus, and its comforting effect on the 
Apostle’s mind. 5.] ydp gives a 
reason for @Alpvec above: kai connects 
with ch. ii. 12, 18, where he has spoken of 
the trouble which he had before leaving 
Troas. For also, after our coming to 
Macedonia, our flesh had no rest (there 
is a slight, but very slight, di tinction from 
ovk toxnka veo To mvetpatl pov, ch. 
ii. 12. Titus was now present, so that 
that source of inquietude was removed ; 
but the outward ones of fightings gene- 
rating inward fears (but see below), yet 
remained. No further distinction must 


BCDFK 
LPR al 





mt. 
017.47 


3—8. 


IIPO> KOPINOIOTS B. 


675 


/ lal F 
Séowbev hoBor. 8 add 6 “rapaxardv tods ™ Tatrewvods * =~. i-4 
s con ¢ a FOSS 
Kqapexddecev Huds o Oeds ™ ev tH ° mapovola Throur tn Mute xi. 2. 


Tov movov Sé “ev TH °mapoucia adtod, ara Kal ™ év TH 
mapakdyjoe  * rapexrjnOn ? ef’ byiv, YavayyédXov Hiv 
THY vuov * étrimOOncw, TOV vuav *ddvppov, Tov Bpmov 
* prov Urrép ewovd, wsTe we “Y uaddov Y yaphvas. 
Kat“ éhutnoa twas ev * TH émioToNH, ov Y werapédropat, et 


Luke i. 52. 
Rom, xii. 16. 
Ch. eau 
James i. 9. 
iv. 6 & 1 Pet. 
y. 5 (from 
Prov. iii, 34) 
only. 
8 J ? n =ch. iv. 8. 
OTL Eb o = 1 Cor. xvi. 
17, Phi 


26. ii. 12 al.+ 
2 Mace. viii. 


\ / , \ i<4 c~'s X\ > / > ‘ ° 
Kal Y weTewerXounv: BrETrw yap OTL 1 ETLOTONN EKELVN EL Kat wi 2 


p = 1 Cor. xiii. 6. xvi. 17. q 
Aq. (-etv, Rom.i. 11. -TO0s, Phil. iy. 1.) 
15. 2 Macc. xi. 6 only. 

v ver. 13. w ch. 1i. 2 reff. 
3. Heb. vii. 21 (from Ps. cix. 4) only. 


6. om 2nd 0 C 4, 


7. nv mapexAnOnv D!. for ep, ev L. 


Acts xiv. 27 reff. 
t = Rom. x. 2 reff. 


x see 1 Cor. v. 9 reff. 
Prov. xxv. 8. see ver. 10. 


for nu., vuas F(not G). 


rver.llonly+. Ezek. xxiii. 11 

s Matt. ii. 18 only, from Jer. xxxviii. (xxxi.) 
u compar., Acts xxv. 10 reff. 

y here bis. Matt. xxi. 29, 32. xxvii. 


for ev, emt C Chr Thl-marg. 
for nu., yuty D'(bt?) RL. om u7ep e“ou 


me aft wadAov D Thdrt: aft yxapnva: F arm: om K m 31-5-9. 109-14 lect-13. 


8. aft emioroA7n ins wou DF. 


for 2nd ex ka, et de rat B. 


om ‘yap B D}(and 


lat) Ambrst-ms Aug Bede: videns quod vulg. (The varr arise from attempts to clear 
the constr, making « de xa pw. the beginning of a new sentence, and Brerw, without 


yap, the apodosis,—or Brewwy x.7.r. a qualifying clause: see also notes.) 


be drawn—for @owfev pdBor evidently 
shews that odpt must be taken in a wide 
sense); without, fightings (the omission of 
joav renders the description more graphic), 
within, fears. Chrys., iw. udyar mapa 
Tov ariotwv €rwd. PdBor dia Tods Gobeveis 
Tav micTt@y. Hom. xiv. p. 539. So Calv., 
Grot., Wetst., al., slightly varying in their 
assignment of each class. But it is better, 
as Paul speaks of 7 capt judy, to under- 
stand e§wOev of the state of things with- 
out him, contentions with adversaries, 
either within or without the church, and 
€owbev of that within, fears, for ourselves, 
for others, or for you, how you might have 
received our letter. 6.] Tots Tarre.- 
vous, generally, those that are low: qpas, 
as belonging to that class. It was not 
jinding Titus which had given him such 
uneasiness in Troas, ch. ii. 12. év, not 
‘by,’ but in, as the conditional element or 
vehicle of the consolation. So also in next 
verse. 7. GAG kat....] not only 
.... but also with the comfort with 
which he was comforted concerning you: 
i.e. ‘we shared in the comfort which Titus 
felt in recording to us your desire,’ &e. see 
ver. 13. He rejoiced in announcing the 
news: we in hearing them. There is no 
inaccuracy of construction, as De W. sup- 
poses. émumdOnovy, either longing to 
see me, or longing to fulfil my wishes. The 
former is the more simple. dduppdv, 
—énl TH emityhoet pov TH ev TH TpeTNH 
émotoAn, as (cum. {irov wrép 
épod] The art. is omitted after (jAov, as 
in Tav adeAdGv pou TaY ouyyevGv KaTa 
odpka, because the words (7Aov brép euod 
cohere in the sense, and form as it were 


om 7 F. 


but one,—see Col. i. 4 (iv. 13, v. r.): 
and Winer, edn. 6, § 20. 2. 
padAov, viz. ‘than before, at the mere 
coming of Titus... The emphasis is on 
aAAoy from its position. 8—11.] 
He expresses his satisfaction at the effect 
produced on them, as superseding his 
former regret that he had grieved them. 
8.] For (reason of the xapjvar) 
though I even grieved you in (by means 
of) my epistle, I do not (now) repent 
(having written it), though I even did 
repent it (before the coming of Titus). 
Erasm., al., take ei kal wereu. for ‘even 
supposing I repented it before, which was 
not the case: Caly., al. think ‘ verbum 
peenitendi improprie positum pro dolorem 
capere. The reason of these departures 
from grammatical construction and the 
meaning of words, is, for fear the Apostle 
should seem to have repented of that which 
he did under the inspiratien of the Holy 
Spirit. But there is no difficulty even on 
the strictest view of inspiration, in con- 
ceiving that the Apostle may have after- 
wards regretted the severity which he was 
guided to use; we know that Jonah, being 
directed by inspiration to pronounce the 
doom of Nineveh, endeavoured to escape 
the unwelcome duty: and doubtless St. 
Paul, as a man, in the weakness of his affec- 
tion for the Corinthians, was tempted to 
wish that he had never written that which 
had given them pain. But the result 
shewed that God’s Spirit had ordered it 
well, that he should thus write: and this 
his repentance was repented of again. 
BAérrw yap x.7.A.] For I see that that let- 
ter, though but for a time, did grieve you. 


Nexans 


676 


z (=) John v. 
35, Gal. ii. 


IIPOS KOPIN@IOTS B. 


Zarpos @pav “ édvmncev vptis" 


Wit. 


lol / > oe 
9 yoy yalpw, OVX OTL 


‘ , 
fee: Ww eXumniOnte, GAN OTe % éAuTrHOTE * Eis weTavorav® “ EXvTTN- 

1 Thess. ii, 17. ee - \ = sghie vars 
amatt. silt” Opre yap » kata Oeor, iva ° év © pndevi tnprwOrre €& jor. 

om. x. lf ps ’ 
» Rom. vii, 10 7 yap kata Qeov AvTn * perdvouay els mites S 

27. see ch. ‘ , ec \ n , , , 

x ii. fe « | GpmeTaperntov © épyatetat, 7) d€ TOU KOTpov AUT @avatov 
ech. v8 reff. : é A . i reo + Sie a 
¢ rel es i heatepyaterar. 11 tov yep as tobro * 70 Karte 

= M3 1. nr Lal 
° al. fr. Gedy * XuTnOAvar [duas] Toonv * KaTEipyacaTo Upiv 
' eee a g = Rom. ii. 10 reff. h = Rom. iv. 15. y. 3. ch. iv. 17 al. i Acts 


xxiv. 15 reff. k = Rom. viii. 26 reff. 


vuas bef eAutncer F. 
9. om vvy D}(and lat) Syr. 


om @AA ort eAvTNOnTe N1(ins N-corr! Obl) tol}. 


10. rec katepyaCerat, with FKLN3 rel Orig, Thdrt Th] Ge: txt BCDPR! m Clem 
Orig, Chr-mss ames (om last clause [home@otel] K 17. 31. 108!-14-78.) 

11. om upas (as unnecessary, vu occurring below: and to express, as above, the 
abstract and not the concrete) BCFR! 17 Ambrst Aug: ins DKLN3 rel Clem Bas Chr 


Thdrt Damasc Thl @e Bede. 


KaTN 


py. B1D k! m. 


ins ev bef vuiy CFP? 


e d 47 vulg syr Bas Chr Thdrt Thl lat-ff: om BDKLN! rel Clem Damasce (ce. 


This seems the only admissible rendering of 
the words. Chrys. sees in them the reason 
of ob wetauéAoua, and adds (Hom. XY. p. 
543) 7d pev yap Aumnpdy Bpaxt, Td de wpe- 
Aimov Sinvexes. It appears then that he 
would render «i kal mpds Spay, ‘if even 
for a season,’ = ‘scarcely for any time, 
Rinck (lucubr. crit. p. 162) would begin a 
new sentence with ei kal weteweAduny, and 
parenthesizing BAérw.... duas, regard 
viv xalpw, «.7.A.as the apodosis. But 
this is very unnatural, with so abrupt a 
beginning as «i «ai. It would certainly 
have been ei 5€ wal: and the present, 
BAérw, would give no reason for the past, 
peteuedduny, which had passed away. The 
best sense, as well as the most legitimate 
rendering, is to regard BAétw.... duas 
as the epexegesis of éAvwrnoa, as above. 
9.| viv, emphatic, as distinguish- 
ing xalpw from peteuedduny: now that 
I know not only of your grief, but of its 
being grief which worked repentance. 
Kata Gedy] as E. V., after a godly sort: 
‘with reference to God,’ see ref. Rom. 
and note: “ secundum, hic significat sen- 
sum animi Deum spectantis et sequentis,” 
Bengel. airy yap 7 Kad} Avrn, ws Td ye 
kar’ &vOpwmrov AvTeic0at Kady. (cum. 
Cf. kata &vOpwrov, 1 Cor. xv. 32. 
fva, x.7.A.| in order that ye might in 
nothing be damaged by us: not ék- 
Barixa@s, so that ye did not ...., as many 
Commentators:—the divine purpose of 
their grief is indicated ; ‘God so brought 
it about, in order that your grief occasioned 
by me might have, not an injurious, but 
a beneficial effect.’ 10.| How < grief 
according to God’ produces such an effect. 
For grief according to God works 
(brings about, promotes, see ref.) repent- 


ance unto salvation which none will 
regret. GpetapéAntov best belongs 
to owrnpiay, as Vulg., Theophyl., Aug., 
Est., Fritzsche, Meyer, De Wette; not to 
beTdvo.av, as most Commentators :—not 
necessarily however from the position of the 
words, as Meyer and De Wette maintain : 
for what more common than for the predi- 
cate of a substantive (eis cwrnplay) to be 
placed between it and a qualifying adjec- 
tive ?—but on account of the sense, and 
the fact that not duetavdnroyv, but auera- 
#éAnTov is chosen, so that the play in E. V., 
‘repentance not to be repented of,’ does 
not seem to have been intended. De W. 
well explains owtnpia duerauéAntros— 
‘salvation which none will ever regret’ 
having attained, however difficult it may 
have been to reach, however dearly it may 
have been bought. | T. Kogpou 
Avan] Th 5€ Cori, Kata KécMov; edy Av- 
mons bia xphmata, dia ddtav, Sid Tov 
ameA6dvra. Chrys. ib. tod xéop. is sub- 
jective: ‘the grief felt by the children of 
this world, O@dvatov| Death eter- 
nal, as contrasted with owtnptay: not 
‘deadly sickness, or ‘suicide, as Theo- 
phyl. (in part, mavtws wey tov WuxiKdy, 
modAdkis 5€ Kal Toy cwmatixdy), al. The 
grief which contemplates nothing but the 
blow given, and not the God who chastens, 
can produce nothing but more and more 
alienation from Him, and result in eternal 
banishment from His presence. So that 
épyat. is rather works, ‘ contributes to,’ 
and katepyal., works out, ‘results in.’ 
11.) The blessed effects of godly 

grief on themselves, as shewn by fact. 
ait TovTo, this very thing, of 

which I have been speaking. orov- 
Syv, earnestness, as contrasted with your 


BCDF 
LPN a 
edef 
hklm 
017.4 


9—13. 


lomovonv, ™adra ™ atrodoyiar, 


mS U4 Cl 
™ andra hoBov, ™ adrAa P éeruToOnow, ™ adda 4% EHrov, 


™ GG * exdienow. 
v- \ » Ww A w / 
dyvovs elvas “TO “ mpaypate. 


IIPOS KOPINOIOTS B. 


s 2 s ye / u c \ 
€V ~ TavVvTt OUVVECTICGATE E€AUTOUS 


677 


m4 y Of , 1 = Rom. xii. 
aryra °ayavaKTnow, aie 

m = 1 Cor. iii. 2. 

n = 1 Cor. ix. 3. 
(Acts xxv. 16 
reff. Wisd. 
vi. 10 only. 

° here only Sit 
(-Tevv, Matt. 


€ / > \ Yj 
Papa e Kat éypayra 


Cen > oe ees 5 , Oe 4 Lew set) : 
ULV, OUNX €VEKEVD TOV QO“LKNOAVTOS OVOE EVEKEV TOU » ver.7 onlyt. 


= ver. /. 


> a ig) q ee 
* aduxnBévtos, ANN’ evexev TOV Y havepwOjvat tTHv | orrov- ¥ Rom. xi.19 


Py e cal \ e \ € Lal \ € a Z b] / lal lol 
nV UM@V THY UTEP HuaVv TPOS UVuas 7 ev@mTLOY TOD OGeod. 


\ a / 
13 Gia TodTO * TapaKeKAnpela. 
Rom. vi. 11, 13,16. xii. 19. ch. xiii. 5. 


1 Thess. iv. 6. 
z= Actsiv.19 reff. Rom. xii. 17. 


avaxtnow (so 17) and emmo@ay XN}. 


v ch. xi. 2. 
17. 1 Pet. iii.2. 1Johniii.3 only. Prov. xx.9. (-v@s, Phil. i. 17. -VOTNS, ch. vi. 6.) 
i x Eur. Med. 267. 

a =ch.i. 4, &c. reff. 


[aaa (last), so BD1FLPX a b df mo 17. 47.] 


s ch. iv. 8 reff. 


{= chs vi 
Ce AN Py \ Oe eh , reff, 
€Tl O€ TH © TAPAKAHCEL u 2nd pers., 
t Matt. iii. 9. 


Phil. iv. 8. 1 Thess. y. 22. Tit. ii.5, James iii. 
w see 
= ch. ii, H. iii, 3, &c. constr., here only. 


b ch. i. 3, &c. reff. 


rec ins ev bef tw mpayuati, with D?3KLP rel vss Chr Thdrt Ambrst-ms : txt 
BCD'FX 17 vulg goth Clem Damasce Pel Bede. 


12. ins adn’ bef ovde BR mn 73. 
adfk17.]—om Ist to 2nd evexey D1. 


Levee (3ce), so BC(D)FK L(1st and 2nd) PX 


elz nuwv Thy umep vuwy (see notes), with 


d 47 vulg(and F-lat) goth arm-use Chr Thdrt Ambrst: vu. 7. vm. vu. D1(and lat?) 
F-gr X: nu. 7. ut. nu. nostram que est pro nobis G: txt BCD? 3KLP rel D?-lat E-lat 


syrr copt «th Damasce. 


former carelessness in the matter. 
GAG] nay, not srovdjv merely,—that is 
saying too little;—but ... amroho- 
yiav] viz. to Paul by means of Titus,— 
asserting their innocence in the matter ; 
see below. ayavakctno | mpds Toy 
memopveukdta. Theophyl. @dBov | ‘ne 
cum virga venirem,’ Bengel: fear of 
Paul: not here of God. The context is 
brought out well by Chrys. and Theophyl. 
The latter says, on émuméOnow,—rpds 
eué. eimoy 5¢ hdBov, iva uh 56én addevreiv, 
cuvtéuws diwpbdcato, émumdOnow cinor 
dwep evdeutTiKdy aydrns, ovK ékovolas. 
{AAov | on God’s behalf, to punish 
the offender ;—éxdixyow being the inflic- 
tion of justice itself. Bengel remarks, 
that the six accusatives preceded by aAAd 
fall into three pairs: a@roAoy. and ayavd«r., 
relating to their own feelings of shame,— 
6B. and émimd0. to Paul,—(jr. and ék- 
dix. to the offender. év wavTt must be 
understood only of participation of guil¢ : 
by their negligence, and even refusal to 
humble themselves (1 Cor. v. 2), they had 
in some things made common cause with 
the offender. Of this, now that they had 
shewn so different a spirit, the Apostle 
does not speak. ocvvestyoate| have 
commended yourselves by proving that 
ye are; a pregnant construction. TO 
ap., the dat. of regard: see Rom. vi. 20, 
and Winer, edn. 6, § 31. 1. k,—the matter, 
—perhaps, as in ref., not only, ‘of which 
I have been speaking,’—but with allusion 
to the kind of sin which was in question. 
ayvous, pure of stain. 12.] He 
shews them that to bring out this zeal in 
them was the real motive of his writing to 


them, and no private considerations. 

Gpa, accordingly,—‘in accordance with 
the result just mentioned.’ et Kat 
€ypawya tp. is parallel with ef ka eAdrnoa 
judas, ver. 8,—though (i.e. assumed that) 
I wrote (severely) to you. The a8txy- 
Gets would be the father of the incestuous 
person, who yuvatca tod marpds elxev, 
Cori val. Theodoret imagines it to 
mean the stepmother, who was the adul- 
teress; and thinks that the father was 
dead. But there is no ground for this in 
1 Cor. v., and the masculine participle, 
though not decisive against it, is at least 
more naturally explained on the other view. 
Others (as Wolf, Bleek, al.) suppose Paul 
himself to be meant, which however would 
be in direct contradiction to ch. ii. 5: 
Bengel, al., the Corinthians, ‘singularis pro 
plurali, per euphemiam,’ which is forced: 
Theophyl., al., both the persons concerned 
(—Gppdrepor yap GAAHAOUS HdlKnoav) :-— 
and Neander, al., take rod adicnOévros 
as = Tov adinnuatos, ‘the fault com- 
mitted —which however would not be 
true, for the Apostle certainly did write on 
account of the committal of the fault. 

It would be easy for any of the Apostle’s 
adversaries to maintain that the reproof 
had been administered from private and 
interested motives. GAN Evexev .. .] 
But he wrote, in order to bring out their 
zeal on his behalf (i.e. to obey his com- 
mand), and make it manifest to themselves 
in God’s sight. The other reading, 7uav 
Thy brep tuay, has been an alteration 
owing to not understanding T. orovd. du. 
T. Ow. Hu.» and is inconsistent with the 
Jact: it was not to exhibit to them his 


678 IIPOS KOPIN@IOTS B. VII. 14—16. 
Ret Muay © mepiccotépws “ maddov °exdpnuev “ eri 7H Yapa BODE 
> m.- . ~ = Na 
par Maya. Titov, Ore § avarrérravtat TO & Tvedpa avToD » amd TaVTwY c def 
i. 23. e na. 142 v i > wm Ae \ G a i / > klm 
ayer cg BUOY Ore ef te tadT@ 'brép tudv ' Kexadvynpwat, ov 017.47 


reff. 


, > «¢ , > , 
Nets xiv. <KaTHOXUVONnY, GAN @s TavTa ev adyOeia EXadjoapev | 


ch. i. 9 al. = , eA \ 
g—1Cor.avi. Hiv, oUTwS Kat n ‘KavYnols * Yuav 7 ™ ei Titov adnOea 
S rent. 
h = Acts il. 22 


néyevnOn, © Kal Ta °amdayxva avTov ° TEpiacoTépas 
“Pels twas éotw %avayimvnocKouévov Thy TavTaV buav 
‘ Uraxonv, @s * meta ‘hoBou Kai ttpououv édéEacGe avtov. 


reff. 


al. Ps. cxviii. 


116. , oe 2 \ S528 3 CA 
1 ver. 4. 16 vaipw, OTL“ ev “ TavTt * Gappe ev viv. 
. n. => 
Panes stat 30 reff. n = 1 Cor. i. 30. o = ch. vi. 12 reff. p = ch. viii. 13, 14 reff. 
q 1 Cor. iv. 17 reff. r Rom. i. 5 reff. s = Matt. xxviii. 8. Mark iii.5. 1 Chron. xxix. 22. 


t1Cor. ii. 3 reff. uch. iv. § reff. vy ch. y. 6, 8 reff. 


13. rec places de aft mepiocotepws (appy to conform to the exapnuev em below, by 
joining mapaxeka. emt: then also the change of nu. into vp. became necessary), with rel 
eth Ge: om e 32-6-9. 71 Thdrt: txt BCDFKLPRX d 17 latt syrr copt goth Chr-comm 
(and Mtt’s ms,) Damasc(has ere.dy for ew: Se) Thi, lat-ff. ree vuwy, with F-gr KL rel 
syr-w-ast copt Chr Thdrt Bede: txt BCDGKPR® 17 latt syrr goth eth arm Ambrst Pel. 


14. avrwv &. 


maytote CF syr copt Chr, omnia aut omnino G-lat. 


goth eth: om yu X'(txt X-corr! obl), 


rel latt syrr goth Chr Thdrt Ambrst: vuwy B F-gr c copt Thl. (C def.) 
for em TiTov, mpos Titov ad Titum DFP m Damasce. 


7 BR! 115-9'. 
15. om 7ayTwy &}. 


Kekavxnuat bef vrep vuwy F Chr Thi. 


adAa C. 
uu bef ev ad. edad. CDP vulg 


* rec NOV (see note), with meets 
om ias 


16. elz aft xa:pw ins ovy, with m syr-mg goth arm: om BCDFKLPNX rel latt Syr 


copt gr-lat-ff. 


zeal for them that he wrote, but to make 
manifest to (mpdés, ‘among,’ ‘ chez’) them, 
to bring out among them, thew zeal to 
regard and obey him. 13.] On this 
account (on account of the fulfilment of 
this purpose) we are comforted: but in 
addition to (or, on the occurrence of) our 
comfort, we rejoiced very much more 
(reff.) at the joy of Titus, because his 
spirit has been refreshed by you all. 
A similar declaration to that in ver. 7, 
where not only the arrival of Titus, but 
his comfort wherewith he was comforted 
by them, is described as the ground of the 
Apostle’s joy. | According to the received 
reading, the sense is: ‘ Therefore we are 
consoled on account of your consolation 
(either gen. subj., ‘that which you feel on 
account of the good issue of the affair,’ — 
or gen. object., ‘the consolation received 
from you’): but we rejoiced very much 
more, &c. This however would hardly 
represent the real state of things. 

14.} This increased joy was produced by 
the verification which my former boasting 
of you to Titus now received. ef m..]| 
see one particular in which he boasted of 
them, ch. ix. 2. ov Kkatyox.| I was 
not shamed, viz. by being shewn, on 
Titus’s coming to you, to have boasted in 
vain. GAN as ...] ‘ But truthfulness 
was shewn to be my constant rule of speech, 
to whomsoever I spoke.’ But as we spoke 


(generally, not merely in our teaching, 
as Theodoret, al.) all things in truth 
(truthfully) to you, so also our boasting 
concerning you (gen. obj.: the rec. 7uav 
agrees better with the comparison, of ‘our 
words’ in general, with ‘ our boasting’ in 
particular: but on that very account it is 
probably an alteration: and this is the im- 
plied meaning at all events) before Titus 
was (was proved to be: was, as shewn by 
proof) truth. De W. suggests that the 
Apostle had described (by anticipation) to 
Titus in glowing terms the affection and 
probable prompt obedience of the Corin- 
thians, as an encouragement to his some- 
what unwelcome journey. 15.] en- 
larges GA7Oc1a eyevfOn. And his heart 
is more abundantly (turned) toward you, 
remembering as he does the obedience 
of you all, how (i.e. which was shewn 
in the fact, that) with fear and trembling 
ye received him. ‘Fear and trembling,’ 
i.e. ‘lest ye should not pay enough regard 
to my injunctions, and honour enough his 
mission from me.’ 16.] I rejoice 
(more expressive than with a connecting 
particle) that in every thing I am (re)- 
assured by you; ‘am of good courage, in 
contrast to my former dejection, owing to 
your good conduct.’ The ordinary ren- 
dering, ‘I can have confidence in you,’ 
is wrong in not giving the indic. @appa, 
and still more, in making @appety év mean 


a a ee 


VIll. 1—5. 


IIPO> KOPINOIOTS B. 


679 


VIII. 1 © Tvwpifowev 5é piv, aderdpol, tv * yd pw 1 Cor-xii-s. 


eH. Rv. 1. 
x1Cor.i.4 


Tov Oeod thy *¥ Sedomévnv Y év tais *éxxAnolats THs Maxe- * tee 


ver. 16 reff. 


Lal Lol af 
Sovias, 2 bre ev TordH *SoKtuh OrAbews 1 ” rreptocela * plur., Rom. 


i. 16 reff. 
a Rom. v. 4 reff. 


n A , lal A c c \ ed 10 e / > lal 
TNS Kapas avTwV Kat n © KaTAa Badous TTMYELA AUTOV 3, Rom. v.17. 


f 


> / f ’ \ g fa) fol 
ETTEPLOGEVTEV ~ ELS TO WT NOUTOS TS 


ch. x. 15. 
James i. 21 
only. Eccles. 
i, 3 al. 


h id / > nr 
ATROTHNTOS AVTWY, 


3 67e ixata Svvauww * uaptup® Kai ™ qapa ™ dvvapy, 32%, 


 avOaiperot, 


0 Ix. 
7 


an Strak 
4° wera TodARS P mapakAjnoews Sedpevor iis. Winer, 


edn. 6, $51.2. 


¢ lol / \ / an / n f 
nuaVv THY IydpLW Kat THY * KOWMViaY THs § dtaKoVias Tis 4 Rom. x. 3 


> 
teis Tovs Y ayious, © Kal ov KaO@s HATicapeEr, GAN EaUTOVS ° id only. 


Rey. 


ver. 9. 


Job xxx. 27. 


lal a Can) a vaerrpe 
edwxav TpaTov TH Kuplm Kal nutv Y dia OeXpwaTtos Deod, ‘Rom iii-7 


gneut., Eph. i. 7. ii. 7. iii. 8,16. Phil. iv.19. Col. i. 27. ii. 2. 
k Rom. x.2. Gal. iv. 15. 


xxy. 15. 1 Chron. xxix. 2. 
2,4. Rom-.xiv. 5. Heb. xi. 11. 
iii. 54. Umép &., ch. i. 8. 
o = ch. vii. 15 reff. 
rch, vi. 14 reff. 
v Rom. xy. 32 reff. 


CHa. VIII. 2. Bados (for -Bovs) D} o. 
txt BCPN? 17. 31. 


s Acts vi. 1 reff. 


Ps. exxxiy. 5. 
n ver. 17 only+. Exod. xxxy. 5 Sym. 
p = Rom. xii. 8 reff. 


h Rom, xii. 8 reff. i Matt. 
Col. iv. 13. 1 = Luke xiii, 
m here only. mapa dvv. weréxew, Thucyd. 
(-Tws, 2 Mace. vi. 19.) 

q = Acts xxiv. 27. xxv. 3,9. Sir. xxx. 6. 
t = 1 Cor. xvi. 1 reff. u = Acts ix. 13 reff. 


rec Tov mAouTtov, with DEK LN? rel: 


8. rec (for mapa) umep (see chi. 8), with KLP rel Chr Thdrt: txt BCDFX 17.— 


homeeotel in 47 Suv. to Suv. 
4. ins rns bef mapak. C(appy). 


rec at end adds detacGa: nuas, with hk: aft 


Kowwviay ins detacbar c: om BCDFKLPN® rel latt syrr copt gr-lat-ff. 


5. nAtikauev B 80. 


‘to have confidence in,’ which is unexam- 
pled. Meyer, who remarks this, does not 
notice, that the strongest reason against it 
is not mere want of usage, but the psycho- 
logical meaning of @appety, which is not 
like remoévat, descriptive of a relative, 
but of an absolute state of mind,—to be 
of good courage: and this admits only 
of qualification as to the ground of that 
good courage; thus we have Oappetv brép, 
mept, emt, in the sense of ‘rejoicing at,’ 
‘feeling confident concerning: but 6ap- 
petv év for ‘to trust in, as memoibevat ev, 
would, I think, be inadmissible. Meyer 
quotes éy go) maa” @ywye cdCouot, Soph. 
Aj. 519, where, as here, év gives the ground 
of the verb as im the person spoken of. 
Cuap. VIII. 1—IX. 15.] Szconp PART 
OF THE EPISTLE: CONCERNING THE COL- 
LECTION FOR THE SAINTS, 1—6.| He 
informs them of the readiness of the Mace- 
donian churches to contribute for the poor 
saints (at Jerusalem), which led him also 
to beg of Titus to complete the collection 
at Corinth. See some interesting geogra- 
phical and historical notices in Stanley’s 
introduction to this section, edn. 2, pp. 
479 f. 1.] 8€ is transitional,—pass- 
ing on to new matter: so 1 Cor. vii. 1; 
viii. 1 al. fr. xapiv | For every good 
gift and frame of mind comes by divine 
grace, not by human excellency: and this 
occasion was most opportune for resting 
the liberality of the Macedonian churches 
on God’s grace, that he might not be ex- 


adAAa CD! 17: nau 47. 


tolling them at the expense of the Corin- 
thians, but holding out an example of the 
effusion of that grace, which was common 
to the Corinthians also, if they sought and 
used it. It is a mistake, with Orig., 
Erasm., al., to understand éwof or juty after 
dcdouevny ‘quemadmodum adfuerit mihi 
Deus in ecclesiis:’ see the construction 
d:ddvar év, in reff.:—given among,—shed 
abroad in, the churches of Macedonia. 

2.]| how that (depends on yrvwpi(ouer) in 
much proof of tribulation (though they 
were put to the proof by much tribulation) 
(was) the abundance of their joy (i.e. 
their joy abounded),—and their deep 
poverty (xara Badous, lit. ‘down into the 
depth, as ka? GbaAov, ‘throughout the 
whole’) abounded to (‘abunde cessit in,’ as 
Meyer, &c. or rather perhaps, ‘abounded,’ 
produced abundant fruit, ‘so as to bring 
about’... .) the riches (rd 7A. the riches 
which have actually become manifest by the 
result of the collection) of their liberality 
(see ref. Rom. and note). 38—5.| Proof 
of this. There is no difficulty, and no 
ellipsis, in the construction. For accord- 
ing to their power, I testify, and beyond 
their power, voluntarily, with much 
exhortation beseeching of us the grace 
and fellowship of the ministry to the 
saints (i.e. to allow them a share in that 
grace and fellowship), and not as we ex- 
pected (i.e. far beyond our expectation), 
but themselves they gave first (i.e. above 
all: as the inducing motive: not first in 


680 


w = ch. vii. 3. 
Heb. xi. 3. 

x 1 Cor. i. 10 

reff, 

ver. LO only t. 


tA 


TavTny. 


Phil. i. 6. 


1 Kings iil. d TEPLOTEVITE. 


nr 


1 Cor. xvi. 
ver. 19. 
Mark xvi. 


SY SUS 


e ch. iv. 8 reff. 


IIPOS KOPINOIOTS B. 


, ‘ 
Kal *oyw Kal ®yv@cEl Kal 


Vill. 


re “A \ ‘ 
6 W els TO * rapakadecar Huds Titov, * iva Kabas ¥ mpoevnp- 
ef \ 3 U > € cal \ A a vd 
Eato, oTws Kal *émitedéon eis Upas Kal THY *yapw 
/ 
7%°A\N astrep © ev °mavti ‘rEepiccevete, TigTeEL 


frraon ®omovdn Kal TH €& 


ipav ev nuiv ayaryn, va Kat év tabtTn TH * xapiTe 
8 ov Kat iémitayiy eyo, adAa Sia TIS 
érépwv £ orroveis, Kal ro Ths twetépas ayarns “ yvnovov 
- ™ Soxiyudlov ® (ywooKxete yap THY xapw TOD KuploU nav 

"Inaod ypiotov, OTe dv vas “ert@yevcey TOVTLOS WY, 


d =1Cor. xv. 58. Col. ii.7. 1 Thess. iv. 1. e 1 Cor. i. 5. _f = Acts xx. 19 reff. g Rom. 
xii. 8, 11 reff. hsee 1 Johniy. 9. (John xvii. 26?) i Rom. xvi. 26 reff. k neut., 
1 Cor. i. 25, &c. reff. 1 Phil. iv. 3. 1Tim.i.2. Tit.i.4only+. Sir. vii. 18 only. (-ws, Phil. ii. 20.) 
m Rom. xiv. 22 reff. mhere only. = Judges vi.6. Ps. xxxiii. 10. Ixxviii.8. Prov. xxiii.21. Tobit iy. 21. 


6. for mpoev., evnptato B: mponpt. 47. 
7. meptocevnte CP Chr-montf. 


ins ev bef more: N1(N3 disapproving). 


ef quoy ev yw Bab m 81. 73-4. 80. 238 Syr (copt) arm Orig-int Ambrst-ms: e§ up. ev 


uu. no: €& vuwy ets nuas 17: txt CDFKLPR rel. 
8. d1a THv eT. crovdnv D: propter D-lat G-lat goth Ambrst Aug. 

elz nuetepas: txt BCDFKLPR rel. 

qnuas CKakl' mo 19. 41. 55. 65. 74. 89. 93. 109- 


D!FG Chr-ms. 
9. om xpiotov B Ambry. 
15. 238 arm-mss Orig,(and int,) Eus,. 


point of time, but in point of importance, 
see Rom. ii. 9, 10) to the Lord, and to us 
by the will of God (the Giver of grace, 
who made them willing to do this: not = 
kata To O€A. T. O., Which only expresses 
[whatever it may imply | consonance with 
the divine will: 81a Tod Qed. tT. 8. makes 
the divine will the agent). 6.] So 
that we besought Titus (not, Titus be- 
sought ws, see ver. 17), that (the aim, and 
purport as well, of our request), as he had 
previously (before the Macedonians began 
to contribute: ‘during his visit from which 
he had now returned’) begun it, so also 
he would complete among you (the con- 
struction is pregnant—éAéy eis twas Kal 
émtedéon) this grace also (this act of 
grace or mercy, reff. kat,—as well as 
other things which he had to do among 
them. Itdoes not belong to ra’rnp, ‘this 
grace also, as well as other graces,’ but to 
Thy xdpw tavrny altogether). 7—15. | 
Exhortations and inducements to perform 
this act of charity. 7.] adAd marks 
the transition to an exhortation, as in reff. 
It at the same time implies, as Herm. ad 
Viger. p. 812 (in Meyer), ‘satis argumen- 
torum allatum esse.’ arioret, see ch. 
i. 24. Adyw K. yveoet, see ref. and 
for yv., 1 Cor. viii. 1. macy o7Tov- 
37, because oxovdh may be manifold 
even in a good sense. Grot. well ex- 
plains it, ‘studium ad agendas res bo- 
nas.’ 7TH e& tp. év Hp. ay.) your 
love to us;—the love which, arising 
from you, has us for its object: sce 
reff. According to the reading, e& quay 


mepisoevonte DIF. 
doKxialw 


év du., the only meaning agreeing with 
the context is, ‘the love (to God and man) 
which, arising from our teaching, is 
planted in you. tva kat x.7.A.] the 
sense is imperative,—keAcvw, or BovAopuat, 
—(or BAémere, see 1 Cor. xvi. 10,)—being 
omitted. So Soph. Cid. Col. 156, aan’ 
Wa tad ey apbeéyntTm ph mposmeons 
varet. See Hartung, Partikellehre, ii. 
148, 9. tavty is emphatic here, 
although tavrnv is not in ver. 6: ‘this 
grace also;’—other graces having been 
enumerated. Grotius remarks, ‘non 
ignoravit Paulus artem rhetorum, movere 
laudando.’ 8.] Lest his last words 
should be misunderstood, he explains the 
spirit in which they were said: not as a 
command, but by way of inducement, by 
mention of the earnestness of others, and to 
try the genuineness of their love. 

Kat’ émur. | not, ‘in consequence of a com- 
mand from God, as Dr. Burton,—but, by 
way of command (1 Cor. vii. 6). Sia 
THs is not = bia tHv, ‘by occasion of, as 
E. V.:—but treats the érépwy orovdh as 
the instrument by which, in the way of emu- 
lation, the effect was to be produced. 

The participial construction is as in 1 Cor. 
iv. 14, 9.] Explanation of ‘trying 
the genuineness of your love,’ by uphold- 
ing His example in the matter, Whom we 
ought to resemble. 7. xapuv, the 
(act of) grace :—the beneficence. 
Srv} consisting in this, that... wh. 
ov | The participle refers to the time when 
the historic act implied in the aorist 
éertaéxevoev took place. He, being rich, 


BCDFK 
LPR ab 
cdefg 
hklimn 
017.47 


7, Gee teh, 


6—11. 


a \ , 
iva tmeis TH exelvov °mTwyela P TAOUTHONTE) 1° Kal KyvoO- 


> / r / 
pny év TovT@ * dibmpe. 


IlIPO> KOPINOIOTS B. 


lal \ ig cal s / t ig 
TOUTO yap Yuin * cUmPEpEL, ‘ OLTLVES 21. 


681 


o ver. 2 reff. 

p = Rev. iii. 
18, (Luke xii. 

1 Cor. 


n / te n . 
ov povovy TO TroLcaL GARG Kal TO Oédew “ mpoevrjpEacGe 4 —2.Cor.i.19 


\ n , 
Yamo ‘tépvow ll yuyi S€ Kal TO TovjoaL “ ErrLTENETATE, 


r1 Cor. vii. 25. 
s 1 Cor. vi. 12 


- , a \ \ reff. 
dws * Kabatrep 7) Y rpoOupla * Tod Oédew, OUTWS Kal TO t= Acts x. 41 


i, 25 al. 
x Rom. iv. 6 reff. 
z constr., Acts xiv. 9 reff. 


u ver. 6. 


10. for o:rives, ort F Syr. 
11. for tov, to D!. 


became poor:—not, as De W., merely by 
His renunciation of human riches during 
His life on earth, but by His exinanition of 
His glory (Phil. ii. 6,7), when, as Athanas. 
(contra Apol.ii. 11, vol. ii.[Migne ], p.757), 
Thy mTwxevoacay picw ev éavT@ aveda- 
Beto. ‘The stress is on 80 dpas, to raise 
the motive of gratitude the more effec- 
tually In them. TH ek. WTwX. ThovTH- 
onre | that by His poverty (as the efficient 
cause) ye might become rich: viz. with 
the same wealth in which He was rich,— 
the kingdom and glory of Heaven, includ- 
ing Ta pupla &rep mapeoxev Huty ayald, as 
Chrys. (Hom. xvii. p. 559): who had just 
before said, ef uy moreves, dT 7 TWTWXEla 
mAovTOU é€aT) mointiKh, evvdnady cov Toy 
deomdrTyy, Kat ovKETL aGuPiBadns (al. -Aczs). 
See the various possible meanings discussed 
in Stanley’s note. 10.] ver. 9 was 
parenthetic : he now resumes the ov kar’ 
emtayny Aéyw .... And I give my 
opinion in this matter, the stress being on 
yopny, as distinguished from émrayhy. 

TovTo yap... .]| For this (viz. 
‘my giving my opinion, and not command- 
ing, —as Billroth and Meyer. De Wette 
controyerts this, and would make tovro 
refer to the proof of their love in the act 
of charity, contending that todro must 
refer to the sameas ev tovrw. But Meyer 
rightly answers that this need not be, for 
éy ToUTy is altogether unemphatic and in- 
significant, and the whole sense of the 
clause is in the words yvdéuny dl5wpr) 
is expedient for you (better than “ be- 
fitting,’ or “suitable,” as suggested by 
Bloomf. after the Schol. apud¢e:, curdde. 
This sense of cuupépe: is not found in the 
N. T., and is very doubtful elsewhere. See 
Palm and Rost’s Lex.), seeing that you 
(‘quippe qui;’ ofrives is decisive for the 
above meaning of tovro. ‘ My giving my 
opinion, rather than commanding, is expe- 
dient for you, who have already shewn 
yourselves so willing.’ A command from 
me would be a lowering of you, and depre- 
ciation of your zeal) began before them (the 
Macedonian churches, see below) not only 
the act, but also the mind to act, from a 


ych. ix. 2 only +. m™pomépvot, Demosth. 467. 14. 
y Acts xvii. 11. ver. 19. ch. ix. 2 only +. 


eff. Rom. 
w ver. 6 reff. 


Sir. xlv. 23 only. (-s105, Rom. i. 15.) 


for mpoev., evnpkac@e DF Orig. 


year ago: i.e. ‘not only were you before 
them in the deed itself, but also in the will 
to do it.’ The sense has been missed 
by many of the Commentators, from not 
observing the comparison implied in mpo- 
evyp§ac0e, and applying it only to the Co- 
rinthians themselves beginning. In that 
case, as the will comes before the deed, to 
say, you began not only to do, but also to 
will, would be unmeaning. Some, in con- 
sequence, as Grot., al., and the Peschito, 
have arbitrarily assumed an inversion 
of terms, so that ‘non solum facere, 
sed velle’ should = ‘non solum velle, sed 
facere? Others, as Chrys., Theodoret, al., 
Erasm., Calv., Beza, al., Billroth, Olsh., 
Riickert, al. m., have taken @éAe.v = ‘to 
do with agood will,’ which is certainly not 
its sense in ver. 11. The above explana- 
tion is that of Cajetan, Estius, De Wette, 
Winer, Meyer, and Wieseler, and puts the 
climax in its right order, making it a back- 
ward one of comparison. For as Wieseler 
remarks (Chron. Apost. Zeit. p. 364, note), 
there are three steps in the collection for 
the saints,—the wishing it (@€Aew), the 
setting about it (orjoa), and the com- 
pletion of it (émreAéoa). And the Co- 
rinthians had begun not only the second, 
but even the first of these, before the 
Macedonians. Long employed as they 
had then been in the matter, it was more 
creditable to them to receive advice from 
the Apostle, than command. “ @éXew is 
not a historic act like woufoat, but a per- 
manent state: hence the pres. inf.’’ Meyer. 

In saying Garé wépvar ‘from last 
year, it seems probable that Paul would 
speak as a Jew, regarding the year as 
beginning in Tisri. 11.] But (con- 
trast of your former zeal with your present 
need to be reminded of it) now complete 
the act itself also («af can hardly apply to 
the whole 7d zou. émit., as De Wette, but 
must be taken with zojoa:; now shew 
not only the completion of a ready will in 
the act begun, but complete the act also, — 
as Meyer), that, as (there was) (with 
you) readiness of will, so (there may) 
also (be) completion according to your 


682 
atoms  W errereNéoar * éx TOD ExeLV. 
b Heb. vi. 18. c \ 

xii? KetTat, °KaQo 


Jude 7 only. 


Levit.xxiv. 13 97) yap iva 


S 
hi 


’ / > 

Rom. viii. 26. ® LOOTNTOS, EV 
1 Pet. iv. 13 
only. Levit. 
ix. 5 B. 

d Rom. xv. 16 
reff. 

e Acts xxiv. 23 


ren. 

f = 1 Cor. vii. 
5 reff. 

g here bis. 
Col. iv. 1 
only. Job xxxvi. 29. Zech. iv. 7 only. 

xii. 34|!L. Mark viii. 8 only. Eccles. ii. 15 (only ?). 

11 Cor. xvi. 17 reff. 

o here only. 1l.c. trans., Prov. xiv. 34. 


12. for ear, av D!F LN f Chr-ms Damasc. 


ITPO> KOPIN@OIOTS B. 


h Rom. iii. 26 reff. 


m and constr., Exop. xvi. 18. Winer, edn. 6. $ 64. 4. 


MEET; 


12 ef yap % Y rpoOupia ” rpo- 


2X ” d > / 5 Je A > 4 
éav éyn evmposdextos, ov © Kalo ovK Exel. 
YU a a > 

ddrows & aveois, duty [6€] Ores, arr’ 1 €E 
a r lal \ ¢e lal i f > 

TO “viv “Katp@ TO buadv iqepiccevpa * eis 
\ . 

To éxelvov 'torépnua, 14 a Kal TO éxelvov | repiccevpa 

yevntat *els TO tuav botépnpa, Otrws yévntas § icorns. 

15 Kabas yéyparrar ™‘O 7o Todd ovK ® erAEOvacEV, Kal O 
A, / > o, , 

TO OALYOV OVK ° nAaATTOVNTEDV. 


iepp., here bis only. Matt. 
Gal. iii. 14. Eph. 1. 8. iii. 2. 
n Rom. vy. 20 reff. 


k = Rom. iii. 22. 


for exn, exer L f. rec adds 


ais, with C2L rel: om BC!DFKPR 17 latt syr-w-ast goth 2th arm Clem gr-lat-ff. (so 


DF aft exe.) 
18. om d¢ BCR! 17 D-lat eth. 


om vuy F. 
14. [the 7 of 1st ro is written over the line by Xl (appy). ] 


evoy K. 


15. om 2nd 6 F b gh k m(perhaps) 0 47. 80. 93. 106-14-15-22. 238. : 


means (& Tov éxew, not ‘out of that 
which ye have, as E. V., but ‘after the 
measure of your property,’ as inref. The 
verbs substantive must be supplied, as in 
ver. 13). 12.] Explanation of é« Tod 
éxew,—that on it, mpo@vula being pre- 
supposed, and not on absolute quantity, 
acceptability depends. For if a willing 
mind is present,—according to what it 
may happen to possess, it is acceptable, 
not according to what it possesseth not. 
The construction of the sentence is sim- 
ple enough: mpoOvula being the subject 
throughout, quasi-personified: readiness in 
God’s service is accepted, if its exertion 
be commensurate with its means,—and is 
not measured by an unreasonable require- 
ment of what it has not. 13—15. | 
Further explanation that the present col- 
lection is not intended to press the Co- 
rinthians xa0) ovk %xovor. For (it is) 
not (the collection is not made) that 
there may be to others (the saints at 
Jerusalem) relief, and to you distress 
(of poverty): 14.} but that by 
the rule of equality (€& as in ek Tov 
éxew, above), at this present time (of 
their need: the stress is on év T@ viv 
xaip@ as suggesting that this relation may 
hereafter be altered) your abundance may 
subserve (yévnrai, see next clause. ‘yive- 
a0a eis, ‘ to be extended to,’ see ref. Gal.) 
their deficiency ; that also (supposing cir- 
cumstances changed) their abundance may 
subserve your want. ‘The reference is 
still, as is evident from the next verse, to 
the supply of temporal wants, in respect of 
which there should be a mutual relieving 
andsharing among Christians. Butthe pas- 
sage has been curiously misunderstood to 


mean, ‘ that their (the Jewish Christians’) 
abundance in spiritual things may be im- 
parted to you to supply your deficiency, 
Thus Chrys., al.—the ancients regard- 
ing this imparting as the Gospel-benefit 
received from them by the Gentiles (which 
however was past, not future, and is urged 
as a motive for gratitude, see Rom. xv. 27), 
and the modern Romanists introducing the 
monstrous perversion of the attribution of 
the merits of the saints to others in the 
next world. So Estius: “ Locus hie apos- 
toli contra nostre etatis hzreticos osten- 
dit, posse Christianos minus sanctos meritis 
sanctorum adjuvari etiam in futuro seculo. 
Denique notanda virtus eleemosyne, qua 
facit hominem participem meritorum ejus 
in quem confertur.” 15.] that 
there may be equality, as it is written 
(i.e. according to the expression used in 
the Scripture history: mapdyer maddy 
ictoptay, Chrys.,—of the gathering of the 
manna) He that (gathered) much, did 
not exceed (the measure prescribed by 
God): and he that (gathered) little, did 
not fall short (of it). The fact of equality 
being the only point brought into compa- 
rison as between the Israelites of old and 
Christians now, it is superfluous to enquire 
minutely Aow this equality was wrought 
among the Israelites. The quotation is 
according to the reading of the LXX 
generally supported by MSS.; except 
that @Aarroy appears for dAfyoy in A a 
secunda manu. Grabe (not F) and the 
Aldine edition have 6 7d moAv and @ 7d 
éAlyor, probably a correction. The con- 
text supplies svAAééas from the cvveActav 
in the preceding verse,—and is presumed 
by the Apostle to be familiar to his read- 


BCDFK 
LPR al 
cdef¢ 
hklm: 

017.47 


ee 


12—19. 


TIPO KOPINOIOTS B. 


683 


16 ? Xapis 5é TO Oe@ TH 1 SLd0vTt Thy abriy vamos p = Rom. vi 
:, Joh 
uTéep twav Iév TH xapdia Titov, 17 Ore tiv pmév Strapda~ se is 


KAnow * édéEato, 
petos *é&nOev mpos vas. 

Car. \ > ’ RAG 
avTovd Tov adedpov, ov O 
b 


e 0 \ ¢e ~ n 
KELPOTOVH €lS UTTO TMV 


v Acts viii. 16 reff. 
y ver. 22 only t. 
33. ch. xi. 28. 


z Rom. ii. 29 re 


zit a2 a > ow s \ 
ETTALVOS “ EV TO EUVaYYE b@ ta 
a a lal Ld / Ss 
macav tav “éxxrAnoiov:  4o0¥ povoy dé, 4adrAA Kal * yi: 2 (bis 
© éxkANoLoOV 
> a / 7 mh , ey) e a i \ 
eV TT) 8 vaplTe TAUTN TT) Svakovoupevyn up NOV, T Pos 
w wer 2 only (reff.). 
ce plur., Rom. xvi. 16 reff. 


\ ig o , 22. ver. 1. 
“gmovdaioTepos O€ YuTTapyov Vavdai-  Eeravii io 
L \ aie 
18 ¥ guverréurnpapev Sé peT yi. 1F 8, 


s= ae xii. 8 
ins — = Toh iv. 45. 


2 Tim. 1.17 
! BS coarse only. Ezek. 
OUVVEK LOS HOV, xli. 25. (-ws, 
Luke vii. 4. 
Phil. ii. 28. 
Tit. iii. 13.) 
= but w. €ls, Acts xi. 25 reff. 
b 1 Cor. vii. 17. xiv. 
e Acts 


f 


a Rom. i. 9. ch. x. 14 aR 
d Rom. vy. 3. viii. 23 i 


xiv. 23 only t+. f Acts xix. 29 only t+. (exdymety, ch. v. 6, 8, 9.) = vv. 6,7. 1 Cor. 
xvi. 3. h ch. iii. 3 reff. i= Acts iii. 10. ch. x.4. xi. 8. 1 Tim. i. V6 al. 
16. for did0vr1, Sovtt DF LN? 47 syrr Chr, dedit vulg D-lat: danti G-lat. 
C tol! copt add nuw. 
18. tov adeAgoy bef wer avrov PR! c 
19. for 1st nuwy, vuwy F(not G). add eyevero D b 91. 177 arm. rec (for 


ev) ovy, with DFKLN rel goth Chr Thdrt Aug: txt BCP d m 17. 47 vulg copt eth 


Damase Ambrst Aug Pel. 


om Ist ty C. 


ud vuwy C b? 155. 73. 177. 238. 


homeotel in 17 from v¢’ vuwy in this ver to vd’ vuwy in next. 


ers. 16—24.] Of Titus and two other 
brethren whom Paul had commissioned to 
complete the collection. 16.] The 
sense is taken up from ver. 6. dSdvTe 
év, see reff. Thv avr. om, Viz. ‘as in my- 
self’ This is evident from iép buar. 

17.| Proof of this; that Titus received 
indeed (uev) Paul’s exhortation to go to 
them (said, to shew his subordination,— 
or perhaps to authenticate his authoriza- 
tion by the Apostle), but in reality (5€) was 
too ready to go, to need any exhortation; 
—and therefore went forth (the past tense 
of the epistolary style,—as ‘dabam,’ &c., 
indicating things which will have passed 
before the letter is received) of his own 
accord to them. 18—21.| Commenda- 
tion of a brother sent with Titus. 18. ] 
6 a8eAdos cannot surely be, as some Com- 
mentators (Heumann, Riickert) have un- 
derstood, ‘ the brother of Titus ? the deli- 
cate nature of the mission would require 
that there should be at least no family con- 
nexion between those sent to fulfil it. This 
and the other are called in ver. 23, adeA- 
gol juay, and were unquestionably Chris- 
tian brethren in the usual sense. Who 
this was, we know not. Chrys., Theo- 
doret, (cum., Luther, Calvin, suppose 
Barnabas to be meant: but there is no 
historical ground for this, and we can hardly 
suppose him put under Titus. Baronius 
and Estius suppose, Silas ; to whom this 
last objection would also apply: besides 
that he was well known to the Corinthians, 
and therefore would not need this re- 
commendation. Orig., Jerome, tivés in 
Chrys., Ambrose, Pelagius, Primasius, An- 


selm, Cajetan, Grot., Olsh., al., suppose 
Inke :—and of these all before Grot. 
(who pointed out the mistake; which 
however I see reproduced in Mr. Birks’ 8 
Hore Apostolic, p- 242 f.) suppose of 
6 &ra.wos ev Te ebayyeri to refer to his 
gospel,—8ia Thy toropiay ivrep eypaive, 
Chrys. Hom. xviii. p. 564;—but this is 
altogether without proof, as is the assump- 
tion that it was Mark (Lightfoot, Storr). 
It may have been Zrophimus, who (Acts 
xx. 4) accompanied Paul into Asia, and (xxi. 
29) to Jerusalem: so De Wette, Wieseler. 
If the expression whose praise in (the 
matter of) the Gospel is throughout all 
the Churches, is to be compared with any 
similar eulogium, that of Gaius in Rom. 
xvi. 23 seems to corr espond most nearly : 
Tdios 6 tévos pov Kat SAns THs éxKAy- 
atas: but he was resident at Corinth, see 
1 Cor.i.14. A Gaius, a Macedonian, is 
mentioned Acts xix. 29, as one of the 
ovvexdyuor of Paul, as here, together with 
Aristarchus, which latter we know accom- 
panied him to Jerusalem (but see below 
on ch. ix. 4). It must then rest in un- 
certainty. 19.] parenthetical (see on 
ver. 20) adding to his general commendation 
a particular qualification for this office. 
ov pov. S¢,—and not only so (i.e. praised 
in all the churches), but who was also ap- 
pointed (‘suffragiis designatus,’ see ref. and 
note; and Stanley here) by the churches 
(of Macedonia ? see ver. 1) as our fellow- 
traveller (to Jerusalem, from what follows) 
in (the matter of) this charity which is 
being ministered by us,—in order to sub- 
serve the glory of the Lord and our readi- 


634 IPOS KOPINOIOTS B. VIII. 20—24. 
kre MW 2ref py too Kupiov do£av Kal * tpoOvulav juav: 79! oTed- 
Mal. 


only. , a , CIA m , n2 Ao to f 

3. MOMEVOL TODTO, ur) TUS Huds ™ wounontaL ” ev TH ° dOpoTHTL 
m ch. vi. 3 reff. 7 = ¥ ‘ Es 
n—=1Timy. tavTn TH P dvaxovoupevn vp nuav. *! 2 rpovoodpmev yap 


10. Heb. xi. 

Je \ U / , 
chore onlyt, PKANA OV povovy Pév@Trioy Kupiov, GAA Kal P év@TrLoV 
(-pos, Jer. v. 9» / 99 , \ Cie Bo \ > \ 
NS avOporav. 2 4 cuvevréwWamwev 6€ avTois TOV abdeNdov 
p ome xii. 17 P ey fe 5 p 
(reff.). PRov 


NU@V, OV * €0oKimacapev Sév TroNNOIS TrOANaKIS * OTrOU- 
daiov ovta, vuvi b€ ToAv * arrovdatoTepov ¥ metroLOnoeL 


iii. 4. 
q ver. 18 only. 
x = 2 Cor. iil. 


BAe Cor. ri ‘3 ay. © iO) Sha x ee NX Ui / y \ 
succhiv.s, MOAAN TH Els UMaS elTEe ~UTrEep LiToU, ~ KOLVMVOS 
i. 3 reff. a IN \ > Cas f ” ? \ ee 5) , 
(ee eae e“os Kal Y elg vpas * ouvEpyos: “ ELTE aden pot nov, * atro- 

u ch. i. 16 reff. - pe q . 
v=ehii8” @TONOL éxxanoiov, » d0o&a yptotov. +4 rv ody ° évoeEw 
Gal. y. 10 al. w so 1 Cor. xiii. 8. xv. 11. x ch. i. 8 reff. y 1 Cor. x. 18, 20 reff. 
z Rom. xvi. 3 reff. a = John xiii. 16. Phil. ii. 25. (3 Kings xiv. 6 A, &c. (B def.]}) only. b = 1 Thess. 
ii. 20. c Rom. iii. 25, 26. Phil. i. 28 only +. 


rec ins avtov bef tov kupiov, with D?3KX& rel syrr Chr Thdrt Damase: avrny P a 6. 43. 
672. 74: om BCD! FL d latt copt goth eth arm. rec (at end) vuwy, with F d: 
txt BCDGKLX rel latt syrr copt goth gr-lat-ff. add teAovow D!. 

20. vrocreAropevar F: cuoteAA. 93: devitantes latt. vias Fb ghmo 73. 

for pwpnontrat, weunta C2(C! uncert). 

21. rec mpovoovpevor, with CKL rel copt goth Clem Chr-ms Thdrt Damase Thl Cc : 
txt BDFPX f latt syrr arm Chr lat-ff. rec om yap, with KL rel Thdrt Damase 
Thl Gc: ins BCDFPR m 17. 47 latt syrr copt goth arm Clem Chr lat-ff. (Weyer thinks 
mpovoovuevar to have been a mere mistake originally, arising from orerAdopevor above : 
and thus the yap which was at first retained from oversight, as in C, was at last erased. 
Probably mpovoovpevor was introduced from Rom xii. 17, where the same words occur.) 


om 2nd evwmoy &}. 
22. vuwy F(uot G: so ver 23). 
mpos K ec. 


23. cuvepyos bef ets uuas D copt goth Ambrst. 


ness (this clause refers not to G:axoy. ip” 
jp. as usually interpreted, but to the fact 
related, the union of this brother with Paul 
in the matter of the alms, which was done 
to avoid suspicions detrimental to Christ’s 
glory, and to the zeal of the Apostle). 

20.| Taking heed of this (‘de- 
vitantes, Vulg.—imorredoaytes k. Be- 
do.xndtes, Theophyl.:—the participle be- 
longs to ouveréuauer, ver. 19 being 
parenthetical) that no one blame us 
(ref.) in the matter of this abundance (of 
contributions) which is being ministered 
by us. On adpérns, Meyer observes, 
“from adpds, ‘ compact,’ ‘ solid ;—is used 
in Homer (Il. x. 363, 7. 857, w. 6) of a 
firm and succulent habit of body. Later, 
we have it in all the various references of 
the adjective, e.g. of abundance—of plants 
and fruits (Theophr.), of discourse (Diog. 
Laért. x. 83), of tone (Athen. x. p. 415 A), 
&e. What kind of abundance is meant, 
the context therefore alone determines.” 
Wetst. says, “adpérns apud Zosimum 
quater pro ingenti largitione.” 21. | 
‘And such caution is in accordance with 
our general practice.’ See reff. Rom. and 
Proy. 22.| Still less can we determine 
who this second brother is. Every pos- 
sible person has been guessed. Several 


om 7oAA7 F 672-9: pref de B. 


for ets, 


for xp., kupiov CF. 


would answer to the description, ‘ whom 
we have many times in many matters 
proved to be earnest. By our uncer- 
tainty in these two cases, we may see how 
much is required, to fill up the apostolic 
history at all satisfactorily. aTETrOL- 
Oynoe....] through the great confidence 
which he has towards you: belongs to 
omovdaidrepov, and to the brother, not to 
cuveméuauey and to Paul. The brother 
had, by what he had heard from Titus, 
conceived a high opinion of the probable 
success of their mission. 23.] General 
recommendation of the three. cite 
tm. Titov] Whether concerning Titus 
(we may supply Aéyw or ypddw, or as in 
i. V., ‘any enquire:’ or we need not 
supply any thing), he is my partner and 
(especially) my fellow-worker towards 
you: whether our brethren (be in ques- 
tion :—viz. the two mentioned—but gene- 
ralized by the absence of the article— 
‘whether brethren of ours’), they are the 
Apostles (in the more general sense of 
Acts xiv.14; 1 Thess. ii. 6; Phil. ii. 25) 
of the churches (i.e. ‘ are of the churches, 
what we are of the Lord’—persons sent 
out with authority), the glory of Christ 
(i.e. men whose work tends to Christ’s 
glory). 24.| Shew then to them 


BCDFK 
LPN ab 


edefg 
hklmn 


017.47 


A ls 


te 


a ea 


IX. 1—3. 


THS ayarns buov, Kal Huov *kavyjcews UTép Kuov, Els 
avtovs °évdexvipevor felis * rpdswrov TOY eKKANTLODV. 
IX. ! repli ®péev yap ths » dvaxovias tis } eis Tods  aryt- 
ous ‘qrepiccoy pot eoTly TO ypadew vuiv 


IIPO> KOPINOIOTS B. 


685 


d Rom. iii, 27 
reff. 

e = Rom. ii. 15. 
ix. 22 al. 
(Gen. 1. 15, 
17.) constr., 
see note. 

f = here (ch. xi. 
20) only. see 
Num. xx. 6. 


2 oida yap Ti 


4 n a ce lal lal =, a) “a 
X rpoOupiay tpav ‘iv ™ UTrep LYuav ™ kavyd@mar ™ Maxedo- £89 1,0%¥-8- 


h ch, viii. 4. 


[ca > a n Te oO > Xv ° , \ id 
Ol, OTL Axyaia TTAPECKEVACTAL — ATrO TTEPUC Ll’ KQ@t O i= Matt. vy. 47. 


3 Cs n n > / \ / 
[P €€] vuadv 4 Gyros * npéOicev * Tovs S wAElovas. * Ereurpa O€ 
k ch. viii. 11, 12 reff. 
1 Cor. xiv. 8. 
p = ch. viii. 7. see Luke xi. 13. ch. v. 2. 
s 1 Cor. ix. 19 reff. 


(not A). 
m constr., ch. vii. 14. 
viii. 10 only (ref.). 
r Col. iii. 21 only. Prov. xix. 7. 


n here bis. 


24. [v of rnv is written above the line by N! or -corr!,] 


Proy. xiv, 23. 

2 Mace. xii. 

44 B,F 

Proy, xxvii. 1. 
och, 

q Rom. x. 2 reff. 


l constr., ch. xi. 30, 
Acts x. 10 only. Jer. xii. 5. 


uTep quay D'G, 


rec (for evdemvupevor) evdectacbe, with CD*3K LPR rel vulg(and F-lat) syrr copt arm 


gr-lat-ff: txt BD!F 17 goth. 
latt syrr copt goth eth arm gr-lat-ff. 


Cuap. IX. 1. om yap C 2. 41. 115 arm. 
109 Thdrt-ms Damasc. 
2. mapacokevacrai(but corrd) XN}. 


rec ins kat bef ers tposwrov: om BCDFKLPR rel 


evo B. om to C17. 73: tov F 


quw E(not G). 


for 6, ro BX 17. om e& BCPN a 


17 vulg(and F-lat) Syr copt arm Orig-int Ambrst Pel: ins DFKL rel fuld syr goth 


Chr Thdrt Damase Aug. 
3. ereuapev D-gr arm Aug. 


the proof of your love (‘to us,’ or perhaps, 
‘to your poor brethren’ (Meyer) :—but 
the word has not been so used throughout 
this passage, see verse 7: xdpis has been 
the word), and of our boasting concern- 
ing you, in the sight of the churches. 
I may remark, (1) that the participial 
construction is elliptic, as in Rom. xii. 16 
al. (2) That apéswroy tav éxkAnoiav 
does not actually import ‘the representa- 
tives of the churches,’ as Meyer (which 
would be 7d mpéswzoy or Ta mpdswra, with- 
out ¢is), but as above, it being emplied 
that they, being the amdéorodo T. éxkA., 
are such representatives. And this is all 
that Theodoret seems to mean, whom 
Meyer quotes in support of his view :— 
7) mpdswroy yap T@y eKKANOIa@Y e7- 
EXovoly ovToL TY TEemacav avTOUS. 

IX. 1—5.] He recurs to the collection 
itself, and prays them that they would 
make good before the brethren his boast- 
ing of them, and prepare it before his own 
coming. 1.] The pév yap connects 
with the last verse, thus, ‘I beseech you 
to receive the brethren whom I send, 
courteously ; for concerning the duty of 
ministration to the saints, it is surely 
superfluous for me to write to you who are 
so prompt already.” No new subject be- 
gins, as some have supposed ; nor is there 
any break in the sense at all. Some ob- 
scurity has been introduced unnecessarily, 
by taking ris dian. 7. eis T. Gy. for merely 
this collection which is now making: 
whereas the Apostle chooses such general 
terms as a mild reproof to the Corinthians, 
who, well aware as they were of the duty 


for wepvoi, wepov DIF: wepiov D? 17, (simly ch viii. 10.) 


of ministering to the saints, were yet some- 
what remiss in this particular example of 
the duty. There is an emphasis on ypd- 
yew: ‘nam testes habebitis presentes,’ 
Bengel. Theophyl. well remarks: tocaira 
kal mpdtepoy cimay Kal méAw péAAwy 
eireiv, Suws wepittoy aiT@ A€yer Td TeEpr 
ToUTwy ypdpew. copas Se TovTO ToLeEl, 
ste waddAov avtous emiondoacbat. aic- 
xvvOjcovra yap ef ye To.advTHy bwdAnV 
mepl avT@v exovTos Tov TMavAov, bt1 ob 
déovtat cuuBovaAts mpos Td éAcety, celta 
pavaow é€datrous THs bmroAnWews. 

2.| For (ground of repicody éort) I am 
aware of your readiness of which (reff.) 
I am in the habit of boasting concerning 
you to Macedonians (Bengel remarks on 
the pres., ‘adhue erat Paulus in Mace- 
donia’) that Achaia (not iuez?s—he relates 
his own words to the Macedonians) has 
been ready (viz. to send off the money: 
kal ovdeéy Aelwer ci ph Td eADEiv Tovs 
dekouevous Ta xphuata, Theophyl. The 
Apostle, judging by their readiness, had 
made this boast concerning them, sup- 
posing it was really so. That this is the 
sense is shewn by érapackevadorous below, 
ver. 4) from last year (reff.):—and the 
zeal which proceeds from you (‘which bas 
its source in you and whose influence goes 
forth from you: so 6 é« MeAomovyijcou 
méAeuos, of exetOey, and the like) stirred 
up the greater number of them (but not 
only the example of your zeal: see ch. 
viii. 1). 3.| But (contrast, not to 
wév in ver. 1, but to kavy@ua above; 
implying fear lest he should have been 
making a vain boast concerning them) 


686 IPOs KOPINOIOTS B. tx: : 
tR . iv. 2 s nr rn 
ref i 4 Tovs aberdovs, iva wn TO 'Kavynwa Huav TO UTrép VUoV oe 
u iKom, lv. A A , 
oem, “KEVOOH * ev Y TO Y wéper TOUTH, iva Kabws Edeyov ““ Tap- cadets 
w constr., Acts / we 4 x: De oe \ >- 0 \ b \ 7.47 
stoi €oKEVaGLEVvoL “ATE, +* wn *trws, Cav EXOwow ody Ewot Make- °1?. 


x 1 Cor, ix. 27 
ren. 
y here only t+. 


c lal 
doves Kal eipwow vas Y aTrapacKevdotous, * KaTaLoXUV- 


z ch. vii. 14 fal id lal vA \ a id lal 3 aA a ¢€ 1g 
hee. Odpev jets (wa wn Néyouevy vuels) ev TH *VTOTTACEL 
here only. 7 5 be 2 a 3 ed tf , e , \ 

a= chxii7, TAUTY. avaykaiov ovv “' hynoauny © TapaKxadéoat TOS 

y. (1. 3. ll. 
lex adergpous, °iva * a o€AOwow Els Was, Kal ® rpoKaTaprTi- 
only. Ps. ? P Has, p p 


XXXViii. 7. 
b Acts xiii. 46 
reff. 
ce Phil. ii. 25. 
2 Mace. ix. 21, 
d — Acts xxvi. 


cwow tHyv ™ rpoernyyedpéerny + evroyiay buav TavTHy 
e / 3 j ec j e x i > / \ \ ¢ k / 
éEtolunv eivatj ovTws } ws ‘edAoyiay Kat px ws * weoveEiav. 


f Acts xx. 5,13. Gen. xxxiii. 14. 


g here only +. 
j 1 Cor. iii. 15 reff. 


e 1 Cor. i. 10 reff. 
4 k = here 


2 reff. 
h Rom. i. 2 only t. i= Rom. xy. 29. xvi. 18. Ezek. xxxiv. 26. 
only. (Rom. i. 29 al.) 


for nuwy, vuwy B1(see table). om To umep uswy F 45 Chr. eAeyer(appy : 
but corrd) X?. 
4. om tws D! vulg. om eay BD? Syr: ay D}. evpovowy F’. ins Kat 


bef xataoxvv0wuev D!(and lat) L (Syr) arm. for Aceywper, Aeyw C1DF goth Thl- 
comm Ambrst Aug: om wa un Aey. up. K. for vues, ques Bl rec at 
end adds ts kavxnoews (see ch xi. 17), with D3KLPN% rel syrr goth arm gr-ff: om 
BCD'IFN! 17 latt copt «2th Ambrst Aug Pel. 

5. mposeAOwow F 48 Thdrt-ms. for eis, tpos BDF m: txt CKLN rel Thdrt 
Damasc Thl (Ee. (P uncert.) rec mpoxatnyyeAuerny (occasioned probably by 
mpoxatapt. above), with KL rel syrr Thdrt Damase ec: txt BCDF PR d 17 vulg copt 


goth arm Thl Ambrst Aug Pel. 
F arm Chr. 


om vywy D1(and lat) vulg Pel. 
om ka FR! 52 latt Syr Chr-comm, lat-ff. 


om TavTnv 
rec (for 2nd ws) 


wsmep, with b 1: txt BCDFKLPX rel gr-lat-ff. 


I sent (epistolary past, as in ch. viii. 
18, 22) the brethren, in order that our 
matter of boasting concerning you (kav- 
xnua, our whole ‘ materies gloriandi,’ not 
= xabynors) may not, in this particular, 
be proved empty (€v 7G uéper ToVTw does 
not belong to Kkavxnua, but to KevwO7— 
‘that our boast of you, so ample and 
various—ch. vii. 4, may not break down 
in this one.department.’ Estius, in marg., 
well calls it ‘ acris cum tacita laude exhor- 
tatio apostolica’); that, as I said (when? 
in ver. 2? or, in his boasting to the Mace- 
donians? or, in 1 Cor. xvi. 1? Most 
naturally, 7 ver. 2. If he had meant, fo 
the Macedonians, it would probably have 
been Aéyw, as kavx@ua above : if in 1 Cor. 
xvi., it would have been more clearly ex- 
pressed. If so, @Aeyov refers merely to 
the word mapeck.), ye may be prepared 
(see above on ver. 2), 4.| lest per- 
chance if Macedonians should come with 
me (to you:—to bring me on my way, or 
to bear the Macedonian collection. We 
may infer from this expression, that neither 
of the two brethren above mentioned, ch. 
viii. 18, 22, was a Macedonian), and should 
find you unprepared (with your collection, 
see ver. 2) we (who have boasted), not 
to say you (who were boasted of), should 
be put to shame, in the matter of this 
confidence (respecting you. tméortaocts, 
as elsewhere in N. T. and LXX, see 


reff., subjective: the attempt to give it 
here the meaning of ‘ foundation,’ ‘matter 
boasted of, as Chrys., Theophyl., Erasm., 
Grot., al., Riick., Olsh., is unnecessary, 
and has probably been induced by the 
gloss Tis Kavx. inserted from ch. xi. 
17: but see there also). a 
therefore (because of ver. 4) thought it 
necessary to exhort the brethren (Titus 
and the two others) that they would 
go before (my coming) to you, and pre- 
viously prepare your long announced 
beneficence (i. e. long announced by me to 
the Macedonians, ver. 2. evAoyla, 
blessing; not used only of a blessing in 
words, but of one expressed by a present, as 
Gen. xxxiii. 11; Judg.i.15. (See Stanley.) 
But beware of the blunder of connecting 
it with ed and Aoyla, ‘a good collection. 
This sense of blessing, combined with the 
primitive sense, affords the Apostle an op- 
portunity for bringing out the true spirit 
in which Christian gifts should be given), 
that this same may be ready (the con- 
struction is unusual: tav’rny refers back 
to evA. and the inf. must have éste sup- 
plied. De W. compares Heb. v. 5. Per- 
haps the nearest is Col. iv. 6) in such sort 
as beneficence, and not as covetousness 
(i.e. as the fruit of blessing, poured out 
from a beneficent mind, not of a sparing 
covetous spirit which gives no more than it 
need. There is no need to alter the primi- 


4—8, IIPO] KOPINOIOTS B. 687 


nr , e , , , ~ 
SI repro 8é, 6 Momelpwy ™Hedopuerws ™ PerSopeveas Kal \*se1Cor.v 

ft LO ? Gayaic! 
™ Qepicet, Kal 6 ™otreipwv °ém evdAoylais em’ evroylals “Garrit. 
kal ™ Gepioes. 


Proy. xxii. 8. 


14 \ , lol 7 
7 éxactos Kalas Prpoypytar TH Kapdia, » rr di 

‘ 2 / 2 pegs ¢ “ \ ; only +. (-vos, 
wn Lee AvIns H ¥ e€E * avayKns Sidapov yap * doTyy , 12x 1), 
> nae , a Ade a , her ly. 
ayaTrd 6 Geos. § “dSuvarte? 5é 0 Beds Tacav Y yapw * Trepta- ? Prov. xxi. 25 

a PINE ys oe \ ~ al, a 

cedoat * eis bas, va Y ev Y avi TavToTE * Tacay * avTAp- 9 = 1 Cor. vi. 
r Heb, vii. 12 only. shereonly. Proy.xxii.8. (-dTys, Rom. xii. 8.) t here only. l. c. only. 
u Rom. xiv. 4. ch. xiii. 3 only +. v Acts xi. 23 reff. w trans., ch. iv. 15. Eph. 


i, 8. 1 Thess. iii. 12 only $. x = ch. ii. 9,12. viii. 23. Gal. v. 10 al. y ch. 
iy. 8 reff. z= Acts xx. 19 reff. al Tim. vi. 6 only+. (-«yS, Phil. iv. 11. -Keuv, 
Deut. xxxii. 10.) 


6. for Ist em evAoyiais, ev evdoyia in benedictione D'F fuld copt goth Orig-int lat-ff. 
for 2nd em eva., e& evAoyias D}(and lat) fuld copt goth Orig-int Cypr: em evAoyia 
F(not F-lat) copt Aug. om ka D! eth. 
7. rec mpoaiperra, with DKL rel syrr Chr Thdrt Damasce: txt BC(FP)X& (17) Chr-ms 
(Wtst) (mpoeiperar F!, rpoeipnt. F2G 17: mponpit. P): proposuit (or simly) vss lat-ff. 


8. rec duvaros (see notes), with C2D23KLP rel Thdrt Damase: txt BC!D!FR. 


for Se, yap D! 109-78 demid tol Syr. 


tive meaning, or to make the word signify 
‘tenacity,’ as Calv., De Wette, al.: he who 
defrauds the poor by stinting them 7Acov- 
extei, in the literal sense. Still less must 
we with Chrys., al., refer mAcovet. to the 
Apostle,—py voulonre, pnoty, O71 ds TAEOV= 
exTouvTes avT)y AauBdvouev, Hom. xix. 
p- 573,—which is inconsistent with the 
interpretation pedouevws below, and with 
evAoylay, the corresponding word, which 
applies to the spzzt of the givers). 
6, 7.] He enforces the last words by an as- 
surance grounded in Scripture and partly 
cited from it, that as we sow, so shall we 
reap. Tovto | Some supply jul, as in 
ref,: others, as ‘Meyer, would take it as 
an accus. absol., ‘as regards this,’ viz. 
what has gone before. But I would rather 
take if as an imperfect construction, in 
which rodro is used merely to point at the 
sentiment which is about to follow :—But 
this—(is true), or But (notice) this... 
ém’ evAoyiats]| with blessings: ézi 
denoting the accompanying state or cir- 
cumstances, as in ref.: not, ‘with a view 
to blessings,’ which will not suit the second 
ém evA.: nor as Theophyl., Gic., and E. V. 
peta SaiAclas, bountifully: which gives 
indeed the sense, but misses the meaning 
of the expression: see above. It refers to 
the spirit of the giver, who must be iAapds 
ddé7ys, not giving murmuringly, but with 
blessings, with a beneficent charitable 
spirit: such an one shall reap also with 
blessings, abundant and unspeakable. The 
only change of meaning in the second use 
of the expression is that the evAoyla are 
poured on him, whereas in the first they 
proceeded from him: in both cases they are 
the element in which he works. So, we 
bestow the-seed, but receive the harvest. 
The spirit with which we sow, is of our- 
selves: that with which we veap, depends 


om tavrote F(not F-lat) 7. 


on the harvest. So that the change of 
meaning is not arbitrary, but dependent on 
the nature of things. 7.| Not, as Meyer 
and De W., a limitation of the foregoing, 
or else it would be expressed by some con- 
necting particle,—but a continuation of the 
thought :—qeidouevws and em evdAoylats 
referred to the spirit of the giver; so does 
this verse,—éx Avmns 7) e& ay. correspond- 
ing to pedouévws,—irapds, to em evAo- 
rylats. Kalas mpoypytat] as he hath 
determined in his heart; supply, ‘so let 
him give:’ i.e. let the mpoatpects, the full 
consent of the free will, go with the gift; 
let it not be a reluctant offering, given é« 
Ad’rns, out of an annoyed and troubled 
mind at having the gift extorted, nor eé 
avaykKns, Out of necessity,—because com- 
pelled. Such givers,—that is implied,— 
God does not love.  86ry¢ is not a clas- 
sical word. 8érnp, Swrhp and (Hes. Op. 
353) dHTns, are used (Meyer). 8— 
11.] He encourages them to a cheerful 
contribution by the assurance that God 
both can (vv. 8, 9), and will (vv. 10, 11) 
Surnish them with the means of perform- 
ing such deeds of beneficence. 8.] 
Suvaret has the emphasis. I adopt th 

reading because after all it is difficult to 
imagine how so easy a construction as 
duvatos 6 beds, should have been altered 
to Suvare?, as Meyer supposes, or why 
the transcriber need have written dvvardés 
éotiv if the latter were a correction for 
duvare?, seeing that the verb substantive 
is just as frequently omitted in such clauses 
as inserted. macav xdpuv, ‘etiam in 
bonis externis,’ Bengel,—to which here the 
reference is: not excluding however the 
wider meaning of ‘ a// grace.’ qepio- 
cevoa, to make to abound,—reff. 

tva «.7.A.] in order that, having at all 
times in every thing all sufficiency (of 


688 IPO KOPIN@OIOTS B. IX. 
” b / b > an c v c > 00 

pRom.ii.7 KelaY ExovTes » TrepiacednTe ” eis mav “Epyov ° wyabor, 

reff. 7 A 

cActsix.99 9 Kablos yéypattat 9’ Eoxdpticev, COwxey Tots ° TévnoW, 


Matt. xii. 30| , a pS \ In € \ > 
Oia 9 OLKALOTUVN avToD féver ‘eis TOY ai@va. 1° 6 Sé & ém- 


xvi. 32 only. = , an i , \ aay, ’ k > 

2 Kings sxi- YOONYOUY TTEPLA TW 'OTTELPOVTL KAL APTOV ELS Bpoaow 
9. ] , \ fal ‘ n / 2 r \ oO > / 
ehere only.Le. XOPNYNTEL Kat a mAnOuvet TOV " OTTOPOV ULWV KAL avénoet 


15, Psa. cxi. 


Exod. xxiii. \ , a Y Cee rs lohiap la Sop. 
Saki. Ta Pyevnpata TS OLKALOTUVNS ULOV. ev 1 7ravTt * Tov- 
JO. ee yas 2 1 3 a ec 7 ra / ’ 
bis xt ryCowevo els STacav tamAOTHTA, “TIS ‘ KaTEpyateTat Ov 


1 Pet. i. 25, € 


ra fal an a id / nan 
fromisaxi.8. 4UOV “ evyaptotiavy TO Oe@, 1® Ste 1) * Suaxovia Tis ¥ Net- 


1 John ii. 17 ; 7 5 x Boe \ A x. a \ 
only. ovov *€oTlW *TposavaTAnpovca TA 
g Gal. iii. TOUpylas TAaUTYS OU pos 7p 
5. Col. ii. 19. 2 Pet.i.5,llonly+. Sir. xxv. 22 only. (-yea, Eph.iv. 16. Phil. i. 19.) iver.6. Isa. 
ly. 10. k Rom. xiv. 17 reff. Isa. l.c. 11 Pet. iv. llonly. 3 Kingsiy.7. Sir. 
XXXL. 3G. m Acts vi. 7 reff. nepp., here only. Mark iy. 26,27. Luke viii.5, ll only. Deut. 
xi. 10. o trans., 1 Cor. iii. 6,7 reff. p (yevv.) Matt. ili. 7 || L. xii. 34. xxiii. 33. xxvi. 29 || 
Mk. L. Luke xii. 18 only. Deut. xiv. 22. Hosra x. 12. q ch. iv. 8 reff. rch. vi. 10. 1 Cor. 
i.5only. Gen. xiv. 23 al. participial constr., Acts xxiv. 10 reff. s = Acts xx. 19 reff. t Rom. 


w = Acts xxiv. 3 reff. 
z constr., see 


u = Acts x. 41 reff. v = Rom. iv. 15 reff. 
y Luke i. 23. Phil. ii. 17, 30. Heb. viii. 6. ix. 2i only. Num. viii. 22. 
ach. xi. 9 only t+. Wisd. xix. 4 only. 


xii. 8 reff. 
x Acts vi. 1 reff. 
Acts ii. 5 reff. 
9. at end ins Tov awvos FK 238 vulg(not am demid al) eth. 
10. for orepua, omopov (corrn from oropoy below) BD'F. orepavte L m 47. 
rec xopnynoa: TAnOvva: avinoa: (prob, as Meyer, corrns, in the idea that a wish was 
intended, and so the futures have been changed to optatives: for such they are, not 
infinitives: ef 1 Thess iii. 11, 12; 2 Thess ii. 17; iii. 5,—and var readd, Rom xvi. 20), 
with D3KN3 rel syr goth Chr Thdrt Damasc: xopyynoa: and tAnbuva F: xopnynoa and 
avénoa Li: txt BCD!PR! m 17 copt xth arm Cyr, Cypr Ambrst Aug. rec yevvn- 
para, with ek: txt BCDFKLPR rel Chr-mss Thl-mss. 


11. ins wa bef ev mavtt F Chr lat-ff. 
Damasce. 


worldly substance; aitdpx. is objective; 
not contentedness, subj.) ye may abound 
towards (‘have an overplus for ;? which is 
not inconsistent with aitdpxem, seeing 
that air. does not erelude the having 
more, but only the having less than is 
sufficient: the idea of a man’s having at 
all times and in all things a sufficiency, 
would presuppose that he had somewhat 
to spare) every good work: 9.] 
as it is written (i.e. fulfilling the cha- 
racter described in Scripture),—He scat- 
tered abroad (imetaph. from seed: mera 
SaviArclas ZdwKe, Chrys.), he gave to the 
poor: his righteousness remaineth for 
ever. In what sense is dicasocvvn used ? 
Clearly in the only one warranted by the 
context—that of ‘goodness proved by be- 
neficence, —‘a righteous deed, which shall 
not be forgotten,—as a sign of righteous- 
ness in character and conduct.’ To build 
any inference from the text inconsistent 
with the great truths respecting Sicaoodvn 
ever insisted on by Paul (as Chrys., p. 574, 
kal yap dikalovs moet [7 pirravOpwaia), Ta 
épapthuara kaarep wup avadloKovea, bTav 
pera SapiArclas exxéenra) is a manifest 
perversion. 10.] Assurance that God 
will do this. But (introduces the new as- 
surance) He that ministers seed to the 
sower and bread for eating (in the phy- 
sical world:—from ref. Isa., LXX. The 





vuwv C?P 662-7. 71-4, 91. 119-20 syr-mg 


for Tw @., @cov B: om Tw DI}. 


Vulg., E. V., Luther, Calv., Grot., al., 
commit the mistake of joining k. &ptor eis 
Bpaow with xopnyhou, or -e. Bpdcts, 
the act of eating: not = Bpadua), shall 
supply and multiply your seed (i.e. 
the money for you to bestow,—answer- 
ing to omépua to aomelpovtt), and will 
increase the fruits of your righteous- 
ness (from ref. Hos.—the everlasting re- 
ward for your bestowals in Christ’s name, 
as Matt. x. 42;—answering to &prov eis 
Bpéowv, which is the result of the sower’s 
labours). 11.] Method in which you 
will be thus blessed by God. In every 
thing being enriched (the construction is 
an anacoluthon, as in ref. and in ch. i. 7 
al.: nothing need be supplied) unto all 
liberality (i.e. in order that you may 
shew all liberality. On aa. see note, 
Rom. xii. 8), which (of a sort which) 
brings about by our means (as the dis- 
tributors of it) thanksgiving (from those 
who will reccive it) to God. 12. ] 
Explanation of the last clause. Because 
the ministration (not on our part who 
distribute, though it might at first sight 
seem so: the next verse decides diaxovia to 
mean, ‘your administering by contribu- 
tion, as in ver. 1) of this public service 
(Aer. here seems to approach more nearly 
to its proper sense, serving the public by 
furnishing the means of outfit for some 


BCDFI 
LPN a 
edef 
hklm 
017.4 


9—15. 


b 


lal h € , c cal i ’ \ > / fal 
TNS omoNoyias ULWY “ELS TO evayyeXtov TOU Y“plaoToU 
Paes i S kl is Imes > ‘ Yo bre Ae 
Kat AT NOTNHTL TNS KOLYMVLAS €lS GQAUTOUS Kal ELS 


IIPOS KOPINOIOTS B. 


689 


fal A oral 
voTEepnuata ToV °ayiwy, aXrNA Kal “qTepicoevovaa Sia »},or xvi 
TodrAov “evyaptoTiav TO Dew 13 dia THs © SoKimhs THs 
*Scaxovias tavtTns * doEafovtes Tov Oeov ‘él rH 8 UTroTayh 


e Acts ix. 13 
reff, 

d Acts xvi. 5 
reff 

e Rom. v.4 reff, 

- f Luke ii. 20. 

Acts iv. 21. 

participial 

constr., ver, 

ll al. 


/ lal , \ nr fe - il 
mavtas, \4 nal avtav denoe. brép Kuav ™ éruToOovyTov © fyi 


= la) / / fal fal , id r 
buas Sua THY CUTEpBddroVGaY yapw Tov Deod ef’ dpiv. 
= fal an el] / fal lal 
15 Pyapis TH Oe@ 4 ert TH avexdunynt@ avTod § dwped. 
iii. 1. iv. 14. x. 23 only. P.H.£ (Deut. xii. ay gen. of setreniee, Rom. vii. 2 reff. 
<« Rom. xv, 26 reff. 


James iv. 5. constr., Phil. i. 8. ii. 26. 
p Rom. vi. 17. vii. 25. 


xx. 21. 
xvi. 1 reff. 
o ch. iii. 10 reff. 


j ver. 11. 
n Rom. i. 11 reff. 


r here only +. 


reff. 
only. (Dan. ii. 6. v. 17 Theod.) 


s John iv. 10, 


iii. 4 only 
(-racoe. 
Rom. x. 3.) 
h (=) 1 Tim. vi. 
12,13. Heb. 
i = Acts 
m 1 Cor. 
Ps. exviii. 174. 
q so ver. 13 
2 Mace. iy. 30 


1 Phil. i. 5. 

1 Pet. ii. 2. 
1 Cor. xv. 57. ch. ii. 14, viii. 16. 

Acts ii. 38 al.¢ Wisd. vii. 14. xvi, 25. 


12. for dew, xpiotw B 46: in Domino vulg. 


13. ins cat bef d:a B. 


eavT. P. 


14. for vuwy, nyuwy BN! (but with v written above). 


aft umwas ins ediy &3. 


15. rec aft yapis ins de, with C?2D?3KLPN% rel vss gr-ff Ambrst-ms Sedul: om 
BC!D!EFN! a 17 latt goth Ambrst-ed Aug Pel Bede. 


necessary purpose) not only serves the end 
of supplying by its help the wants of 
the saints, but of abounding (aeptioc. 
may be transitive as in ver. 8, not only 
filling up, but ‘causing to overflow,’ what 
were dorephjuatra. But the usual intran- 
sitive sense is preferable. The emphasis 
is oO mposavamA. and mepicoevovoa) by 
means of many thanksgivings to God 
(tT Oeg with edyap., as in ver. 11, not 
with mepicoevovoa, which would not, as 
Meyer observes, give the sense of abound- 
ing towards God,—this would be eis r. 
Gedy, see Rom. v. 15, or eis 7. ddtay Tr. 
8cov, as in ch. iv. 15,—but the objection- 
able one of mepiooever wot tT, as John vi. 
U3) uke ix. 17). 13.] they (the 
recipients) glorifying God (the participle 
as in ver. 11, an anacoluthon) by means 
of (the proof, &c., is the occasion, by means 
of which) the proof (i.e. the tried reality 
—the substantial help yielded by) of this 
(your) ministration, for the subjection of 
your confession as regards the Gospel of 
Christ (i.e. that your duoaAoyla, [= ‘you 
who confess Christ,’ | ‘is really and truly 
subject in holy obedience, as regards the 
gospel of Christ.’ 
joined with taorayy, as ‘ obedience to,’ or 
(E. V.) ‘subjection unto,—which is un- 
exampled, and would more naturally have 
the art., 77 «is: it is towards, ‘in refer- 
ence fo,’ as in ref.) and liberality of your 
contribution as regards them and as re- 
gards all men (the same remarks apply to 
eis asabove). Meyer wouldrender amAdrntt 
THs Kowwvias, ‘the genuineness of your 
fellowship : but see note on Rom. xii. 8, 
and Rom. xv. 26. He also makes 77 izro- 
Tayn THS duod., ‘your subjection to your 
confession,’ which perhaps may be, but 
Worse 


But eis must not be © 


disturbs the parallel of amAdrnri rt. Kou. 

14.] The construction is very diffi- 
cult. Sefoes may depend on repiccevouea, 
ver. 12 (but then we should expect Sid as 
there),—or on 6o0fd¢ovres (but then it 
should also depend on éri—and they could 
not be said to glorify God for their own 
prayers. If on do0éd(ovres as the instru- 
ment whereby, it seems strange that aitav 
should be expressed), or aita@v Sehoer 
bmép du. emir. du. may be (as Meyer) a 
gen. absol., ‘while they desire you in 
prayers for you’ (but this seems forced, 
and as De W. observes, would require 
7H either before or after deqoer). In the 
midst of these difficulties I see no way 
but this: the datives preceding, drorayi 
and amAdrnt, have occasioned this also 
to be expressed in the dative, as though 
it depended on ézt, whereas it is in reality 
parallel with 6a moAA@y evxapioTi@y and 
dependent on mepiocetovoa. Again, the 
words in another point of view are pa- 
rallel with +t brotayf and amAdryti, 
inasmuch as these are tp@v, and this 
denors is ad’téy. Amidst such compli- 
cated antitheses and attracted construc- 
tions, it may suffice if we discover the 
clue to the original formation of the 
sentence: the meaning is obvious enough, 
viz. that glory also accrues to God by 
the prayers of the recipients, who are 
moved with the desire of Christian love 
(reff.) to you, on account of the grace 
of God which abounds eminently to- 
wards (over) you (ép tp. belonging to 
trepB. not to xapiv, which would, but 
not of absolute necessity, require tv). 

15.] Having entered, in the three 
last verses, deeply into the thankful 
spirit which would be produced in these 

Yow 


690 IIPOS KOPINOIOTS B. X. 

t Rom. xii. 1 X. 1 Adrtos dé eyo Tlatdos trapaxadkd tpas * dia BODFI 
or. iv. 2 fl 2 \ > rn a Ra 

2 eee THs “mpaitntos Kal Y émvetkelas Tov XplaTouv, Os “ KaTacdef 


v Acts xxiv. 4 


(reff.) only MG 
Lu 


apo é » hkim 
w ver. 7. TT POSWT7r OV MeV 


*ratewos év viv, Yatr@v dé *Pappe@ eis 017.4 


ii. 31. Acotte ¢ 
13. 2 Chron. vpas* 
xiii. 8. 
x Rom. xii. 16 reff. 
ii.6. Winer, edn. 6, $ 44. 3. . 


y 1 Cor. v. 3 reff. 


Cuap. X. 1. ree mpaorntos, with CDOKLN? rel: txt BFP? 17. 


for ers vas, ev vu P. 


bch. i. 15 reff. 


2 Séomar S€ *70 pur) Y Tapwv *Papphoar TH ” TeTrol- 


z ch. v. 6,8 reff. aconstr. Cor.iv.6. Phil. 


eis, OC B. 


2. aft rn memoi0noe: ins Tavtn C2(hence to orAa Ts, ver 4, C is rewritten) copt. 


recipients of the bounty of the Corinthians, 
he concludes with an ascription, in the 
spirit also of a: thankful recipient, of wn- 
Seigned thanks to Him, who hath enriched 
us by the gift of His only Son, which brings 
with it that of all things else (Rom. yiii. 
32), and is, in all its wonders of grace and 
riches of mercy, truly ineffable, avexdijyn- 
tos. Itisimpossible to apply such a term, 
so emphatically placed as here, to any gift 
short of THAT ONE. And the ascription, 
as coming from Paul’s fervent spirit, is very 
natural in this connexion. This interpre- 
tation is preferred by Chrys. Hom. xx. p. 
579 f. [dwpedy 5€ evradda A€yer kal TH 
tocaita ayaba Ta Sia THS eAEnMootyns 
yidpeva Kat Tots AapBdvovor Kal Tots 
mapéxovow 7) Ta amdppnta ayaba Ta bia 
Tis mapovoias av’Tov TH oikovupevn maon 
peta MWoAATS OwpnbevTa TIS piroTimlas: 9d 
kal udAioTd Cori dTonTevoa. Iva yap Kat 
KataoTelAn, Kal SaiAcotépous epyaonrat, 
dy eruxov mapa Tov Bcov, TO’TwY avrovs 
dvapiynoKe. Kal yap méy.oToy TovTO «Eis 
mpotpomiy apetis amdons’ bib Kal ev- 
Tai0a Toy Adyov KaréxAeicey |, and Thi. 
[ who, after beginning as Chrys., proceeds : 
Q kal Tov ayabdy avauimvioKer ay Ati- 
Onuey 51a THS TapkKwoews TOV XpioToO, 
savel toadtTa Aéywy Mndev péya vopl- 
onte bpuets moretv' avekdinynta yap ict 
Ta ayaba & éAdBouwev Tapa Beod" Kal ci 
dAlya kal pOapta SGpuev, Th wéya;| It is 
also given by Bengel [‘* Deus nobis dedit 
abundantiam bonorum internorum et ex- 
ternorum, que et ipsa est inenarrabilis, et 
fructus habet consimiles”], Meyer, al. 
The other explanation (see Chrys. above) 
is that of Calv., Grot., Est., al. 

Cnap. X. 1—XIII. 18.] Turrp Parr 
OF THE EpistLe. DEFENCE OF HIS APOS- 
TOLIC DIGNITY, AND LABOURS, AND SUF- 
FERINGS, AGAINST HIS ADVERSARIES: 
WITH ANNOUNCEMENT OF HIS INTENDED 
COURSE TOWARDS THEM ON HIS ENSUING 
VISIT. X. 1—6.] He assures them of 
the spiritual nature, and power, of his 
apostolic office: and prays them not to 
make it necessary for him to use such au- 
thority against his traducers at his coming. 

1.} 5€ marks the transition to a new 


subject,—and aités points on to the 
personal characteristics mentioned below, 
‘Ego idem Paulus, qui... ;’ the words é ey 
Tlad)os setting his Apostolic dignity in 
contrast with the depreciation which fol- 
lows. Sometimes however we have airdés 
used, where the only object seems to be to 
bring out the personality more strongly : so 
1Thess. iii.11; iv.16; v.23; 2 Thess. 11.16; 
iii.16. See also Rom. vii. 25: and ch. xii. 13: 
—and such may be the case here :—but the 
és rather favours the former interpretation. 
81a tr. wp. «. ém.} as in Rom. xii. 1, 
using the meekness and gentleness of Christ 
(Matt. xi. 29, 30) as a motive whereby he 
conjures them. And most appropriately : 
he beseeches them by the gentleness of 
Christ, not to compel him to use towards 
them a method of treatment so alien from 
that gentleness: “ Remember how gentle 
my Master was, and force not me His ser- 
vant to be otherwise towards you.” 
“ rpaiirns, lenitas, virtus magis absoluta : 
émielxera, equitas, magis refertur ad alios,”’ 
Bengel. See many examples in Wetst. 
és kata mpds.| Who in personal appear- 
ance indeed (am) mean among you (he 
appropriates concessively, but at the same 
time with some irony,—so Chrys. Hom. 
Xxi. p. 583, kat’ eipwrelay nal, Ta exelvwv 
pbeyydsuevos,—the imputation by which 
his adversaries strove to lessen the weight 
of his letters. Kata wp. is not a 
Hebraism : Wetst. quotes several in- 
stances of its usage by Polybius), but 
when absent am bold (severe, oufspoken 
in blame) towards you, 2.) but 
(however this may be, assuming this 
character of me to be true or not, as you 
please ;—or, notwithstanding that I may 
have been hitherto tamewds among you) 
I pray [you] (not, God, as Bengel [1], al.) 
that I may not (1rd uy sets the object of 
déoua in a stronger light, see reff.) when 
present (‘as I intend to be :’'—‘ at my next 
visit’) have to be bold (see above) with 
the confidence (official peremptoriness, and 
reliance on my authority) with which I 
reckon (am minded: not passive, ‘am 
reckoned,’ as Vulg., Luther, Beza, Estius, 
Bengel, al., which, as Meyer remarks, would 


1—6. 


/ © ‘ a 
Once  °oyifouar “Tokphoar emi twas Tors ° NoyrCoue- 
eS A € ie - , A 
vous nuas °as Kata ® capka TepiTratodvtas. 
AS \ j a . 
capKl yap ‘mepuratobvtes ov & Kata ® capKa | oTpaTevo- 
6 =| 4 \ At k fxd >¥ a ] / ce an 9: m / 
pea: * ta yap “oma THs !otpatelas wav od ™ capKikd, 
? \ \ n fal n Oo \ / > / ‘ 
arra dSuvata "TH Oe@ ° pos P KaBaipeow “ dyupopatar 4 


h 


IIPO> KOPINOIOTS B. 


691 


c = here only. 
1 Kings 
XVill. 25. 
AoytGoevor 
new ana 
HAtw Svvov- 
Tl, K.T.A,, 
Xen. Anab. 
ii. 2. 13. 

= ch. xi. 21 
bis. Il. kK. 


3h gy 


\ lal x al ¢ 939 
5 Royiomovs Sxabaipobvtes Kat trav * tnpwma “ érrarpope- oie. vii. 96. 


VOV 
TES 


20. Phil. i. 22, 24. Col. ii. 1. 1 Tim. iii. 16. Philem. 16. 


ix. 7 reff. 

n dat., Acts vii. 20 reff. 
xxi. 22. 1 Macc. v. 65. 
xix. 27. Lam. ii. 2. 
xi. 20. Ezraiv.19. Dan. xi. 14 Theod. 
reff. x ch, ii. 11 reff. 


k = ch. vi. 7 (reff.). 


om twas C?, 
3. mepiratouytas I’. 


\ fol , n a 
KaTa TIS yvwrews ‘TOD Oeod, Kal “ aiyparwrifor- , 
al if \ a fa 
mav *vonua es tiv YUTaKonv TOD ypLoTOD, © Kal® 
o = ch. vili. 19 reff. 


r Rom. ii. 15 only. 
t Rom. viii. 39 only. 


1 Cor. iv. 1, 
Amos vi. 5. 
Rom. viii. 4, 
Rom. i. 3 
reff. 
h = Gal. ii. - 
j 1 Cor. 
m | Cor. iii. 3 reff. 
q here only. 
B= Acts 
u=ch. 
w Rom. vii. 23 


i ch. iv. 2 reff. 
11 Tim. i. 18 only +. 
p ver. 8 reff. 
Proy. vi. 18. Jer. xi. 19. 
Job xxiv. 24, Judith x.°8. xiii. 4 only. 
Vv gen. object., ch. ii. 14. 


y and constr., Rom. i. 5 reff. 


4. otparias (for -eras) CDF KLPS el! mn 47: txt B17. 


9. kafapovytwv D' Orig, (and int,: txt,) Meth. 


at end ins ayovtes DE goth. 


naturally require amév with toAujoa) to 
be bold towards some, (namely) those who 
reckon (of) us as walking according to 
the flesh (wepirarety kata odpka is well 
explained by Estius, ‘hoc est, secundum 
carnales et humanos affectus vitam et ac- 
tiones instituere...... Putabant enim Pau- 
lum, quando presens erat, sive captande 
gratiz causa, sive quod timeret offendere, 
vel simili affectu humano prohibitum fuisse, 
ne potestatem exerceret, quam absens per 
literas venditabat’). 3.] The yap here 
shews that this verse is not the refutation 
of the charge kata odpka mepirareiv, but 
a reason rendered for the Séoua: above; 
and év capt and Kata odpra allude only 
to the charge just mentioned. This indeed 
is shewn by the use, and enlargement in 
vv. 4—6, of orparevdueda, instead of mepi- 
matouvmev :—they who accuse us of walking 
after the flesh, shall find that we do not 
war after the flesh: therefore compel us 
not to use our weapons. év cap. y. 
amepir.] Although we walk in the flesh, 
i.e. are found in the body,—vet we do not 
take our apostolic weapons from the flesh 
-—do notmake its rule our rule of warfare. 
4.| Enlargement of the idea in 
otpatevépefa. If the warfare were ac- 
cording to the flesh, its weapons would be 
carnal : whereas now, as implied, they are 
spiritual, Suvara 7G OeG,— powerful in 
the sight of God (i. e. ‘in His estimation,’ 
‘after His rule of warfare’ It is not a 
Hebraism ; see on ref. Acts; and for the 
dat., Winer, edn. 6, § 31. 4. Some ren- 
der it, ‘by means of God, —Beza, Grot., 
Estius, Bengel, al.: others, ‘for God,— 
God’s means of shewing his power,—Bill- 
roth, al., but wrongly) in order to pulling 
We 


om 2nd ka F Ambrst-ed. 


down of strongholds (see ref. Prov. So 
Philo de Abrah. § 38, vol. ii. p. 32, rdv 
emiterxioudy Tav evaytiwv Sota Kabaiperv, 
—see also de Confus. ling. § 26, vol. i. 
p- 424. Cf. Stanley: who thinks that 
recollections of the Mithridatie and 
piratical wars may have contributed to 
this imagery. The second of these, 
not more than sixty years before the Apos- 
tle’s birth, and in the very scene of his 
earlier years, was ended by the reduction 
of 120 strongholds, and the capture of more 
than 10,000 prisoners). 5. | The nom. 
kaGaipotyres refers to juets, the implied 
subject of ver. 4 ;—this verse carrying on 
the figure in éxupwpdtwv. By Aoyiopovs 
he means, as Chrys., p. 585, tov roov 
tov ‘EAAnuiKkdy, kal TOY coditudrwr kK. 
TY cudAdOyLoKaY THY ioxtdy:—but not 
only these :—every towering conceit Kara 
odpra is also included. K. Wav Up. ] 
And every lofty edifice (fortress or 
tower) which is being raised (or, raising 
itself) against the knowledge of God 
(i.e. the true knowledge of Him in the 
Gospel; not subjective here, but taken 
objectively, the comparata being human 
knowledge, as lifted up against the know- 
ledge of God, i.e. the Gospel itself), 
and leading captive every intent of the 
mind (not ‘thought, as E. V.: not in- 
tellectual subjection here, but that of the 
will, is intended) into subjection to Christ 
(in the figure he treats 7 jako} 7. xpiorod, 
the new state into which the will is brought 
by its subjection, as the country into which 
it is led captive: compare Luke xxi. 24). 
6.] But perhaps some will not thus 
be subjected. In that case we are ready 
to inflict punishment on them : but not till 
¥ 2 


692 


z here only. 
Polyb. in. M4. 


IIPO> KOPINOIOTS B. 


X. 


2 éy *étolum *eyovTes *exdixfjoar Tacay » TapaKony, OTav BODE 
a 


ae ae eA tA eva ec , 
2 Casexer, © npwOn Lua@v 7 * UTAaKON. 


Acts xxi. 1 
reff.) 
a Rom, xii. 19 


reff. 
b Rom. v. 19. 
eb. ii. 2 
only t. 
(-ovewv, 
Matt. xviii. 


7Ta ©xata © mposwrov Prérete; el tis * rémoer 017. 

Lal nr r , . > 
Eavt® £ yxpiotod ecivar, TodTo » oyikEcOw ‘mdadrw iad 
éavtov, "dte Kabws avTos yxploToD, oUTws Kal 7peEls. 


17) 8 gay * [re] *yap ™ mepiccotepoy ™ TL Kavyjowpar Tept 


c = John iii. 29 
al. fr. Dan. viii. 23. 


Rom. ii. 3 reff. 
ii. 7 reff. 


i = 1 Cor. xii. 21. 
m Luke xii. 4 only. 


6. for ev eromw, erouwws D! Orig. 


d w. gen. subj., Rom. y. 19. xv. 18. xvi. 19 al. 
i. 14. Philem. 21. Prov. xiv.16. Isa. xxviii. 17. inf., Rom. ii. 19. 
i j ch. iii. 5 reff. 


ever. 1. f constr. dat., Phil. 
g = 1 Cor. i. 12. iii. 23. h constr., 
k = Rom. i. 26. vii. 7. Ich. 


aft mAnpw6n ins mpotepoy C 39 fri Aug. 


n urakon bef vuwy D!F lat-ff.—yuwy D1 F(not G). 


7. for memobev, doce: TeTmobeva B. 
ms. madw bef Aoy:Ceo8w PL. 
intra G-lat. 


aft xpiorov ins dovdos D'F flor fuld Ambrst- 


for af, eo BLN; apud vulg D-lat F-lat ; 


rec aft nuers ins xpiorov, with DKL rel copt-wilk Damase Ge: 


om BCD!FPR 17 latt syrr goth «th arm Chr Thdrt Thl Ambrst Pel. 


8. om re BF 417 Chr Thl: ins CDKLPR rel Thdrt Damase Ge Ambrst. 


rec 


ins ka bef wepicoorepov, with D3KLN% rel Syr syr-mg Chr Thdrt Damase Thl: om 


BCD'FPR! ¢ latt copt goth ath arm (ec. 
m! arm Sedul. 


every opportunity has been given them to 
join the ranks of the obedient ; when your 
obedience (stress on tuaey) shall have 
been completed. He does not mention 
any persons—not the disobedient, but 
every (case of) disobedience, and throws 
out duets into strong relief, as charitably 
embracing all, or nearly all, those to whom 
he was writing. Lachmann, strangely, and 
as it seems to me most absurdly, puts a 
period at mapakojy, and joins étav 7A7- 
pw bu. % bmaxoh, Ta Kata mpdswmrov 
Bdénere. More complete ignorance of the 
Apostle’s style, and non-appreciation of 
the fine edge of his hortatory irony, can 
hardly be evinced, than this. 

7—XII. 21.] A digression, in which 
he vindicates his apostolic dignity, his 
Sruitfulness in energy and in sufferings, 
and the honour put on him by the Lord 
in revelations made to him. 7—11.] 
He takes them on their own ground. 
They had looked on his outward appear- 
ance and designated it as mean. Well 
then, he says: ‘do ye regard outward 
appearance? even on that ground I will 
shew you that I am an Apostle—I will 
bear out the severity of my letters: I 
will demonstrate myself to be as much 
Christ’s, as those who vaunt themselves 
to be especially His.’ This rendering 
suits the context best, and keeps the 
sense of kata mpéswrov in ver. 1. The 
imperative rendering of Vulg., Ambrose, 
Theophyl., Billr., Riick., Olsh., De Wette, 
al.,—‘ look at the things before your eyes,’ 
is objectionable (Meyer), (1) from altering 
the meaning of kata mpdéswrov: (2) be- 
cause it gives too tame a sense for the 
energy of the passage : (3) because BA€émere 


7. bef wepioo. F Ambrst Vig: om vt 


kavxnooua LPR efk Thl: -capeba 17. 


generally in such sentences, in Paul’s style, 
comes first, see 1 Cor. i. 26; x. 18; Phil. 
iii. 2 (3ce); Col. iv. 17. Another way, is 
to take it as said without a question, but 
indicatively. So Chrys., Calvin, ‘ Magni 
facitis alios qui magnis ampullis turgent,— 
me, quia ostentatione et jactantia careo, de- 
spicitis.’ But in that case, surely some fur- 
ther intimation would have been given of 
such a sentiment than merely these words, 
—the break after which, without any con- 
necting particle, would thus be exceedingly 
harsh. Others again fancifully mix up 
with kata& mpéswr. the supposed charac- 
teristics of the (?) Christ-party, the having 
seen Christ in the flesh: the being headed 
by James the brother of the Lord, &e. &e. 

el tis... .]| If any one believes 
himself to belong to Christ (lit. ‘trusts in 
himself to belong’ From 1 Cor. i. 12, 
it certainly was one line taken by the ad- 
versaries of the Apostle to boast of a nearer 
connexion with, a more direct obedience 
to, Christ, in contradistinection to Paul: 
and to this mind among them he here 
alludes), let him reckon this again out 
of his own mind (i.e. let him think afresh, 
and come to a conclusion obvious to any 
one’s common sense [aq éavrod] and not 
requiring any extraneous help to arrive at 
it), that as he is Christ’s, so also are we 
(that whatever intimate connexion with or 
close service of Christ he professes, such, 
and no less, is mine). 8.] This is 
shewn to be so. Even more boasting than 
he had ever yet made of his apostolic 
power, would not disgrace him, but would 
be borne out by the fact. For if we were 
to boast (édy is not concessive, but hy- 
pothetical, as in 1 Cor. xiii. 1. Te yap 


7—11. 


THS “éEovcias Hud °As P ESwKev 6 KUpLos els 4 OiKoSomNY 


IIPOS KOPINOIOTS B. 


693 


n see | Cor. ix. 
4, and passim. 
= ch. xiii. 10, 


\ > as fa) U c a > s bd On 9 vA 
vw KAL OUK ELS ~ Ka alpeoty UL@V, OUK so mi ada nooMat, WW oattr., Acts i. 


1 reff. 


- 7) bofe | @s t ap ¥ exoBetv Upas Ova TOV ETL TONOD. pis rhs x. 1 
sh 10 67 ai wey émiaToNat * pnow " Bapeiar Kat * ioxyupat, 1) “io hae 
r ver. 4. ch. 
7 Sey Tmapovata TOU T@marTos * daGevns Kal 6 oxos * eGoube- xii 10 only. 
acc. iil. 
ll b b c c b & 43 only. 
VnKEVvOS. TOUTO Noyeler Ow 0 TOLOUTOS, OTL oto’ (-pecr, ver. 
5.) s Luke xvi. 3. Phil. i. 20. 1 Pet. iv. 16. 1 Johnii. 28 only. Ps, xxxiv. 4. t w. inf., here 
only. meyada xpyuwata ws av eivat “Podwrtos, Herod. ii. 135. u here only. Levit. 
xxvi. 6. (-Bos, Mark ix. 6.) v see note, w = Matt. xxiii. 23. Acts xxv. 7 aap? 
x 1 Cor. i. 26 reff. iv. 10. y 1 Cor. xvi. 17 reff. z see 1 Cor, i, 25, a Rom. xiv. 3 re 
b ver. 7. c Acts xxii. 22 reff, 


om nuwy C1P 66?. 219! Syr copt Chr. 
fri Idac. 


9. Sofwpev DF (not F-lat) Ambrst. 
D G-lat(altern): expoBwv P. 
10. emor. bef wey BR}. 


generally has a corresponding clause fol- 
lowing, with re, kal, 5é or 4, as Hur. 
Pheen. 1313, euds te yap mais ys dAwrN 
imepOavdv, ... . Bod 5€ 5Hua way, so in 
reff. and Thucyd. i. 12 bis,—but some- 
times the corresponding clause is wanting, 
being understood, or, as apparently here 
and in Heb. ii. 11, allowed to pass out of 
inind while following out the thought of 
the first clause. See Hartung, Parti- 
kellehre, i. 115. 5) somewhat more abun- 
dantly (than we have ever done: or than 
in vv. 3—6) concerning our power 
which the Lord has given for building 
you up and not for pulling you down (kai 
TOS Hnol, Aoyicpovs KafatpovvTes; STL avTd 
TOUTO wdAtoTa oiKodouTs eldds eoT, TO TH 
KwAvMaTa dvatpeiv, Kal Ta cabpa Siedrcy- 
xew, Kal Ta GANOH ouvTWevar ev oikodops. 
Chrys. Hom. xxii. p. 589), I shall not 
be put to shame (0d dex @qooua Wev- 
Sduevos ovde aAaCovevduevos, Chrys. ib.). 

9.] follows on ver. 8, but requires 
some clause to be supplied such as ‘ And 
I say this,’ or the like. Meyer would join 
it immediately to aioxur., and regard it 
as the purpose to be served by the fact 
verifying his boast. But as De W. ob- 
serves, a particular result like this can 
hardly be bound on to a general assertion 
like that of ver. 8. To suppose the pur- 
pose of Paul’s boast of apostolic power 
being borne out, to be merely iva un ddtw, 
&e., would be out of keeping with the im- 
portance of the fact. So that ta py 
dd=w is much better taken subjectively —I 
say this, because I wish not to seem, &c. 
@s av,—as Vulg. ‘tanquam terrere vos.’ 
It takes off the harshness of éxgoBety. “ as 
ay in later (? see ref.) Greek, has the sense 
of ‘ quasi, tanquam,’— dy losing its proper 
force, in a commonly current expression ; 
and the sense is much the same as that of 


pacwv B latt(exe D-lat) syrr goth. 


for kupios, eos D'(and lat) F(gr and lat) G-lat 
rec adds qu, with D3FKLN? rel goth Thdrt Gic: wo: Syr copt Chr Thl : 
pref nu P73: om BC D!(and lat) &'17 am!(with tol al) eth. 


for vp... nuwy (not G). 
om ws av expoBouytes 


ekoudevnmevos B. 


@s alone.” Meyer. Winer takes as ay 
expoBeiv as = as by expoBomu, edn. 6, 
§ 42. 6, (but see Moulton’s note, p. 390, 
1, who prefers the account given above) 
and is followed by Olsh., but this, in 
the presence of the above idiom, is un- 
necessary. Sia TOV émioToAGv | 
He had written two before this, see 
1 Cor. v. 9; but this is not necessarily 
here implied: for he may reckon this 
which he is now writing. Still less can 
we infer hence that a ¢hird had been 
written before this (Bleek). 10. ] 
gyoiv, taken by Winer (edn. 6, § 58. 
9. b), De W., and Meyer, as impersonal— 
heiBt e8, ‘men say :’ but why should not 
the ris of ver. 7, and 6 To.odTos of ver. 
11, be the subject ? Bapetar| see 
in Wetst., definitions from the rhetori- 
cians of Bapitys in discourse. Among 
other illustrations of it, Aristides mentions 
étay TL &ToToy EavT@ KaTapdon’ oiov, 
TeOvdvat uarAAoY 7) TadT cipneévat BovAo- 
peat (see 1 Cor. ix. 15), and 6ray eis Kpiow 
aydyns Tov TeOvedTwy evddEwy,..... 
oiov, mnAtkov &v orevakaey of mpdyovor 
(see 1 Cor. xy. 18). mapovgia.... 
aa0evys | No countenance is given by these 
words to the idea that Paul was of weak 
physical constitution, or short in stature. 
His own explanation of them is sufficient 
as given in 1 Cor. ii. 1 ff. It is, that when 
he was present among them, he brought, 
not the strength of presence or words of 
the carnal teachers, but abjured all such in- 
fluence and in fear and trembling preached 
Christ crucified. It was this, and not 
weakness of voice, which made his Adyos 
to be efovdevnuevos. At the same time, 
the contrast being between his epistles and 
his word of mouth, his authority as wnac- 
companied or accompanied by his presence, 
it must be assumed, that there was some- 


- 694 
d Rom, xv. 18. 
Col. iii, 17. 
(eel Cor. iv. © TapovTes ITO Epyw 
Cy or. iv. Pp S ( PYG ° 


IIPO> KOPIN@IOTS B. 


X. 


, d - , , ’ cal e > , r A 
eopev “TH Oyo Ov ETLTTOA@Y © aTrOVTES, TOLOUTOL Kal 
2 od yap f ToAmapev § eyxpivar 7 


1 TI 5. h a i.e \ \ nr j e \ j , 
jens-2- 5.) ovyKplval E€AUTOVUS TLOLY TWY * EAUTOUS * GUVLOTAVOVTOV’ 


e1 Cor. vy. 3 


reff. \ > \O a 3 
= 1 Cor. yi. 1 anra auTou k 
reff. 
ghere only+. Jos. B. J. ii. 8.7, els TOV Op.tAov eyxpiverat. 
al. = Wisd. vii. 29. xv. 18. i Ist pers., ch. iii. 1 reff. 


bis. Mark iv. 24 bis only. las above (k). 


12. roApuw (for -uwnev) B: ToAM@y m. 
om tis D}, 


thing (see on ch. xii. 7) which discom- 
mended his appearance and delivery. See 
the traditional authorities for the Apostle’s 
personal appearance, in Winer’s Realw. 
vol. ii. p. 221, note. 11. | Aoyilec bw, 
as in ver. 7. 6 ToLlovTos, viz. who 
thusspeaks. The introduction of the verse 
without any connecting particle gives force 
and emphasis. After mapévtes supply 
éomev, not éoducba. Not only the conduct 
of the Apostle on his next visit, but his 
general character, is in question. 
12—18.] The difficulty of this passage 
is universally acknowledged. In early times 
Theodoret wrote : aoapa@s Grav Td xdpnua 
TouTo yeypaperv, and adds asa reason, évap- 
yas éhéyéar Tovs aitlouvs ov BovAdpevos. 
He substantiates what has just been said, 
by shewing how unlike he is to those vain 
persons who boast of other men’s labours ; 
—for he boasts of what God had really 
done among them by him, and hopes that 
this boast may be yet more increased. 
12.] disclaims resemblance to those 
false teachers who made themselves their 
only standard. For we do not venture 
(ironical ;—“ dum dicit quod non faciat, 
notat quid isti faciant.” Bengel) tonumber 
ourselves among (cvvapiOu7joa, Theo- 
phyl., Ccum., ‘inserere,’ Vulg.: see 
examples of this usage, with els prin- 
cipally, but also with werd and érf w. gen., 
in Wetst.), or compare ourselves with 
(cvy«plvew is properly, in classical Greek, 
‘to compound,’ or ‘unite: but in later 
Greek, ‘to compare: 6 ouvyrpitixds Tpé- 
mas, with the grammarians, is the com- 
parative degree) some of those who com- 
mend themselves (the charge made against 
him, éavtdy auvictrdver, see ch. iii. 1; 
v. 12, he makes as a true one against 
the false teachers);—but (they), them- 
selves measuring themselves by them- 
selves, and comparing themselves with 
themselves, are not wise. ‘The render- 
ings are very various. Chrys. al., read 
cvviodov, and make it a particip., tovr- 
éoT1, wy aigbavomévois mas clot KaTayéda- 
oro Toai’Ta GAaCovevduevor, p. 590: and 
see again below. Others, reading the 
same, take it rightly, as = ovmaow, but 


rn € \ 
€v €auTots EauTovs 


aAn D'Lam17. 


- rn \ 
‘I wetpovytes, Kat "ovy- 


h here bis. 1 Cor. ii. 13 only}. Gen, xl. 8 
j ch. iii. 1 (reff.). k Matt. vii. 2 


Luke i, 38. Rev. xi. 1,2. xxi. 15, 16,17 only. Exod. xvi. 18. 


for eyxp., kpiva Fn. add eavrous D!. 
om 8rd eavrovs N!(ins N-corr! bl), 


make petpodrtes, Ke., the object of cuv- 
toto: ‘know not that they are mea- 
suring,’ §e. : but the corresponding sen- 
tence, jets 5€ «.7.A., Shews that this sense 
would be irrelevant; for the Apostle does 
not oppose their zgnorance of their foolish 
estimate of themselves to his own prac- 
tice, but that foolish estimate itself. 
Others again, as Emmerling and Olshausen, 
take GAAG—ouviotcw (or -aow) to apply 
to the Apostle himself, as contrasted with 
the tiwés: ‘ We do not venture, &c.,—but 
we ourselves measure (supply écpev, ‘are 
in the habit of measuring’) ourselves by 
ourselves (i.e. as ver. 18, by what the 
Lord has really made us to be), and com- 
pare ourselves with ourselves, foolish as 
we are (reputed to be :—ourwiow being a 
participle). But foolish we are not: we 
will not boast ourselves,’ Ke. But (1) 
this rendering would absolutely require 
the article before ov gcuviodcw, which, 
anarthrous, would imply, not an imputa- 
tion, but the fact: (2) the mode of 
expression (adtol éy éavtois éavt. mertp.) 
would be a most extraordinary one to 
convey the meaning supposed :—and (3) 
the meaning itself would be irrelevant when 
obtained. Another variety of this render- 
ing is to take (as Bos, Schrader, al.) éav- 
Tots, ov guviovow, = éavTois, ov Tots 
ovvivow—with ourselves, not with the 
wise: which is also inadmissible. 
Others again (see var. read.) would omit od 
cuviaotv (or -o0o.w)* jets 5€,—which has 
been an evident correction, on the suppo- 
sition that @AAd atro x.7.A. belonged to 
the Apostle, to expunge words so much 
in the way of such an interpretation. 

I may observe that much of the difficulty 
has arisen from taking adrof with aAAa 
as the subject to od cuviaow, whereas 
it belongs to what follows, aAAa& abro) év 
€auT. €auT. meTp. K.T.A., aS in the version 
given above: thesubject of cuviaow being 
to be supplied, and the construction being 
an inaccurate one. Calvin well illustrates 
the sense, by the reputation which any 
moderately learned man gained among the 
ignorant monks of his day — “Si quis 
tenuem modo gustum elegantioris litera- 


12—15. 


Kplvovtes éavTovs EauTois ov ™ouviaow. 
- Nels Ta °auetpa "Kavynooucha, GXAA KaTa TO péTPOV TOD 
KL P avovos 100 *éucpicev tyiv o Oeds *pétpou * épixécOar 
14 od yap ws puny Sépixvodpevot els. p.10 


rapes ad tle 2A 
s aXypl Kab UVLO. 


47 v a wis t vs / tf LS S Lame ial 
was “virepexteivouev Y éautovs, *aypt yap Kal vpav 
> a lal lo) 
“ ébOacapev *év TO evayyeriw Tod yplaTod 


y.r.) only. Mic. vii. 4. Judith xiii. 6 only. = Job xxxviii. 5 Aq.(omaptiov, LXX.) 
r Rom, xii. 3 (reff.). 


(ver. 8.) 1 John ii. 23. 
Ed-vat. 30. Ed-vat (C def. a. ABN) only. 

v Ist pers., ver. 12. 
viii. 18 al. 


2nd eavrois bef 4th eavrovs DK m Chr Thdrt. 


IIPO> KOPINOIOT> B. 


w Rom. ix. 31 reff. 2 Chron. xxviii. 9. 


695 


€ a \ ’ 
13 nets be OUK ee ays 21 
n = ver. 16. 
ch. xii. 6. 
érrauvety 
EUS os sug 
Plato, Ale. i. 


o here bis only +. 
(-Tp7nTO0s, 
Isa. xxii. 18.) 

p vy. 15, 16. 
Gal, vi. 16 
(Phil. iii. 16 

q attr. 

Sir. xliii. 27 C 
u here only t+. 
x Rom, i. 9. ch. 


15 ovk« 


s here bis only +. 
t = Acts xi. 5 reff. 
Dan. viii. 7 Theod. 


rec svviovatv, with D°KLP rel: 


cuvicagw 742: txt BX-corr!-3 m 17 Thdrt-ed.—om ov cuviacw nuers Se D1 (and lat) 


F vulg Ambrst Sing-cler Sedul Vig. 


(Perhaps the transcriber’s eye passed from ov 


above to ovk follg, and so omitted all between: or perhaps on acct of the difficulty of 


the words. 
13. om ques Se D'F. 
Thdrt Damase Thl. 
x@pevor F Sing-cler: om D!(and lat). 
a 49. 64-72. '74 Thi-ms. 
agicesOar F 109 Chr-ms. 


14. for ov yap ws, ws yap B 114-6: ov y. un ws P. 
K:: adicomevos F: adixovmevor 106: edtromevor Chr. 


ture habeat, .. . spargitur de eo mirabilis 
fama, adoratur inter sodales .... Inde 
preecipue monachis insolentissimus  ille 
fastus quod se metiuntur ex se ipsis : quum 
in eorum claustris nihil sit preter bar- 
bariem, illic nihil mirum, si regnet luscus 
inter cecos. Tales erant isti Pauli emuli: 
sibi enim intus plaudebant, non consi- 
derantes quibus virtutibus constaret vera 
Jaus, quantumque a Pauli et similium ex- 
cellentia distarent.” 13.| But we 
(opposed to those spoken of in last verse) 
will not (ever: will never allow ourselves 
to) boast without measure (lit. ‘boast as 
Jar as to things unmeasured’ eis with 
an adj. and the art. is used to signify the 
extent to which; so Herod. vii. 229, kar- 
exeato év ’AAmnvotot 6pOaAui@yTes és Td 
écxatov: as éri with the same denotes the 
direction towards which, as émi Td metCov 
KoomouvtTes, ... em) TO pud@des exvert- 
Knkdra, Thucyd. i. 21,—without measure, 
scil. as they do who compare themselves 
with themselves and measure themselves 
by themselves,—for there is no standard 
for, no limit to, a man’s good opinion of 
himself. The plur. 74 &erpa, instead of 7d 
&metpov, seems to be chosen to generalize 
the negative—‘ we adopt no such vague 
standard for our boasting’), but according 
to the measure of the rule (7d perp. Tod 
kav.—‘ the measure pointed out by the rule,’ 
gen. subj.) which God apportioned to us 
as a measure, to reach as far as to you— 
ov euéepioey Hiv 6 0. wéTpou = Ov eueép. Thu. 
6 0. peérpoy, Which (kavév) God appor- 
tioned to us as a measure,—or, as De W., 


om ynuw FL. 


See the readings discussed in Stanley’s note.) 
rec ovxt, with D3 rel Gc: txt BD! FKLPN ¢c m 17 Chr 
To apetpov DIF: immensum (and so ver 15)latt. 


Kav- 
ogov M. for cuwepioev, euetpnoey M 
for Geos, kuptos D Epiph Vig. 


for edixvovpevot, adpiKv. 
om 2nd yap (ins &-corr!) d. 


Tov meTpov 0 euep. Nu. 6 O., in which latter 
case wéTpov is in appos. with kavdvos: but 
I prefer the former. Mr. Green, Grammar 
of the N. T. dialect, p. 269, makes wérpou 
governed by éedixécOat, as in o}rw TdpBous 
adicdunv, Eur. Phoen. 361; rod Biov eb 
jjkovrt, Herod. i. 30. My objections to 
this construction are, (1) that epixcvotpevor 
eis Huds is used absolutely in the very next 
clause, which makes it probable that the 
same usage is found here :—(2) that an un- 
necessary harshness is introduced, which I 
cannot persuade myself that the Apostle 
would have used, and which is apparent 
even in Mr. G.’s English, ‘ of advancing in 
standard as far aseven you.’ See Stanley’s 
note. éduxeoOar is the inf. of the 
purpose, that we should reach: or per- 
haps (but not so well) of the result, ‘so 
that we reach, 14.| Further expla- 
nation of ée@ik. &Xpi x. vu. For we are 
not stretching ourselves beyond [our 
bounds], as (we should be doing) if we 
did not reach to you (not, asif we had not 
reached to you, as Luth., Beza: the pres. 
betokens the allotment of the field of apos- 
tolic work as his own, ‘ ut si non pervenia- 
mus.’ The wH shews that the case is only 
a supposed one: so also 1 Cor. iv. 18, but 
compare 1 Cor. ix. 26, ds ovK« aépa d5épwr, 
where the case is the veal one: see Winer, 
edn. 6, § 55. 1): for even as far as you 
did we advance (the proper meaning of 
$0dvw must hardly be pressed here: the 
Apostle would not introduce a distinct 
thought by a word of secondary importance 
in the sentence) in the gospel (the element 


696 


y Rom. ii. 17 
reff. 

z Rom. xiv. 4 
reff. 

ach. vi. 5 reff. 

b = Matt. xiii. 
32. Mark iv. 
8. Col. i. 6, 
10. 1 Pet. ii. 
2 only. 

Exod. i. 7. 
trans., 1 Cor. 
iii. 6 reff. 

c = Matt. xxiii. 
5. Luke i. 58 
(Acts x. 46 
reff.) only. 
Gen, xix. 19. 

d ver. 13 reff. 

e Rom. y. 17. 
ch. viii. 2. 
James i, 21 
only. 
i. 3 al. 

fl Pet. i. 25. 
see Heb. ii. 3. g here only +. 

ver. 12. -avat, Rom. iii. 5 reff. 

n 1 Cor. iv. § reff. o = Acts xviii. 14. 
Heb. ii. 7. 

s Rom. x. 2. see Acts xxii. 3. 


cacbat. 


15. om de LM cl n. 
18. for ov yap 0, o yap (but corrd) R'. 


TIIPO> KOPINOIOTS B. 


h ver. 13. 
lso Mark vii. 15. John i. 18, 33 al. 
2 Tim. iv. 3. 
q Mark vii. 22. vv.17, 21 only. Job iy. 6. 


for vuwv, nuwy B d. 


X. 16—18. 


‘ / 
Nels Ta °dpetpa Y Kavy@pevo ¥ év *adQoTploIs * KOTTOLS, 
’ / oe ” b ? / nr / e r 
edrrida 6€ éxyovtes ° avEavopévns Ths TicTews UpaV 
év bplv ° peyaduvOjvat Kata Tov 
e / 16 f > \ g e / ig lal f > Wi 3 
mepiacelay, els Ta © UTrepéxewwa Upov ‘ evayyedica 
4 ‘ 
aOai, ovk év *addoTpiv “avo “eis Ta EToLpa » KavYXN- 
17i6 88 Kavyw@pevos ¥ ev Kupim ¥ Kavyacbw 
€ KaVY@MEVvOS pia x 
18 ou \ co. ‘ k / i tet) EEN ’ in 8 t 
b yap 6 €avtov * cvviotaver, | éxeivos eat ™ OoKimos, 


d Ud id la) > 
KAVOVa MWY ELS 


GAN ov 6 KUpios * cuvictnow. 
XI. 1 'Oderov ° dveiyerOE pou ? wixpdv ? te I appoav- 
Fecles. yg, GNAG Kal °avéyerOE pov. 


“ QA ‘4 Lal r 

21 &r@ yap vuas * Geod 
iJen. ix. 24. 1 Cor. i. 31. k -avew, 
m = Rom. xiv. 18 reff. 

Job vi. 26. p ver. 16 only. see 
r= Gal. iv. 17 bis. Zech, i. 14. 


Heb. xiii. 22. 


for nuwy, unwy &. 
rec (for cuvictaywy) cvviotwy, with 


D3KL rel Eus Dial Mac Chr: cumoray d: txt BD! FM PX m17 Orig Ephr Thdrt Damase. 


doxuos bef extiv DN! vss: eotw o dor. F. 


a\Aa BM. 


Cuar. XI. 1. @pedov D3FKL m n 17 Chr-ms (Ee: txt BD1MPX rel Chr Thdrt Damase 


Thl. (ogidov D!.) 


pu. Tt app. F latt. 


elz qvecxeobe, with Chr-ed Thl: avexeo@e K dm n! Chr-ms 
Thdrt: txt B(Tischdf, expr)DFLMPX rel Chr-2-mss Damasc (Ze Thl-ms. 
Steph om 7, with FKLP rel D-lat(with G-lat fri) Chr Thdrt 


pov att 


Damase Thl-mss (ec Lucif: ins B D-gr MX n 17 vulg(and F-lat) goth Thl Bede. 
elz ins rns bef adpoourns, with Fad Thl: om BDPX n17.—Steph 7m appoovvn, with KL 


rel copt gr-ff. (M def.) 


in which our advance was made: ‘ the gos- 
pel’=‘the promulgation of the gospel’). 

15.] in apposition with ov yap x.7.A. 
ver. 14, and carrying out the thought. 
Not boasting without measure in other 
men’s labours (the element of the boast- 
ing), but having a hope if (or, as) your 
faith grows, to be enlarged (not as many 
Commentators, ‘celebrated ;’ the metaphor 
of measure still remains) among you (so 
Chrys., Theophyl., Est., Meyer. év Dp. 
is not to be joined with aidé., as Luth., 
Calv., Beza, Olsh., De W., in which case 
it would be superfluous) according to our 
rule (i.e. our apportionment of apostolic 
work, for we seek not dmepextelver éav- 
tovs) unto abundance (‘so as to abound 
more than we now do,’ viz. as ver. 16 ex- 
plains), 16. | (with a view) to preach 
the gospel as far as (see on eis Ta Gu, 
ver. 15) the parts beyond you (Wetstein 
quotes from Thomas Magister, émékewa 
phropes A€youo.... Vmepexeiva 5€ pdvor 
of atppaxes, la canaille),—not (with a 
view) to boast ourselves within another 
man’s line (kavy#y throughout seems to be 
used of a measuring line: according to 
the metaphor so common among us, ‘in 
his line,—i.e. ‘within the line which 
Providence has marked out for him’) 
with regard to (or, ‘to the extent of ;’‘to 


avarxerbe XR. 


extend our boasting to’) things ready 
made to our hands. 17.] He sets 
forth to them, in contrast (8¢) to this 
boasting themselves in another’s line, 
which was the practice of his adver- 
saries, wherein the only legitimate boast- 
ing must consist: viz. in the Lord, the 
Source of all grace and strength and sue- 
cess in the ministry; see 1 Cor. xy. 10. 

18.} The reason of this being, that 
not the self-commender, but he whom 
the Lord commends, by selecting him as 
His instrument, as He had the Apostle, 
and giving him the émoroA} svotatixh, 
to be known and read by all men, of souls 
converted and churches founded, is 5éximos, 
approved, i. e. really and in the end abiding 
the test of trial. éxetvos brings out 
the distinction of the man who is 5éxmos, 
—see reff. and Winer, edn. 6, § 23. 
4. We have the usage in English in 
affirmative sentences, e.g. ‘The Lord, he 
is the God,’ 1 Kings xviii. 839: but not in 
negative ones. XI. His BOASTING 
OF HIMSELF : and 1—4. | apologetic intro- 
duction of it, by stating his motive,—viz. 
jealousy lest they should fall away from 
Christ. 1.] aveixeoGe is the Hel- 
lenistic form,—Avelx. the Attic, not ‘uti- 
nam folerassetis,’ as Calv., al.: the imper- 
fect is put after %@c, ai, dpedov, &e., ‘ubi 


BDFKI 
MPx al 
cdefs 
hk)im 
0 17.4! 


XI. 1—4. IIPO>, KOPINOIOTS B. 697 


Siprw ‘ippocaunv yap vuas évt avdpi " wapbévov Y ayviy there only. 
7 a npr ‘eal Y pP tre P Pp Y 1) Prov. xix. 14. 
u see Rev. xiv. 


“ rapaoThoat Te ypioT@: ° * hoBodpwas dé Y wn *¥ Tas, @s “4 (1'Cor. 
fc gy a2 , yk: b2 Ap vii. 25 reff.) 
o *ddis *ée&nratnoev Kvav ” év tH 


/ > be 
y= Tit. 1125. 
TRL DS pty AEE 
A , a > \ a c , ‘ 
°dOapn Ta “vonpata vuov ° aro ths famdotTHTOS Kab (ati 


(ch. vii. 11 


TAs fdyvornros ths “eis Tov ypioTov. “el pev Yap 6 w= Lukeii.2 

7 i w = Lukeii. 22. 
U) yvoTn ] XP ike conan Rom. vi. 13, 

16,19. xii. 1. ch. iv. 14. Ps. v.3 x ch. xii. 20... Gal. iy. 11. 1 Cor. ix. 27 reff. 

z Rev. xii. 9. xx. 2. Gen. iii. 1 ff. a Rom. vii. 11 reff. b = 1 Cor, ili. 19 (reff). c 1 Cor. 

iii. 17 reff. d ch. ii. 11 reff. = Rom. vii. 2. ix. 3 (reff.). f Rom. xii. 8 reff. 


g ch. vi. 6 only t. h = ch. viii. 22. Eph. i. 15 al. 

8. om de L. for mws, wore F' a Chr-comm,: om D!(and lat) vulg fri Clem, Lucif 
Aug. om ws L. rec evav bef efnratnoev, with DIL rel vulg(and F-lat) fri 
syr Clem, Orig-int, Lucif: txt BFMP(&) n 17 (Syr) copt th Clem, Orig,(and int,) 
Kus Damase Jer.—for evay, vai 1, but evay written above by N!°r3, om ev 
D! -gr vulg F-lat fri Orig-int, Lucif. rec ins ovtw bef p8apn, with D?-°KLM rel 
vulg(and F-lat) syrr Orig,(and int,) Chr Thdrt Damase Thl (e Archel lat-ff: om 
BD'FPR old-lat copt arm Clem, Eus Gaud Lucif. rec om Kat TS ayvor., with 
D3KLMP rel vulg(and F-lat) Syr Clem, Orig,(and int,) Eus Chr Thdrt lat-ff: ins 
BFN}(N3 has it im brackets] a 17 tol syr-w-ast copt goth wth Archel Augsepe Bede, 
and (but transp aA. and ayv.) D1 (with lat) Epiph,. (Zhe omission appy arose from 


the similarity of endgs. 
d 80-9. 


optamus eam rerum conditionem, quam non 
esse sentimus:’ Klotz ad Devar. p. 516, 
cited by Meyer. pov and adpootvns 
are not both genitives after wixpdy Tu, as 
Meyer: nor is it so in the passage quoted 
by him, Job vi. 26, LXX: ov5é yap tuav 
Pbeyua phuaros (pbeyuatos phuatos buar, 
A) avefouat. In both cases the personal 
pronoun is governed by the verb, as indeed 
here in avéxeo0€ pov immediately fol- 
lowing—and pixpdy rt appoadrns is the 
accusative of remote reference, as in 
the double accus. construction. 

ada x.] But (why need I request this? 
for) you really (see note, ch. v. 3) do 
bear with me. The indicative is much 
better than the imperative rendering (as 
Vulg., Beza, Calvin, Grot., Estius, Bengel, 
al.),—which, after dpedov avetx., is very 
flat, and gives no account of the cai. He 
says it, to shew them that he does not 
express the wish as supposing them 
void of tolerance for his weakness, but 
as having experienced some at their 
hands, and now requiring more. 2.] 
‘That forbearance which you do really 
extend to me, and for more of which I 
now pray, is due from you, and I claim 
to have it exercised by you, because I 
have undertaken to present you to Christ 
as a chaste bride to her husband, and 
(ver. 3) I am jealous for fear of your fall- 
ing away from Him.’ Qeod Lyre | 
so €iArkpivela Tov Oeod, ch. i. 12: a godly 
jealousy: see note there. Meyer after 
Chrys., Estius, al., would render it, ‘ with 
God’s jealousy,’ ‘with such a jealousy 
as God has.” But though cod (nr@ 


Meyer and De Wette suppose ayy. to have been a gloss, to 
explain amr., and afterwards to have found its way into the text.) 


om tov FM& 


and 7@ Tod @cod (Aw are for most pur- 
poses identical, I cannot but think that 
the latter expression would have been 
chosen to express such an idea as ‘ with 
the zeal which God has’ And the ren- 
dering, ‘with a godly zeal,’ i. e. one which 
has God’s honour at heart, satisfies well 
what follows: see below. Tppo- 
odpynv| I betrothed you (viz. at your 
conversion: mpouvhotwp tuay eyevdunv 
kal Tov yduou pealtns, Theodoret. Or- 
dinarily, the father, or the bridesman 
(rapaviudios) is said apud ew: the middle 
voice is used of the bridegroom only. 
So among other examples in Wetst.,— 
elxev ey ddmois Atyiobos, 00d Hpuole vup- 
gio tit, Bur. Electr. 24,—and apyooa- © 
pevov Aevtoxldew Teépkadoy thy XiAwvos 
Ouyatépa, kal oxXav yuvatka..., Herod. 
vi. 65. But in Philo we have yayos ov 
apud erat ndovn, de Abr. § 20, vol. ii. p. 15) 
to one husband, to present (i. e. in order 
that I may present in you) a chaste virgin 
to Christ (viz. at His coming: 6 péy obv 
Tapov Kaipos uvnotelas eotiv: 6 5& MéA- 
Awy TOY yduwv, bre Kpavy) yiveTal, 
idov 6 vupdlos. Theophyl.). ™® xp. 
is not in constructive apposition with év) 
avdpt, but explains and fixes it: the em- 
phasis being on map@évoy ayvhv. 

3.] But he fears their being seduced from 
their fidelity to Christ. 6 dgis] He 
takes for granted that the Corinthians re- 
cognized the agency of Satan in the (well- 
known) serpent: see vv. 13—15, where his 
petacxnuatiouds for the sake of deceit is 
alluded to. év TH Tav. avTov] in 
(i. e. by means of,as the element in which 


698 


IIPO> KOPINOIOTS 


XI. 


‘Teal. Si, 1€pxopevos addov *’Incody * enpbacer OV OUK cxmpufaper, BDFK) 

ness. V. = 

& Acts ix. 20 ) \avedpa ™ erepoy ‘Aap Bavere o 0 ovK éd\aBeTeE, 7) evay- ¢ ed ef 
cts ix. 2 a 

Lite viicrs YeAlov ™ Etrepoy 6 ovK edeEaabe, Karas ™ avéxeoe. 017. 4 


m Gat isa.” °oyiGowat Pyap pndev IvoTeEpnKévar Tov * UepAlav 


n ver. 
°o Waste Rom. xiv. 14 reff. 


p Acts xxiv. 5. 
r ch. xii. nl only t. 


4. for ino., xptorov F 4) vulg arm Ambrst Pel. 


2 Tim. ii. 7. 


q constr., Rom. iii. 23. (ch. i. 7 reff.) 


for edaBere, edetacbe F. 


n & the 2nd erepoy is written twice, but marked for erasure by N?! or corr}. add 


AauBavere F. 


rec nverxeobe (see ver 1), with rel Chr-ed Thdrt-ed: averxeoGe 


DGKLMPX b! ef g mo Chr-ms Damase, everxeota: F: txt B17 Cyr, patimini fri. 


5. for yap, 5¢ B178 arm. 


the deed was done) his versatility (or 
subtlety),—so (o#rw has been a gloss from 
the margin) your thoughts (‘ sentiments,’ 
ref, and ch. x.5) be corrupted from (preg- 
nant construction, = be corrupted, and 
seduced from) your simplicity (singleness 
of affection) and your chastity towards 
Christ (eis xp. is not = & xpisTg, as 
Vulg., E. V., Beza, Calvin, al.). 

4, 5.| The thought here seems to be 
this:—‘ If these new teachers had brought 
with them a new Gospel, superseding that 
which I preached, they might have some 
claim to your regard. But, since there is 
but one gospel, that which I preached to 
you, and which they pretend to preach 
also, I submit that zn that one no claim to 
regard is prior to mine.’ Observe, that 
the whole hypothesis is ironical: itis fixed 
and clear that there can be no such new 
gospel: therefore the inference is the 
stronger. For (the whole sentence is 
steeped in irony :—‘ the serpent deceived 
Eve by subtlety: I fear for you, but not 
because the new teachers use such subtlety 
—if they did, if the temptation were really 
formidable, there would be some excuse.’ 
All this lies in the yap) if indeed (ci nev 
introduces a reality, and is full here of 
deep irony. Cf. Il. a. 135, aAdX ei pev 
dédcover yéepas peydOuuor "Axasol: ‘if the 
Achzans shall really give me another gift;’ 
and pw. 138—142, ef wey 5) ?AvTiuaxoro 
Satppovos vices eorby . 2. voy ev i Tov 
matpos aemea tTloeTe ADByY . ‘if ye 
really are, &c., . . . ye verily will” 

See Hartung, Partikellehre, il. 414) he 
that cometh (viz. the false teachers gene- 
rically thus designated: but here too per- 
haps there is irony: 6 épxduevos was a 
pia ceuvdv) is preaching (the indicative 
pres. carries on the ironical assumption, 
so AauB. below) another Jesus whom we 
preached not, or ye are receiving a dif- 
ferent Spirit (&AAos, distinctive of indi- 
viduality, €repos of kind), which ye re- 
ceived not (from us), or another gospel 
which ye accepted not (eAdB., ede¢.,— 
‘verba diversa, rei apta. Non concurrit 


aft vorepnkevat ins ev usy D1(and lat) fri(with fuld tol). 


voluntas hominis in accipiendo Spiritu, 
ut in recipiendo evangelio.’ Bengel. But 
singularly enough, in English, usage has 
attached the voluntary act to the verb 
‘accept’), ye with reason bear with him 
(irony again: for they not only bore with, 
but preferred them to their father in 
the faith. The sense is: “there seems 
to be some excuse in that case,—but even 
in that, really there is none,—for your 
tolerating him.” On the rec., Bengel 
remarks : ‘ Ponit conditionem, ex parte rei, 
impossibilem: ideo dicit in imperfecto, 
toleraretis : sed pro conatu pseudaposto- 
lorum, non modo possibilem, sed plane 
preesentem : ideo dicit in presenti, pre- 
dicat. Similarly Meyer. See Winer, edn. 
6, § 42. 2. That the rendering above 
given is right, seems to me beyond ques- 
tion. It is the only one which reaches 
the depth of the exquisite irony of the sen- 
tence, at the same time that it satisfies all 
grammatical requirements. 5.] See 
above. ‘Seeing that there is but one 
gospel, and they and I profess to preach 
one Jesus and impart one Spirit, they have 
no such claim: mine is superior’): for I 
reckon that in no respect do I fall short 
of (the perf. sets forth the past and pre- 
sent truth of the fact) these overmuch 
Apostles. T@V UTepAlav atroorT. has 
very commonly been taken to mean bona 
fide ‘the greatest Apostles, i.e. Peter, 
James, and John, or perhaps the Twelve: 
but (1) this hardly seems to suit the ex- 
pression baepAlav, in which I cannot help 
seeing, with De W., some bitterness: (2) 
it would be alien from the spirit of the 
passage, in which he institutes no com- 
parison whatever between himself and the 
other Apostles, but only between himself 
and the false teachers. (3) had any such 
comparison been here intended, the * pune- 
tum comparationis’ would not have been, 
personal eminence in fruits of apostolic 
work and sufferings, still less, seeing that 
the other Apostles were unlearned also, 
the distinction which immediately follows, 
between an idi@rns, and one pretending 


5—8. IIPOS KOPIN@IOT® B. 699 
amooTonwv. % €f dé Kal SidiiTns TO *OYO, YGAN Ov THs Actsiv-18 

Y yvocet, aN’ W éy * grav * pavepdcavres ¥ ev Y racw ets eae 
eA reff. 
vpas. 17% * dpaptiav ab é eroinoa, epauTov °d ramrewon iva v= 1 Cor. xii. 


€ n 
vets °° sroB irre, ott fSmpedv TO TOD % Oeod % evayyéNov * che. 2a 


¢. ; i , y .) 1 Cor. 
» ednyyertoapny dpiv; 8 ddras i éxxArnolas * éovAnoa AaBov ” wii? sce” 


vili. 7. see 
Phil. iv. 

12. Heb. xiii. 4. a John viii. 34. James v.15. 1 Pet. ii. 22. 1 John 
iii. 4,8,9. 3 Kings xvi. 19. * so 1 Cor. vi. 18. Gen. xxxix. 9. c Matt. xxiii. 12 
bis. Luke xiv. ll bis. xviii. 14 bis. Jamesivy.10. 1 Pet.v.6. Ps. lxxxvii. 15. das above (c). Matt. 
xviii. 4. Luke iii. 5, from Isa. xl. 4. ch. xii. 21. Phil. ii. 8, iv. 12 only. e Acts ii. 23. xiii. 
Tal. Deut. xvii. 20, f = Rom. iii. 24 reff. g Rom. xv. 16 reff. h constr., 
1 Cor. xv. 1 reff. i plur., Rom. xvi. 16 reff. 

xix. 37. Rom. ii. 22. Col. ii.8. (-evetv, Exod. iii. 22 Symm. ?) 


k here only +. Ep. Jer. 18 only. see Acts 

6. om de D1(and lat) am(with demid F-lat G-lat) copt goth arm Jer. aft 
id.wT 7s ins eyut D!(and lat) G-lat vulg(some mss). rec pavepw0eyres, with D?KLPR# 
rel fri syrr copt Chr Thdrt Sedul(manifesti sumus): pavepwOets (manifestus or -status 
sum) D}-2(and lat) G-lat(altern) am(with demid flor F-lat) lat-ff: -pwGevrs 1. 108: txt 
BEN 17 and, adding cavtous, M 108? 8-pe goth arm: pavepwoat eavrouvs 672. (The 
variety appears to have arisen from the difficulty of pavepwoavtes, which became pay. 


zso 1 Cor. vi. 


eavtous, and then -pwhevtes.) 
7. aft # ins wn F vulg fri. 


to more skill,—but priority of arrival and 
teaching in Corinth. (4) the expression 
WevdSardatodos ver. 13, seems to me to 
refer to, and give the plain sense of, this 
ironical designation of trepAtav ardaroAa. 
(5) the same expression ch. xii. 11 appears 
even more plainly than here to require this 
explanation. The above explanation is 
that of Beza, Michaelis, Schulz, Fritzsche, 
Billroth, Riickert, Olsh., Meyer, De Wette. 

irepAlav is not found in classic Greek : 
but Wetstein cites from Eustath. Od. a. 
p- 27, 35: €or ydp mote kal TO Alay 
KaTa THY Tpaywdlay xpacbo Karas, Kab 
& onmawduevoy A€youey Tia wvrepAlav 
acopév. Meyer instances as analogous, 
imepayav (2 Mace. x. 34), dmépev (tméepev 
memoAltevyat, Demosth. 228. 17), and the 
frequent use by Paul of compounds of 
imep. It has been the practice of Pro- 
testant Commentators (e.g. Bengel, Mac- 
knight) to adduce this verse against the 
primacy of Peter, and of the Romanists 
(e. g. Corn.-a-Lapide) to evade the in- 
ference by supposing the pre-eminence to 
be only in gifts and preaching, not in 
power and jurisdiction. All this will fall 
to the ground with the supposed reference 
to the other Apostles. 6.] Explains 
that, though in one particular he may 
fall short of them, viz. in rhetorical finish 
and word-wisdom, yet in real knowledge, 
not so. iStdtys | a laic,—a man not 
professionally acquainted with that which 
he undertakes, see reff. The Apostle dis- 
claims mere rhetorical aptitude and power 
in 1 Cor.-ii. 1 ff. &\Xa. brings out the 
contrast, see reff. :—e«% ror ot ye cewiTod 
Mh mpoopis, GAN juiy todTd eat ov 
mepiomreov, Herod. v. 39. TH yveoer | 
the depth of his knowledge of the mystery 


om ev racw F yulg fri Syr Ambrst. 
for ewavtov, eavrov D(Treg)FLP h 93. 


of the gospel, see Eph. iii. 1—4. 

Gd’ év wavtt| But in every matter we 
made things manifest (i.e. the things of 
the gospel, thereby shewing our yvaéous ;— 
not, ryv yvaorv. Meyer and De W. sup- 
pose pavepdoayvtes to have been a gloss 
for pavepwéyres, especially as it is fol- 
lowed in some mss. by éavrovs, and to 
have been the more readily received into 
the text, because it might easily be taken 
with yvao1u. But how improbable that 
the easy pavepw0évtes should have been 
replaced by the harsh -cavtes. Much 
rather would the latter be replaced by 
gpavepwOevres from ch. v. 11) before all 
men (év maow, being separated from ev 
mavtt by the verb, cannot be coupled with 
it, as in ref. Phil., but must mean among 
all) unto you (i.e. with a view to your 
benefit: not = ‘to you,’ in which sense 
the dative is always found after pavepsw : 
see Rom. iii. 21, Tepavepwrat 
mdyras K. emt mayTas... .). ie 
Another particular in which he was not 
behind, but excelled, the swepAtay aé- 
otoda; viz. the gratuitous exercise of his 
mimstry among them. On the sense, see 
1 Cor. ix. 1 ff. and notes. The supposition 
is one of sharp irony. éu.. TaTretvev | 
See Acts xviii. 3. The exaltation which 
they received by his demeaning himself 
was that of reception into the blessings 
of the gospel, which was more effectually 
wrought thereby: not merely, their being 
thus more favoured temporarily, or in 
comparison with other churches. ott 
Swp., &c., is epexegetical of euavtdy Ta- 
mew@y ;—in that I gratuitously, &c. :— 
not, as Meyer, auapr. érolnoa 61, making 
€uavToy ... o~w0. parenthetical. It was 
his wish to preach to them gratuitously, 


700 


1 Luke iii. 14. 
Rom. vi. 23. 
1 Cor. = 7 
onlyt. Esdr. 
iv. 56. 
1 Mace. iii. 
28. xiv. 32 
only. 
m = ch. viii. 
reff. 
n = 2 Tim. iv. 
1l. Heb. i. 14. 
o Acts xii. 20. 
Gal. iy. 18, 
20 only. . 
=Lukexyv. TOLS 
14. Phil. iv. 
12. Heb. xi. 37. 
r 1 Cor. xvi. 17 reff. 
v=1Tim.y. 22. Jamesi. 
Rom. iii. 7. xv. 8 
ii. 6. (€upparr., Dan. vi. 


‘ érnpnoa Kat ‘ THpHCw. 


Sir. xiii. 4. 
s ch, ix. 12 only t. 
27. Wisd. x. 5. 


2 Theod.) 


IIPOL KOPINOIOTS 


q ch. xii. 13, 14 only+. (vapkav, Gen. xxxii. 25, 32. 
Wisd. xix. 4 only. 
w Acts xiii. 15. 
y Rom. iii. 27 reff. 
a Rom. xv. 


X1. 


' oxfrebvioy ™ arpos THY vmév " Svaxoviav, Kal ° Tap@v ® arpos 
vuas Kat PvaTtepnGeis ov * KaTevapKnoa ovOevos » (To yap 
"YoTépnud jou SmposaveTTAjpwoay oi adedpol €OovTes 
9 a0 ~Makedovias): Kat ‘év *qravtt 


u We} lol , \ = r 
aBaph éwavTov viv 
lj fol 
10 ¥ €orw * adjOeva * ypioTod ™ év 


> ‘ e e y 7 er > , ?  e, * > 
€uol, OTe 7) YKavynois avtTn ov *pPpaynoetat Eis Ewe EV 
"KrXwacw THs “Axaias. 


11 b p>) \ / isd > > lal 
ta TL; OTL OVK aYaTrO) 

Job xxxiii. 19.) 
u here only +. 
x see 


t ch. iv. 8 reff. 
1 Cor. viii. 7. 1 Johni. 8. 


8. [ov8evos, so BMPR m 17 Damasc(appy). | 


9. rec vuw bef euvavrov, with D-gr FLX rel: 


BMPR! m? 17 vulg D-lat. 


z Rom. iii. 19. Heb. xi. 33 only. Hos. 
23 reff. b Rom. ix. 32 reff. 
om vaiy K m?! Syr Chr Thl-ms: txt 


10. Steph (for dpaynoeta) oppayicerat, with d: oppaynoetau 14. 74. 238: txt BD 


FKLMPNX rel. 
11. om ot B. 


which necessitated his tameivoty éautdv, 
i.e. not exercising the apostolic power 
which he might have exercised, but living 
on subsidies from others, besides (which 
he does not here distinctly allude to) his 
working with his own hands at Corinth. 
See Stanley. 8.| The ‘other churches’ 
were the Macedonian, cf. ver. 9. Among 
them the Philippians were probably con- 
spicuous, retaining as doubtless they did, 
their former affection to him; see Phil. iv. 
15-06; éovAnoa is hyperbolic, to 
_ bring out the contrast, and shame them. 
éy., see reff., wages ; more pro- 
perly here subsidy. ™pos T. Up. 
d.ax.| in order to (to support me in) my 
ministration to you, gen. obj. 
GAAas and tpev stand in the emphatic 
positions, as contrasted. In the former 
sentence, he implied that he brought with 
him from Macedonia supplies towards his 
maintenance at Corinth: AaBay ... mpos 
7. bu. diak.: here, he speaks of a new supply 
during his residence with the Corinthians, 
when those resources failed. KaT- 
evapknoa | apparently = kareBdpnoa, chy 
xii. 16. Hesych. interprets it é€Bapuva. 
Jerome, Ep. exxi. (cli.) ad Algasiam, quest. 
10, vol. i. p. 879, says, ‘multa sunt verba, 
quibus juxta morem urbis et provincie sue 
familiarius Apostolus utitur: e quibus ex. 
gr. pauca ponenda sunt.... Et, ob kar- 
evdpxnoa buas, hoc est, non gravavi vos... 
quibus et aliis multis usque hodie utuntur 
Cilices.’ Theophylact and (Ecum. mention 
a rendering, ovx TMEAN TO, i) pabupotépws 
mpos 7d Khpuvypa yeyova: and Beza, follow- 
ing | the etymology, interprets od« evdpxnoa 
kat’ ovdevds, ‘cum cujusquam incommodo,’ 
But the former meaning suits the context 
better. The word is found no where else 


for es ene, ev euor F a! 2. 120. 
om 6 D! Thdrt. (M uncert.) 


om T7s F. 


in Greek. dmovapkdw occurs in Plutarch, 
de Liber. Educatione, p. 8, F (Wetst.), aro- 
vapk@ot k. ppittevar mpds Tous mévous. 
On the government of the genitive by verbs 
compounded with kard, see Matthiw, § 376. 
9.] For (reason why he burdened 
no one) the brethren (who, he does not 
say: their names were well known to 
the Corinthians. Possibly, Timotheus and 
Silas, Acts xviii. 5) when they came from 
Macedonia (not as E. V., ‘which came,’ oi 
eA@dvres) brought a fresh supply of my 
want (or perhaps zposav. is used without 
the idea of additional supply, as in ch. 
ix. 12, the mpés merely denoting direc- 
tion): and in every thing I kept myself 
(‘during my residence: not, ‘have kept 
myself, as E, V.) unburdensome to you, 
and will keep myself. 10. | The truth 
of Christ is in me, that...; i.e. ‘Ispeak 
according to that truth of which Christ 
Himself was our example, when I say, 
that ...;’—there is no oath, nor even as- 
severation, as E. V. and most Commenta- 
tors introduce. The expression is exactly 
analogous to Rom. ix. 1.  Kavx. 
.] this boasting (not = xavxnua, 
here or any where else) shall not be 
stopped (supply 7d ordua, which is not 
expressed, because kavxnous being itself a 
matter of wfferance, suits the sense of the 
verb without it) as regards (or against) 
me (xkavx. is as it were personified—shall 
not have its mouth stopped as regards me) 
in the regions of Achaia (where the xav- 
Xnots is imagined as being and speaking). 
11.] He presupposes, and negatives, 
a reason likely to be given for this resolu- 
tion; viz. that he loves them not, and there- 
Sore will be under no obligation to them: 
for we willingly incur obligations to those 


BDFKL 
MPxrat 
edefg 
hkimn 
017. 47 


9—13. 


uuads; 6 °Oeds ° oider. 


IIPOS KOPINOIOTS B. 


¢ lal , 
126 6€ mow, Kal Totjca, 


701 


oe a 
c ch. xii. 2,3. 
wa Josh. xxii. 


, \ a , / ae 22. 
Téxxowa tHv °apopunv Tov Oedovtwv © adopyny, iva © ev a kom. xi. 2, 


7. g n The 6 66 Oe \ e a 
@ = Kavyavtat MevpeOdow Kabws Kat pels. 
‘rowvtor Kyrevdarrootono, 1 épyatar ™ Sddu01, ™ weTaoyn- 


reff. h = 1Cor. iv. 2 reff. 


1 Matt. ix. 37 al.+ Wisd. xvii.17 al. = Phil. iii. 2. 
iii 1 Cor. iv. 6. 


iii. 13.) 
vii. 10. 5. 


n here 3ce, 


12. vues Fd. 


whom we love. oldev, scil. drt buds 
ayare. 12.] The true reason :— 
But that which I do, I will also con- 
tinue to do (kal rojow must not, as 
Erasm., be coupled to 70d, and 3:4 TodTo 
mo.@ supplied before tva,—because it is for 
his resolution respecting the future that 
the reason is especially given) in order 
that I may cut off the occasion (tyv, 
which would be furnished if I did not so) 
of those who wish for an occasion (viz. 
of depreciating me by misrepresenting my 
motives if I took money of you). Many 
(Chrys., Theophyl., Calv., Grot., Billroth, 
al.) take this occasion to be one of aggran- 
dizing themselves above Paul if all took 
money, assuming that the false teachers, 
as well as Paul, took none: which is ex- 
tremely unlikely, from the prominence 
which he gives to the boast of his own 
abstinence in this point,—and seems di- 
rectly opposed to ver. 20 and to 1 Cor. ix. 
12 ta év @ «.7.A.] that, in the 
matter of which they boast, they may be 
found even as we. Such appears gene- 
rally acknowledged to be the rendering : 
but as to the meaning, there is great 
variety of opinion. (1) Many of the an- 
cient Commentators assume that they 
taught gratis, and were proud of it,—and 
that Paul would also teach gratis, to put 
both on an equality and take this occasion 
of boasting from them. This would suit 
the sense of the present verse, but seems 
(see above) at variance with the fact. (2) 
Theodoret, whom Meyer, al., follow, sup- 
poses them to have pretended to the credit 
of self-denial, while really making gain, 
and that Paul means, that he will reduce 
them from pretended to real self-denial. 
But this too is inconsistent with the con- 
text. Paul’s boast of disinterested teach- 
ing was peculiarly Ais own, and there is 
nothing to shew that the false teachers 
ever professed or made any boast of the 
like. His resolution did not spring out of 
an actual comparison instituted by them 
between their own practice and what they 
might falsely allege to be his, but was 
adopted even before his coming to Corinth, 
arguing a@ priorz that it was best to cut off 
any possible occasion of such depreciation 


i Acts xxii. 22 reff. 


18. for o1, ov F. 


- 23 reff. 
13 i gf , e Rom. vii. 8 
ee ep reff. 
f ellips., Matt. 
xx. 23 al. 

g Rom. ii. 17 

k here only+. see Rev. ii. 2, 
m here only. Prov. xii.6. (-tovv, Rom. 

Phil. iii. 2i only +. 1 Kings xxviii.8 Symm. Jos. Antt. 


Wevdoam. D. 


of him from his probable adversaries. (3) 
Others, Cajetan, Estius, after Aug. de 
Serm. Dom. in Monte ii. 16 [54], vol. iii. 
p- 1292,—also Bengel,—join Wa... . 
jucts with apopuhv,—‘ occasion that they 
may be found even as we, and explain 
év @ kavx. as a parenthesis, ‘that they 
may be found (a point in which they 
boast) even as we? i. e. ‘that in point of 
selfishness and covetousness, we may be 
both on a level.’ But this meaning would 
require rather etpeOGuev kadws Kal abrol, 
‘we may be reduced to their level” (4) 
Olsh., adopting in the main the last 
interpretation, would understand év 6 
kavx@vTa of the taking of money of which 
they boasted, accounting it an apostolic 
prerogative. But to this the last stated 
objection applies even more forcibly : and 
besides, the supposition is wholly arbitrary. 
(5) De Wette, believing the second tva to 
be parallel with the first, as in (1) and (2), 
understands év @ kavx@vra as applying 
to their boast of apostolic efficiency: ‘that 
they may, in their apostolic work which 
they vaunt with such pretension, be found 
even as we,’ and thinks the transition to 
what follows thus made easy. But the ob- 
jection to this is, that the punctum compa- 
rationis in the rest of the chapter is not 
apostolic efficiency, but rather matters 
kata odpka. (6) I cannot adopt any one 
of the above accounts of the sentence, for 
the negative reasons already given, and be- 
cause all of them seem to me to have missed 
the clue to the meaning which the chapter 
itself furnishes. This clue I find in vv. 18 
ff. The kavx@vra is there taken up, de- 
scribed as being kata odpxa: the Kades 
kal juets is taken up by “Efpaiol eiow; 
kaye &e. From this it is manifest to me, 
that his meaning in our present clause is, 
‘that in the matter(s) of which they boast 
they may be found even as we: i.e. ‘we 
may be on a fair and equal footing :’ ‘ that 
there may be no adventitious comparisons 
made between us arising out of misrepre- 
sentations of my course of procedure among 
you, but that in every matter of boasting, 
we may be fairly compared and judged by 
facts.’ And then, before the ydp of ver. 
13 will naturally be supplied, ‘And this 


om es F, 


702 


o Rey. xvii. 6 
only. Job 
xvil. 8. xviii. 
20 only. 

p see Eph. v. 

8. 1 Thess. 
v. dal. 

= 1 Cor-ix, 
11 only. 
Gen. xly. 28. 
Isa. xlix. 6. 

r see Gal. ii. 17. 

s see ch. ili. 9. 

t = Rom. vi. 
21 reff. 

u Rom. ii. 6. 
Rev. xx. 12, 
13. Ps. 
xxvii, 4. 

v = 1 Cor. iii. 
18 reff. 

17. 
a ver. 1. 
e ver. 1 reff. 


€ Lal 
auTos yap 0 caTavas 


Luke vy. 36, 37. x. 6. xiii. 9. xiv. 32 only. 
b absol., 1 Cor. i. 29. iv. 7 al. 


14. rec (for @avya) davpaoroy, with D*3KLM rel: txt BD'FPN a17 Orig. 


IIPOS KOPINOIOTS B. 


patifopevor eis amroaTONoUs yxpLoTOD. 
n weTacynmativerat eis mMyyeXov 
P dwrost 15 od I péeya obv et Kal ot SidKovor avdTod ™ weTa- 
oxnwatifovtar ws ™ duvdKovor * dixaroovvns, av TO * Tédos 
éotar “KaTa Ta Epya avTav. 
¥ 6o£n “ dppova eivau: * et * b€ * unye, Y Kav ws ¥ adbpova 
*$éEac0é we, va Kayo * piKpov * TL ” Kavyno@pat. 
AAD, ov °KaTAa °KUpLOY AAAW, GAN as 4 ey © adpoovvy, 


w Luke xi. 40. Rom. ii. 20 al. L.P., exc. 1 Pet. ii. 15. 
y Acts vy. 15 reff. 


XI. 


14 Kai od ° Oadpn 


16 Tlddw réyw, py Tis pe 


17 8 


Proy. passim. x Matt. vi. 1. ix. 
z see Matt. x. 14. ch. vii. 15 al. 


c see ch. vii. 9—11. d so John vii. 10. 


for 


ets ayyeAov, ws ayyedos D}(and lat) Orig-int-mss, Cypr Ambrst Lucif. 


15. om ovy D}(and lat)spee Syr goth arm Lucif Philastr. 
for eorat, ect D'(and lat) Lucif. 

rec pixpov Tt bef kayw, with syr Ec: txt BDF KLMPN rel latt 
kavxnooua DKLP dl. 


eavtou K. 


16. om ye D!. 
Syr goth «th arm gr-lat-ff. 


om d:axova K. 


17. rec Aadw bef kata kupiov, with DLM rel vulg(not F-lat) fri syr copt goth: txt 
BFKPR ad (m) 17. 47 Syr 2th arm Chr Damasc. 


will end in their discomfiture : for realities 
they have none, no weapons but misrepre- 
sentation, being false Apostles,’ &e. 
13.] For (seeabove: the ydp implying also 
that the choice of the above line of conduct 
has been made in a conviction of their 
falsehood and its efficacy to detect it) such 
men are false Apostles (not, as Vulg. and 
most expositors, ‘ such false Apostles are 
épy. SoX.,’ which destroys the whole empha- 
sis of the sentence, wherein the twepAtav 
amrdorodo of ver. 5 are pronounced now to 
be Wev8ardoroAo: and besides, suggests 
an irrelevant comparison between oi Tovov- 
rou W. and wv. of some other kind. On 
the sense, see Rey. ii. 2. 6 TOLOUTOS 
is afamiliar designation with the Apostle, 
see reff.),—dishonest workmen (in that 
they pretend to be teachers of the Gospel, 
and are in the mean time subserving their 
own ends),—changing themselves into (in 
appearance: the pres. participle indicates 
their abit and continual endeavours to as- 
sume the shape) Apostles of Christ. Bya 
fair comparison between us, this mask will 
be stript off;—by the abundance of my 
sufferings, and distinctions vouchsafed by 
the Lord, my Apostolicity will be fully 
proved, and their Pseudapostolism shewn. 
14, 15.] od Gatpa—so Aristoph. 
Plut. 99, xa) Catud 7 obdév, odd eye yap 
6 BrAérwv. autos yapéc. | If any 
definite allusion is here intended, it is per- 
haps to Job i. 6, &e.: but I would rather 
suppose the practice of Satan in tempting 
and seducing men to be intended. 
14. ayy. pwtds} Godis light, and inhabits 
light, and His angelic attendants are sur- 


rounded with brightness, see Acts xii. 7 ; 
Ps. civ. 4: whereas Satan is the Power of 
darkness, see reff. and Luke xxii. 53. 
15.] et kat, if also, i.e. as well as him- 
self, or perhaps better applying to the 
whole sentence, if, also... peTacy. 
@s, i.e. wetacx. Kal yivovrat &s:—so 
Rom. ix. 29, ds Téuopia ky apoimOnuer. 
autos, the father of falsehood and 
wrong (John viii. 44), is directly opposed 
to Sixaocvvn Oeov, Matt. vi. 33, that 
manifestation of God by which He is 
known to us in the Gospel, Rom. i. 17. 
dv To TéX.] Of whom (notwith- 
standing this disguise) the end shall be 
correspondent to their works (not to their 
pretensions). 16—21.] Excuses for 
his intended self-boasting. 16.] 
wahiy—referring to ver. 1, not repeating 
what he had there said, but again taking 
up the subject, and expanding that re- 
quest. The avéxoua: of ver. 1 in fact 
implies both requests of this verse :—the 
not regarding him as a fool for boasting, 
or even if they did (ei 5€ uhye after a 
negative sentence implies ‘ but if it cannot 
be so, ‘if you willsnot grant this,’ see 
reff. kay elliptical: the full construc- 
tion would be kav as &ppova dékacba 
dé€n, d€tacGé we: so in reff.) as a fool (i.e. 
yielding to me the toleration and hearing 
which men would not refuse even to one of 
whose folly they were convinced) receiving 
him. Kaye, as well as they. 17.] 
Proceeding on the &s &ppova, he disclaims 
for this self-boasting the character of inspi- 
ration—or of being said in pursuance of his 
mission from the Lord. kataxvp.] as in 


BDFK) 
MPxra 
cdefy; 
hklm 
o 17. 4; 


14—2]. 


’ s afe a , 12 \ \ L 
€V TAUTH TH ‘UTOCTaTEL TIS ® KavYNTEWS. €Tel TOANOL f= ch. se 
>Kavyavtar » kata ™tnv “ocadpka, Kayo ” Kavyjoomat. 


TIPO] KOPIN@IOTS B. 


703 


) 
ili. 14. xi. 
lonly. Ps. 
XXXviii. 7. 


;j a la) / / 
19 1déws yap “aveyerOe THY “ appover, | Ppovipoe OvTES* ¢ Rom. ti. 2 
rei. 
20 K dvéyerOe yap, el Tis Huds ™ KaTadovNoi, et Tis ™ KATE » John vill. 15 


¢ nr r Py , 
@TrOV UuLas * OEpEL. 
24. ix.17. (-dcora, ch. xii. 9.) 
iv. 10. m Gal. ii. 4 only. 
only. Isa. ix. 12. O=— ch, xi1..16: 
r Acts y. 40 reff. s = 1 Cor. vii. 6. 


18. for moAAol, oAa P. 


k ver. 1. 
Gen. xlvii. 21. 


y- see 


21s Nxt e> / , ‘ves uZ € tal ii. ¢ : 
KATA  ATLILLAV eyo WMS ~ OTL NMELS ees, 


1 Rom. xi. 25 al. Prov. xv. 21. iron., 1 Cor. 

n Mark xii. 40 || L. Gal. v.15. Rev. xi. 5 

p = ch. x. 5 reff. q see Matt. xxvi. 67. 

t Rom. i. 26 reff. uch. v.19. 2 Thess. ii. 2. 


om tyv DIF! 17 Chr Damasce. 


20. rec vuas bef ets mposwrov, with D?K LM relarm Syr goth arm Chr Thdrt: txt 
BD?}:3FPX m o 17 latt syr eth Damase Orig-int, lat-ff. 


reff. after the (mind of the) Lord, in pur- 
suance, i.e. in this ease, of Oecomvevatia 
from above: not asin 1 Cor. vii. 10, 25,40. 
as év dp. | as it were in folly, i.e. 
‘putting myself into the situation, and 
speaking the words of a foolish man vaunt- 
ing of himself.’ trootacet, as ch. ix. 
4, in this present confidence, not as Chrys. 
‘ subject, —‘ this subject of boasting,’ iva 
ph voulons wavtaxov avontalvew aitdv, 
(Hom. xxiv. p. 607)—and so al.: but the 
sense would be insipid in the last degree : 
nor could such a meaning well be expressed 
without ye,—év radtn ye TH tT. De Wette 
also renders wz. ‘ subject-matter, and 
understands, ‘ since we are come to boast- 
ing ;? but here again ye would be more 
naturally found. He objects to ‘confidence,’ 
that the boasting was not begun: but as 
Meyer replies, it is conceived of as having 
begun in Paul's mind, by the use of the 
present AaA@, I am speaking. 
18.] Since many (viz. the false teachers, 
but not only they :—‘since it is acommon 
habit,’—for he is here speaking as eis ty 
appdévwy, see Job ii. 10) boast according to 
the flesh (not = év capxi, as Chrys., al., 
but ‘in a spirit of fleshly regard,’-—‘ having 
regard to their extraction, achievements, 
&e.’ as below vv. 22 ff.), I also will boast 
(scil. kata thy odpra. Riickert thinks 
these words are omitted purposely, thereby 
to imply that the Apostle’s boasting was 
not fleshly ; but this is distinctly contra- 
dicted by the context: he is speaking as 
one of the roAAot of of &ppoves, see next 
verse). 19.] Bitterly ironical. They 
were ¢pdviuoi—as 1 Cor. iv. 8, Kexopec- 
évor—so full of wisdom as to be able to 
tolerate complacently, looking down from 
the ‘sapientum templa serena,’ the follies 
of others. This, forsooth, encourages him 
to hope for their forbearance and patron- 
age. Compare the earnestness of 1 Cor. 
iii. 1—4, And the irony does not stop 
here: it is not only matter of presump- 


tion that they would tolerate fools with 
complacency, but the matter of fact testi- 
fied it: they were doing this: and more. 
20.| for (proof that they could 

have no objection to so innocent a man as 
a fool, when they tolerated such noxious 
ones as are adduced) ye endure (them), if 
(as is the case) one brings you into 
slavery (the mere abstract act as regarded 
them, not the man’s own selfish view, 
being in the Apostle’s mind, the active, not 
the middle, is used. Thucyd. iii. 70, uses 
the active similarly: Aéyovtes Tos ’AOn- 
valous Thy Képxupay katadovAoiv. But 
the enslaving understood, is to the man 
himself, not to the law :—sce ref. Gal.), if 
one devours you (by exaction on your pro- 
perty, see reff. Mk. L. So Hom. Od. y. 
315: wh To KaTa TdyTAa pdywo. KThuaTa, 
and Plaut., Ter., and Quintil., in Wetstein), 
if one catches you (as with a snare, ref.: 
not, ‘takes from you’), if one uplifts 
himself (so freq. in Thucyd., e.g. vi. 11, 
Xen oh mpds Tas TUXaS Tov éevayTloy 
éraipes@ca. See other examples in Wetst.), 
if one smites you on the face (in insult, 
see 1 Kings xxii. 24: Matt. v. 39; Luke 
xxii. 64; Acts xxiii. 2. This is put asthe 
climax of forbearance. ‘“ That such vio- 
lence might literally be expected from the 
rulers of the early Christian society, is also 
implied in the command in 1 Tim. iii. 3, 
Tit. i. 7, that the ‘ bishop’ is not to be ‘a 
striker.’ Even so late as the seventh cen- 
tury the council of Braga (c. 7), A.D. 675, 
orders that no bishop at his will and 
pleasure shall strike his clergy, lest he lose 
the respect which they owe him.” Stanley). 
21.] By way of disparagement (kat’ 

GT ip.,—SsoO Kata Aninv ékmAdéoavtes, Herod. 
li. 152; kata Oday Fev, Thucyd. vi. 31) I 
say (assume) that (as é71, see ch. v. 19, 
note,—does not positively state a fact, but 
assumes one, or states the import of a say- 
ing) WE (emphatic) were weak (when we 
Were among you). An ironical reminis- 


704 


vy = Rom. iv. 
19 reff. 

w ver. 12, 

x = ch. x. 2. 

y ver. 17. 

z Acts vi. 1. 
Phil. iii. 5 
bis only. 
Gen. xxxix. 
14 al. 

a John i. 48. Acts ii.22. Rom. xi. 1 al. 

d here only. Zech. vii. 11 only. (-via, 2 Pet. ii. 16.) 


IIPOS) KOPINOIOTS B. 


XI. 


cCol.i.7. 1 Tim. iv. 6. see ch. vi. 4. 
eas ady., here only. Winer, edn. 6, 3 50, Remark 2. 


21. nodervncaper bef nuers F: nobevnkapey BN m 80.—add ev rovtw tw pepe: D vulg- 


ed(not am fuld) Ambrst Pel. om & 


D}(and lat) vulg syrr Ambrst. 


TOAL@ 


karyw bef ev app. Aeyw F.—om 2nd Acyw N1(ins R-corr! eb), 


cence of his own abstinence when among 
them from all these acts of self-exaltation 
at their expense, q. d. (ironically), ‘I feel 
that Iam much letting myself down by the 
confession that I was too weak ever to do 
any of these things among you.’ This I 
believe with Schrader, De Wette, and 
Meyer, to be the only satisfactory render- 
ing. See also Stanley. Most expositors 
(1) refer Aéyw back to ver. 20, * Tsay it, — 
‘T speak, as E. V. So Chrys., Theo- 
phyl., Theodoret, Pelag., Erasm., Calv., al. 
(Chrys. remarks on @s 871,—Gaoapes 7d 
cipnmevov. ereidy yap poptixdy jy, did 
rodro obtws avTd Tébeker, va Kaew) THY 
endxderav TH aoapelg, p. 609), and (2) 
understand kata &rim., ‘to your shame,’ 
and (3) &s ri, ‘as though. But (1) can 
hardly be, seeing that Aéyw below and 
AaA@ ver. 23 have a forward reference : 
(2) would require buar, and even then 
would be exceedingly harsh,—ef. the simi- 
lar meaning 1 Cor. xv. 34, where we have 
mpos evtpomhy duty AGA@ : and (3) it may 
be doubted whether ws 87: ever can mean 
‘as though, even in ref. 2 Thess., where 
Winer, edn. 6, § 65. 9 [see German 
edn.], renders it by wie baB: it is pleo- 
nastic, answering to our expression ‘ how 
that?’—*1 told him, how that’.... 
Winer, in a former edition, instances the 
use of wie Daf in a somewhat similar way : 
wie daf id) gehdrt babe, . . . . where either 
wie or baf would be enough. Besides the 
instances given on ch. v. 19, Meyer quotes 
from Dion. Hal. ix. (with no further ref.) 
emiyvous, as Ort ev Coxdros eioly of KaTa- 
KAeroOevTes. év @ 8 av| But in 
whatsoever matter any one (the mis of 
ver. 20) is bold (the & signifies habit, 
recurrence: so Soph. Philoct. 290, rai7’ 
dv etéprwv tddas eunxaveuny elta mip 
dy ov mapay, and Eur. Phen. 412, more 
uty em apap €lxov, cir? ovk elxov ty, 
where see Porson). Throughout this pas- 
sage, compare by all means Stanley’s in- 
teresting notes. év ddp.| see ver. 
ifs 22.| “The three honourable 
appellations with which the adversaries 
magnified themselves,—resting on their 


Jewish extraction, are arranged so as to 
form a climax: so that ‘EBpato refers to 
the nationality,—Iapandira to the theo- 
eracy (Rom. ix. 4 ff.), and o7épya *ABp. 
to the claim to a part in the Messiah 
(Rom. ix. 7; xi. 1, al.).” Meyer. The 
interrogative form of the sentence is much 
more lively and consistent with the spirit 
of the context than the affirmative, as given 
by Erasm., Luther, Estius, al. 23. ] 
Meyer remarks, that all three points of 
Judaistic comparison, of so little real con- 
sequence in the matter, were dismissed 
with the short and contemptuous Kayo,— 
‘that am Itoo” But that is not enough, 
now that we are come to the great point of 
comparison ; the consciousness of his real 
standing, and their nullity as ministers of 
Christ requires the drép éyé, and the holy 
earnestness of this consciousness pours 
itself forth as a stream over the adver- 
saries, so as to overwhelm their conceited 
aspirations to apostolic dignity. 

mapadp. A. | stronger than év appoo. eyo: 
—I say it as a madman. Hardly, as 
Meyer, spoken from a consciousness of the 
verdict apappove? which the opponents 
would pronounce on this dep eyo,— but 
rather, as De W., from a deep sense of his 
own unworthiness, and conscious how ut- 
terly untrue was dretp éyo, in any boasting 
sense. He therefore repudiates it even 
more strongly than the ToAu@ Kaya. 

imép éyé must not be misunderstood. He 
concedes to them their being dix. xp., and 
assumes (mapappovdv) for himself, some- 
thing more, if more abundant labours and 
sufferings are to be any criterion of the 
matter. That this is the sense is obvious 
from the comparison being in the amount 
of labours and sufferings,—and not (as 
Meyer), that he denies to them the d:dk. 
xp. and merely puts it hypothetically. 
‘Well, then, if they are to be considered 
didx. Xp-, I must be something more.’ If 
so, the comparison would be not in the 
degree of ministerial self-sacrifice, but in 
the credentials of the ministry itself. 
Both are now assumed to be ministers: 
but if so, Paul is a minister in a much 


> / e a. s 
v paOevicapev: “ev @ & av Tis * ToAMA, (% év ¥ abpoouvyn BDF 

, col / Qn x 
Rey) TOA Kayo. *2 **EBpaiol eiow ; Kayo. *’lopand- cadet 
a feat) , > , b / BA U , F > , 93 es , hklm 
iralelow; Kayo. orréppa ABpaap eiow ; Kayo. ~° © 0LAKO- 0 17.4 

c fal 3 d la) lal e € \ ’ , > 

vou ® ypiatov elow ; (“ tapadpovev Aare) © UrEp eywr ev 
b Rom. ix. 7 reff. 


e 


22—26. 


8 xotrous » 


*Karrnyais } 


IIPOS> KOPINOIOTS B. 


705 


SP fobs Vi.5. 


/ ] fi Dr Lal h , 
TTEPLOGOTEPWS, EV gu QAKaALS TIEPLODOTEPOS, €V 1 Cor. iii. 8. 


xv. 58 al. 


UmepBardovtws, €v ™ OavaTows TOAAKIS. Gen. xxi. 


h ch. i. 12 reff. 


94 ig \ aT 5 i) , pd / ° A / 
u7TO lovdaimy TevTaKig " TETTEPAKOVTA ° TAPA MLAV } Mart. xxv. 36, 


édaBov, » tpis P épaBdicOnv, arak 


" evavaynoa, * vuxOnjwepov 


only. (-BaAAetr, ch. iii. 10.) 


of wAny., see Luke xii. 47, 48. 
only}. Judg. vi. 11. 


exiy. 3. (-veveuv, 1 Cor. xv. 30.) 


23. for AaAw, Aeyw DF e Did. 


ev TO 
£ , / a 
26 Y Odouroplais TroAdaKIs, “ KwWdvVOLs * TroTamar, 


&c. Heb. xi. 


4 é€yvOaaOnv is 36. 
a ae ie k Luke x. 30. 
' Bu@@ " rremolnxay = foe 
w Deut. xxv. 2. 
KLV™ \ here only. 
Job xv. 11 


m=ch.i.10, Ps, ly. 13. (seel Cor. xv. 31.) mpoato@vyaKw ToA- 
Aovds Oavatous Vroméevwv avd’ Evds TOU TEAEUTALoV, Philo, Flacc. 3 20, vol. ii. p, 542. 
o = here only. 
q Acts v. 26 reff. 
there only. Exod. xy. 5. Ps.cvi. 24. (-@¢Geuv, Luke v. 7.) 
iv. 6 only+. 1 Mace. vi. 41. (-petv, Acts x. 9.) 
x gen., = I Pet. i. 2, pavt. Alpes 


kovo.s F(not G). 


n ellips. 

p Acts xvi. 22 
r1 Tim. i. 19 only +. s here only t. 
u = Acts xv. 33 reff. v John 

w here (8 times) and Rom. viii. 35 only. Ps, 


Herod. ix, 33. 


rec ev tAnyats vrepB. 


bef ev puaAakas mepioo., with D?KLMRN%* rel syrr copt arm Orig, Chr Thdrt Damase 
Hil, and FX! Orig,, which (and P) put wepioo. with mAny. and v7epB. with @uaA.: om 
ev TA. ur. Clem Tert: txt BD!(and lat) (P) vulg(and F-lat) goth eth Orig, lat-ff. 


modAots Diacdfkmno. 


25. rec eppaBd., with M rel Chr: txt BDFKLPN 17. 47 Orig, Eus, Chr-ms Thl Cc. 
26. for moAAakis (and in next ver), woAAas D}(with lat); so also vulg in ver 27. 


higher degree, more faithful, more self- 
denying, richer in gifts and divine tokens, 
than they. The preposition is used ad- 
verbially, see reff. év KoTroLs Treptc. | 
By (the ev is instrumental:—the direct 
dative is adopted ver. 26 :—these facts are 
proofs of the twép éy#,—not as Kstius, 
al., parallel with it, which would only 
apply to the comparatives and not to ey 
Oavarors moAAdnis) labours (occurring) 
more abundantly (the adverbs belong to 
the substantives in each case and are used 
adjectively; so thy euyy davaorpophy 
more, Gal. i. 13: ris eurs mapovotas 
médw, Phil. i. 26),—by prisons (impri- 
sonments) more abundantly (but ove such 
is mentioned in the Acts [xvi. 23 ff.] pre- 
vious to the writing of this Epistle. 
Clement, in the celebrated passage of. his 
1st Epistle to the Corinthians [c. v. p. 220] 
on the labours of Paul, describes him as 
éemtakis Secua popécas. This whole cata- 
logue should shew the chronologists of the 
Apostle’s life and epistles how exceedingly 
unsafe it is to build on/y on the history 
in the Acts for a complete account of his 
journeys and voyages), by stripes more 
exceedingly (particularized below), by 
deaths often (see reff. and ch. iv. 10. 
Such was the danger escaped at Damascus, 
Acts ix. 28, at Antioch in Pisidia, xiii. 50, 
at Iconium, xiv. 5, 6, at Lystra, ib. 19, at 
Philippi, xvi., at Thessalonica, xvii. 5 f., at 
Bercea, ib. 13, and doubtless many others 
of which we know nothing. See below). 
24, 25.] are parenthetical, explain- 
ing some of the foregoing expressions: 
the construction is resumed, ver. 26. 
At the hands of the Jews five times re- 
ceived I forty save one (in Deut. xxv. 3, 
Vou. II. 


it is prescribed that not more than forty 
stripes should be given, ‘lest thy brother 
should seem vile unto thee.’ For fear of 
exceeding this number, they kept within it. 
This seems a more likely account of the 
thirty-nine stripes than that given by 
Wetst.,—that thirteen were inflicted on 
the breast, and the same number on each 
shoulder, and the fortieth omitted, lest one 
part of the body should receive more than 
another. See the Rabbinical authorities 
in Wetst., and ef. Joseph. Antt. iv. 8. 21 
and 23;,.and Stanley’s note here. He calls 
it Tiyuwpla aioxtorn: and Meyer remarks 
that Paul might well number it among the 
Odvarou, for it was no rare occurrence for 
the criminal to die under its infliction. 

None of these scourgings are mentioned in 
the Acts),—thrice was I beaten with rods 
(scil. by the Roman magistrates, see Acts 
xvi. 22, 238, which is the only occasion 
mentioned in the Acts), once was I stoned 
(Acts xiv. 19), thrice I suffered shipwreck 
(not one of these shipwrecks is known to 
us. Thus we see that perhaps three, per- 
haps two, voyages of Paul, but certainly 
one,—previous to this time, must be some- 
where inserted in the history of the Acts : 
see Prolegg. ch. iii. § v. 5), a night and 
day have I spent (reff.) in the deep (i.e. 
the sea: probably on some remnant of a 
wreck after one of his shipwrecks alone or 
with others. To understand 6 Bu@dés, as 
Thl. [rwes 5€ pacw &@ tim ppéati peta 
Tov ev Avarpars KlySuvov KataKpupbels, BUO® 
Aeyouevw, viv TodTo A€yer|, seems to be 
taking it out of its connexion here. Wetst. 
gives from Alian, H. An. viii. 7, a@éarov 
vhxeoba ev Bvdg. Still less must we 
think of the characteristic interpretation 

ZZ 


706 


IIPO> KOPINOIOTS B. 


xT, 


. / lal / 
yEppshere § Suvous *YAnoTav, “ Kuvdvvois é€x *yévous, “ Kwdvvois é&& 


only. 

xxi. 13 || 
(from Jer. 
vii. 11) al. 

z = Acts xviii. 
2 reff. absol., 
2 Mace, xii. 
31. 

a Matt. xv. 


3 na / 
eOvav, “ Kiwwdvvois év Tone, 


“ cwovvois év * épnwa, 


“ xwovvos év Oardoon, ~ Kivdvvois ev » Arevdaderdots, 
/ \ i / O) > 
27 °d KoT@ Kat ° woxlw, ev * aypuTViais ToddaKis, év 


33 | Mk. Hed. 8 Lye Kab £° Saber, ev “ vnoTelats TOANAKLS, ev oye Kal 


xi. 38 only. 
Ezek. xxxy. fgk Ls 

4. ULVOT)TL. 
b Gal. ii. 4 if ie 7 


only +. cl Thess. ii. 9. 


2 Thess. iii. 8 only. 


\ nr 
281 yeapis TOV ™TapexTos 7 ” érrictacis 


d ch. vi. 5 (reff.). e as above (c) 


only. Num. xxiii. 21. f Deut. xxviii. 48 only. g Rom. viii. 35. h here only. Exod. 
xvii. 3. i John xviii. 18. Acts xxviii. 2 only. Gen. viii. 22. k as above (f, g)- Rey. iil. 18 only. 
1 = Matt. xiv. 21. (Heb. iv. 15.) Gen. xxvi. 1. m Matt. y. 32. Actsxxvi. 29 only+. Deut. i. 
36 Aq. constr., here only. n Acts xxiy. 12 onlyt. = 2 Macc. vi. 3? (only.) éemeova., (Acts as above, 


y.r.) Num, xxvi, 9. 


27. rec ins ev bef xomw, with KUMP X-corr'(?)3 rel vulg(and F-lat) Orig,(and 


int,) lat-ff: om BDFN! goth. 


duly B? g? 1. 


28. rec emiovoragis, with KLMP rel Chr(explaining it: of @épvBo., ai rapaxal, aé 
moAtopkia: To Shuwv Kal Tov TéAcwY Epodot. So also Thdrt al) Damase Th] Ge: txt 


of Estius: ‘Subjunxit aliud periculum 
marinum longe gravius, nempe quod de- 
mersus fuerit ex naufragio in profundum 
maris, ubi tamen divina ope fuerit servatus 
incolumis noctem et diem, atque inde 
postea liberatus’’). 26.] The construe- 
tion is resumed from ver. 23, but now 
with the instrumental dative without the 
preposition. By journeys frequently, 
by perils of rivers (the genitives denote 
the material of the perils; rivers and rob- 
bers being the things and persons actually 
attacking. Winer, edn. 6, § 30. 2, ren- 
ders it perils on rivers, justifying it 
by x. é€v wéAee: but in my view a distinc- 
tion is pointed out by the variety of con- 
struction. Wetst. quotes Kid. Padacocay 
from Heliod. ii. 4. The ‘perils of rivers’ 
might arise from crossing or fording, or 
from floods. The crossing of the rocky 
and irregular torrents in Alpine districts 
is to this day attended with danger, which 
must have been much more frequent when 
bridges were comparatively rare. And this 
is the case with a road, among others, fre- 
quently traversed by Paul, that between 
Jerusalem and Antioch, crossed as it is by 
the torrents from the sides of Lebanon. 
Maundrell says that the traveller Spon lost 
his life in one of these torrents : see Cony- 
beare and Howson, edn. 2, vol. i. p. 502, 
note: and Stanley in loc.), by perils of 
robbers (see note on Acts xiii. 14), by 
perils from my kindred (the Jewish na- 
tion, ex, arising from: they not being 
always the direct agents,—but, as in many 
cases in the Acts, setting on others or 
plotting secretly: or yévovs,—and €6y. 
below,—imports generically the source, or 
quarter whence the danger arose), by perils 
from the Gentiles (not merely “from 
Gentiles,’ as Stanley: this would be é 
é6vixav. The art. is omitted after the 
preposition, the word being thus catego- 


rized in Greek; but it must be supplied 
in our English idiom),—by perils in the 
city (in Damascus, Acts ix. 23 f.,—Jeru- 
salem, ib. 29,—Ephesus xix. 23 ff, and 
many other places), by perils in the desert 
(the actual desert ? or merely the solitude 
of journeys as contrasted with ‘the city ?” 
but any how, not ‘zn solitude: the art. 
must be supplied as in év réXex), by perils 
in the sea (not, as De W., a repetition 
from ver. 25: there are many perils in the 
sea short of shipwrecks), by perils among 
false brethren (who were these? Grot., 
al., suppose, ‘qui Christianos se simula- 
bant, ut res Christianorum perdiscerent, 
deinde eos proderent,’—and so apparently 
Chrys., &c. But Paul’s use of this com- 
pound leads us rather to persons who bone 
fide wished to be thought adeAgol, but 
were not, scil. in heart and conduct, and 
were opponents of himself personally, 
rather than designed traitors to the Chris- 
tian cause. Cf. WevdardaroAo: above, ver. 
13); 27.] by labour and weariness, 
by watchings (see on ch. vi. 5) frequently 
(the év is here resumed, perhaps arbi- 
trarily, perhaps also because «émos and 
uéx0os are more directly instrumental, 
—aypumv., &c., more conditionally), by 
hunger and thirst, by fastings frequently 
(voluntary fastings, ‘ad purificandam 
mentem et edomandam carnem,’ as Es- 
tius, see also ch. vi. 5, note. De W. here 
too [see also Stanley] holds to ‘involun- 
tary fastings;’ but he is clearly wrong, 
for vnor. is distinguished from Am. k. 
diy.), in cold and nakedness (insuffi- 
cient clothing :—or, literally, when thrust 
into prison after his scourgings,—or 
after his shipwrecks). 28.] He 
passes from particulars, omitting others 
which might have been specified, to the 
weight of apostolic care and sympathy 
which was on him. Not to mention those 


BDF 
MPs 
ede 
hklm 
017,4 


+ 
a. 


27—30. 


IIPO> KOPINOIOTS B. 


707 


ee , lal fal lal ac 
foot 1) °Kal? juépav, » ? wéprmva ITracdy TOY 4 eKKANTLOY. © A<ts ii. 46 


29 tis "acbevel, Kal ovK 'acbeva; 
kal ov« éyo ‘ mupotdmat ; 39 Ki * xavyao@ar Sei, Ta Y THs 


p and constr., 


3 in 
Tis SoKxavoanriberar, ? Matt rit 


22 || (Luke 
xxi. 34. 
1 Pet. v. 7) 

r = Acts xx. 35, or Rom. xiv. l. s 1 Cor. 


u absol., vv. 16, 18, v constr., Rom. xiv. 


only. Sir. xlii. 9. q ch. viii. 18 reff. 

vill. i3 reff. t 1 Cor. vii. 9 reff. 

19 al. w constr., ch, ix. 2. Proy. xxvii. 1. 
BDE® k 17. 


om Ist 7 F!(not G). 


(afflictions) which are besides (these) (the 
Vulg., E. V., Beza, Estius, Bengel, under- 
stand mapextés as = @twOev, ‘the things 
that are without,—a meaning which it 
never has, always implying exception, see 
reff. Chrys., al., jom xwp. T. mapekr. 
with the foregoing, and put a period after 
mapexT., interpreting it rightly, rAclova Ta 
mapareplevta Tay amapiOundevtwv, Hom, 
xxy. p. 613 :—but this seems to break the 
connexion too abruptly, besides giving a 
strange and unlikely termination to the 
long sentence preceding),—my care (érlar. 
may be either ‘delay,’ ‘hindrance,’ as Soph. 
Antig. 225, moAAds yap elxov ppovtldos 
éemoraoes, and Xen. Anab. ii. 4. 26, dcov & 
dv xpdvov Td Hyovmevoyv Tov oTpatevuatos 
EMLTTHTELE, TOTOUTOY Hy avayKn Xpdvoy BV 
dAov TOU oTpaTevmaTos yiyvecOa Thy ent- 
oracw,—or, as very frequently in Polybius, 
see Schweigh., Lex. Polyb.,—‘ care,’ ‘at- 
tention,’ ‘ matter of earnest thought :’ e. g. 
Thy bmép Tay BAwy ewiaTacl K. SidAn Wy, 
viii. 30. 13, ‘curam summe rei,’-—ov« ex 
Tapepyov, AN ek emioTrdoews iii. 58. 3,— 
tyew Twa eis ériaotacw, * attentionem ali- 
cujus excitare,’ ix. 22. 17, al. The ree. 
reading, émtovortacts [which has perhaps 
been introduced from ericracis not being 
understood (see digest here and on ref. 
Acts) and then mo has been altered to 
pov as easier; but substantives derived 
from verbs which govern a dative are 
sometimes followed by this case, sce 
Winer, edn. 6, § 31. 3, and Moulton’s 
note], can only mean conewrsus, in a 
hostile sense, see ref. and examples in 
Wetst.: and so Chrys. [see var. readd.], 
&e., take it here: others metaphorically, 
as Beza, ‘agmen illud in me quotidie con- 
surgens, i.e. sollicitudo de omnibus eccle- 
siis ?—somewhat similarly De W.,—‘ that 
which sets upon me, importunes me, daily :? 
and so E. V. Stanley, with Hst. al., ren- 
ders it, ‘ the concourse of people to see me :? 
but this is doubtful, as departing from the 
hostile sense. In Beza’s sense, there is 
something Pauline in the rec., “the daily 
outbreak against me,” and the reading 
cannot be considered certain) day by day, 
(viz.) my anxiety for all the churches 
(the construction is an anacoluthon: not, 
as Meyer, éxior. the subject and péepimva 


rec (for wor) wov, with DE LMPN? rel vulg: txt BEN?! 17. 
for Ka0. nu. n, KaOnuepw7n F. 


the predicate, which would be a very flat 
sentence,—‘ my daily care is, anxiety &c.’ 
As it stands, 7 émior. is general, and 
4 wepmy. particularizes it. Nothing need 
be supplied. 7% érior. occurs to the Apos- 
tle’s mind, and is uttered, in the nomina- 
tive, the construction being disregarded). 
29.| ‘Cura certe cuumdteay ge- 

nerat: que facit, ut omnium affectus in 
se suscipiat Christi minister, omnium per- 
sonas induat, quo se accommodet om- 
nibus,’ Calv. Olsh., after Emmerling, 
strangely understands, ‘Who is weak, if I 
am not weak?’ i. e. ‘Who can be called 
weak, if I am not so?’ The aoOévera 
of the tis may be in various ways ; in faith, 
as Rom. xiv. 1 al., or in purpose, or in 
courage: that of the Apostle, see 1 Cor. 
ix, 22, was a sympathetic weakness, a lean- 
ing to the same infirmity for the weak 
brother’s sake, but also a veritable @opvu- 
Bovua k. Tapdocoua (as Chrys., p. 614) 
in himself, on the weak brother’s account. 
tls oxavd.| “Non priore, sed hac 
versiculi parte addit ego : nam illic infirmo 
se accommodat : hic dissimilem se scandali- 
zantis fatetur, partes a scandalizante neg- 
lectas scandalizati causa ipse suscipiens. 
Partes a scandalizante neglect sunt amor, 
prudentia, &c. Idem tamen Paulus etiam 
partes scandalizati, sive incommodum quod 
scandalizatus sentit,in se suscipit.” Bengel. 
mupovpat,—with zeal, or with in- 
dignation. 30.] partly refers back 
to what has passed since ver. 23. ‘The 
ac0évera not being that mentioned in a 
different connexion in ver. 29, but that of 
ver. 21, to which all since has applied. 
But the words are not without a forward 
reference likewise. He will boast of his 
weaknesses—of (7a Tis a0.) those things 
which made him appear mean and con- 
temptible in the eyes of his adversaries. 
He is about to adduce an instance of es- 
cape from danger, of which this is emi- 
nently the case: he might be scoffed at as 
6 capyavopopytos, or the like—but he is 
carried on in his fervency of self-renun- 
ciation amidst his apparent self-celebration, 
and he wall even cast before his enemies 
the contemptible antecedents of his career, 
boasting in being despised, if only for 
what Christ had done in him. The as- 


LZ 2 


708 


x Rom. vi. 19. 


IIPOS> KOPINOIOTS B. XI. 31—33. 


x doOevelas pou “ kavynocopa: 816 ¥? Beds Kat ¥ waTHp TOD BDF! 


1 Cor. ii. 3 
ff. a c a : ia ra 
yRom.xv.6 K«vplov Inaod * oidev, 0 vy *evAoYyNTOS *Els TOUS * alWVAS, cde 
reff. Fr Se > i. 39 2 A hey 20 , a7 / hkIn 
zsover.tl Ory, OV Papevdoouwar. % év Aapack@ o ° ébvapyns ApéTa 017. 
reff. and note. 
b Rom. ix. 1 


Tod Bactréws Véppovper tiv mow AapacKknvav * TiacaL 
pe [Oédav], 33 Kai dua * Oupidos év & capyavn * exa- 


reff. 
c here only +. 


1 Mace. xiv. 
he Vlas a r) \ cn > fol 
nly Jos, AaGOnv © Sua Tod» Teliyous Kal) eEepuyov Tas YEipas avTOV. 
Antt. xiv. 7. , 
2 al. 1 k “ a \ > ] a “ > 

ey ee Kavyao@ar 6 od 'oupdhéper pour éhevoopat 
Phil.iv.7. 1 Pet.i.5 only+. Judith iii. 6. 


e Acts xii. 4 reff. f Actsxx.9only. Josh. 
g here only +. h Acts ix. 25 (reff.). i Rom. ii. 3 reff. k absol., 
lconstr., but w. aor. inf,, Matt. xix. 10, Esth. iii, 8. 


ii. 15, 18. 
ch. xi. 16, 18. 


30. om uov B. 

31. rec aft kupiov ins nuwy, with DMP rel vulg(with fuld F-lat) Syr copt arm Thdrt 
Aug: om BFKLN eg h1lmn17 am syr goth eth Chr Damase. rec aft ino. 
ins xpiorov, with DKLMP rel vulg(with fuld F-lat) Syr copt 2th Thdrt Aug: om 
BEX m 17 am syr goth arm Chr. 

$2. rec dauacknvwy bef roAw, with D2KLM rel Chr Thdrt Damasc: txt BD!3FPRa 
m 17 vss. om OeAwy BD}(and lat) vulg(and F-lat) Syr arm Procop Ambrst 
Pel: ins D3KLMPX rel goth Chr Thdrt, and (but bef mao: we) F syr copt eth. 

33. om ev capyarn F. 


Cuav. XII. 1. * kavyacOar det od cupdépov pev EXevoopat dé B(see 
table)F(&) 17 vulg: so, but cuupeper, P: Kavxacba 5y ov cuudeper mor eAevooMaL yap 
(D)KL rel Ath Chr Thdrt Damasc (Ke Ambrst Sedul.—ins e: bef ravy. &% 39 lect-17 
vulg(and F-lat).—de (on the confusion between n and « of Tischdf N. T. (ed. 7] 
prolegg. p-xxxvii) BD3FLP de f g mn 0 vulg syrr goth: Se D!& copt Thl: 67 KM 47 


Ath Chr Thdrt Damase.—om po: D! Syr goth. (M uncert.)—add ka: B 218. 


severation in ver. 31 may be applied to 
the whole, but I had rather view it as con- 
nected with the strange history about to 
be related: —‘I will glory in my weaknesses 
—yea, and I will yet more abase my- 
self—God knows that I am telling sober 
truth—&e.’ If the solemnity of the as- 
severation seem out of proportion to the 
incident, the fervid and impassioned cha- 
racter of the whole passage must be taken 
into account. It will be seen that I differ 
from all Commentators here, and cannot 
but think that they have missed the con- 
nexion. Meyer supposes that vv. 32, 33 
were only the beginning of a catalogue 
of his escapes, which he breaks off at 
ch. xii. 1: and that the asseveration was 
meant to apply to the whole catalogue: 
but surely this is very unnatural. 

32, 33.] On the fact, and historical dif- 
ficulty, see note, Acts ix. 23. 32. 
év Aap. followed by Aauacknya@y is pleo- 
nastic, but the pleonasm is common 
enough, especially when for any reason, 
our words are more than usually precise 
and formal. éOvapxys | Prefect, or 
governor, stationed there by the Arabian 
king. The title appears to have been 
variously used. The High Prigst Simon, 
as a vassal of Syria, is so named in reff. 
1 Mace., and Jos. Antt. xiii. 6.7. It was 
bestowed by Augustus on Archelaus after 


his father’s death, Jos. Antt. xvii. 11. 4; 
B. J. ii. 6. 3. The presidents of the seven 
districts into which Egypt was divided 
under the Romans, bore it (Strabo, xvii. 
798): as did a petty prince of the Bos- 
porus under Augustus (Lucian, Macrob. 
17). Also the chief magistrates of the Jews 
living under their own laws in foreign states 
had this title (Jos. Antt. xiv. 7. 2; xiv. 8. 
5. B. J. vii. 6. 3). But apparently it nfust 
here be taken in its wider sense, and not in 
this latter: for the mere chief magistrate 
of the Jews would not have had the power 
of guarding the city. Doubtless he was 
incited by the Jews, who would represent 
Paul as a malefactor. capyavn, Kd¢u- 
vos, Hesych. ;—oi wév, oxolvidy ti, of 5€ 
TA€yma TL ex TXoLvLlov. Suidas (see Wetst.), 
= omupls, Acts ix. 25. Probably it is, as 
Stanley, a “rope-basket ;” a net. 

Cuap. XII. 1—10.] He proceeds to speak 
of visions and revelations vouchsafedto him, 
and relates one such, of which however he 
will not boast, except in as far as it leads 
to fresh mention of infirmity, in which he 
will boast, as being a vehicle for the per- 
Section of Christ's power. In order to 
understand the connexion of the following, 
it is very requisite to bear in mind the bur- 
den of the whole, which runs through it— 
ev tais aodevelais Kavxnjooua. There 
is no break between this and the last chap- 


MIT, 1: 2. 


\ > > 
yap els “omtacias Kat " atroxadvwes Kupiov. 
v > an °o \ 3 fal , $y p ’ 
avOpwrrov év xpioT® po éTrav Sexatecoapwr (elite P év 


IIPO> KOPINOIOTS B. 


709 


ers m Luke i, 22. 
oida xxiv, 23. Acts 
xxvi. 19 only. 


L.P.¢ Mal. 

iii, 2, Sir. 
xliii. 2,16 only. = Dan. ix. 23 al. Theod. n = 1 Cor. xiv. 6 reff. w. gen. subj. (see note), Rev. 
i, 1 (Gal. i. 12?) only. (obj.,1 Cor.i.7. 2 Thess. i.7. 1 Pet.i.7,13. Sir. xlii. 1.) o see 2 Tim. 
i.9. Tit.i.2. John xil. 1. Amosi. 1. iv. 7. pch.v.6. Heb. xiii. 3. 


aft ers ins ras P: ra(sic) F. 


ter. He has just mentioned a passage of 
his history which might expose him to con- 
tempt and ridicule—this was one of the 
acbeverat. He now comes to another: 
but that other inseparably connected with, 
and forming the sequel of, a glorious reve- 
lation vouchsafed him by the Lord. This 
therefore he relates, at the same time repu- 
diating it as connected with himself, and 
fixing attention only on the a¢@évera which 
followed it. 1.] [1 have in recent 
editions suspended the very difficult ques- 
tion of this reading, not finding it possible 
to decide whether of the two deserves a 
place in the text. Meantime, the rec. 
is left in, and on it the following note 
is written.] Let only the two readings 
Kavxao0a 5) ov cuudéper mor, €Acvoomat 
yap, and Kavxac0a Sei, ob cvupéepoy per" 
eAcvoouat d€, be compared, and it would 
certainly seem as if the former more re- 
sembled the nervous elliptic irony of the 
great Apostle, and the latter the tame 
conventional propriety of the grammatical 
eorrectors. The other variations, 5¢ for 
57, and the prefixing of ei, are too palpable 
emendations to require critical treatment. 
The difficulty however is considerably less- 
ened, when the right connexion is borne 
in mind. To boast, verily, is not to my 
advantage: for (i.e. it will be shewn to 
be so, by the following fact of a correction 
administered to me tva ph srepalpwuat) 
{on the other reading, I must boast, 
though it is not to my advantage: but] 
I will proceed to visions and revelations 
of the Lord. 6% in this sense implies a 
consciousness of a reason why the asser- 
tion is true, and is therefore naturally fol- 
lowed by yap, if the sentence is completed. 
The same sense is found in Plato, Phd. 
p- 60, & Sdéxpares, totatov 5h ce Tpos- 
epovot, viv of émThderor, Kal ov ToUTOUS,— 
the completion of the sense being,—‘ for 
you are to die to-night :’—7oAAol kakds 
mpdccovow, ov ov dy pdvos, Eur. Hee. 
464: i.e. ob cd 5} pdvos KakGs mpdooess, 
ToAAOl yap wAAa.... (See Hartung, 
Partikellehre 1. 270, who however explains 
57 in these examples somewhat differently.) 
The force of it here then, is: “Zam well 
aware that to boast is not good for me: 
Sor I will come to an instance in which it 
was so shewn to me.” eis OTT. K. 
am. kup.] q.d. ‘and the instances I will 
select are just of that kind in which, if 


for kup., xprorov FE. (P uncert.) 


boasting ever were good, it might be al- 
lowed :’ thus the yép gives a more com- 
plete proof. éaracia is the form or man- 
ner of receiving amroxdAvyis, the revela- 
tion. There can hardly be an dérracla 
without an amoxdAviis of some kind. 
Therefore Theophylact’s distinction is 
scarcely correct, 7) dmoxdAviis mAégov Tt 
exer THs Omtaciass 7H pey yap pdvov 
Brérewy Sidwow airy 5 Kat Te Babdrepor 
TOU dpwuevov amroyumuvor Kuptou, 
gen. subj., vouchsafed me by the Lord, 
—not obj., ‘of the Lord, for such is not 
that which follows. No particular po- 
lemical reason, as the practice of particular 
parties at Corinth to allege visions, &e. 
(Baur), need be sought for the narration of 
this vision: Paul’s object is general, and 
the means taken to attain it are simply 
subordinate to it, viz. the vindication of his 
apostolic character. 2—4.] An ex- 
ample of such a vision and revelation. 
The adoption of the third person is re- 
markable: it being evident from ver. 7 that 
he himself is meant. It is plain that a 
contrast is intended between the rapt and 
glorified person of vv. 2, 4,—and himself, 
the weak and afflicted and almost despairing 
subject of the oxéAoW 7H capki of vv. 7 ff. 
Such glory belonged not to him, but the 
weakness did. Nay, so far was the glory 
from being is, that he knew not whether 
he was in or out of the body when it was 
put upon him: so that the eye ards, com- 
pounded of the vovs and cdpt (Rom, vii. 
25), clearly was not the subject of it, but 
as it were another form of his personality, 
analogous to that which we shall assume 
when unclothed of the body. It may be 
remarked in passing, as has been done by 
Whitby, that the Apostle here by implica- 
tion acknowledges the possibility of con- 
sciousness and receptivity in a disembodied 
state. Let it not be forgotten, that in 
the context, this vision is introduced not so 
much for the purpose of making it a ground 
of boasting, which he does only passingly 
and under protest, but that he may by it 
introduce the mention of the oxohow TH 
capki, which bore so conspicuous apart in 
his doOéverat, TO BOAST OF WHICH is his 
present object. 2.] I know (not, 
‘knew, as EB. V.: which introduces serious 
confusion, making it seem as if the mpd 
ér@v dexar. were the date of the Anow- 
ledge, not, as it really is, of the vision) a 


710 


IIPO> KOPIN@OIOTS B. 


XII. 


2 2 an / J Ss ec 
a1 Cor vi18 P@@paTe ovK olda, elTe TéKTOS TOD TwLATOS OVK Oda, O RDF 


rch. xi. 11, 31. 
Josh. xxii. 22 

s = John vi. si = 
15. Acts viii. 
39. 1 Thess. oupavou. 
sh at Wy eS Yo 
xii. 5. 

t Acts xxii. 22. 


ee 
1Cor.¥.5,11.* fev) * Ste Sapmrayn eis TOV “ Tapddecoy Kal HKovoEV 


h. ii. 5, 6 
pee he uso Matt, xi. 23. Luke x. 15, 
xxiii. 43. Rev. ii. 7 only. Gen. ii. 8, and fr. 


2. ins rw bef swat: D). (P uncert.) 
bef rpirov F. 


Deut, iy. 11. 


y = Johni. 3 al, w Luke 


om tov bef cwuaros Bd. ins Tou 


[for tprrov &! wrote rovrov which he then altered to rpurov. | 


8. rec (for xwpts) extos (from ver 2), with D?3FKLMPR Meth: txt BD! Meth,. 


om ovk oda B Meth. 


man in Christ (éy xp. belongs to &yép., 
not to olda, as Beza; &v0. ev xp.= ‘a 
Christian, ‘a man whose standing is in 
Christ ;? so of kal mpd euod yéeyovay ev 
xpior@, Rom. xvi. 7),—fourteen years 
ago (belongs not to ofda, nor to ev xp. as 
Grot.: ‘hominem talem, qui per 14 annos 
Christo serviat ;;—but to aprayévra. On 
the idiom see reff.,—the date probably 
refers back to the time when he was at 
Tarsus waiting for God to point out his 
work, between Acts ix. 30 and xi. 25. See 
the chronological table in the Prolego- 
mena), whether in the body, I know not, 
or out of the body, I know not: God 
knoweth (if im the body, the idea would be 
that he was taken up bodily : if out of the 
body, to which the alternative manifestly 
inclines,—that his spirit was rapt from the 
body, and taken up disembodied. Aug. de 
genesi ad litteram xii. 2—5 [3—14], vol. 
lili. pp. 455 ff, discusses the matter at 
length, and concludes thus,—‘ Proinde 
quod yidit raptus usque in tertium ccelum, 
quod etiam se scire confirmat, proprie 
vidit, non imaginaliter. Sed quia ipsa a 
corpore alienata utrum omnino mortuum 
corpus reliquerit, an secundum modumn 
quendam viventis corporis ibi anima fuerit, 
sed mens ejus ad videnda vel audienda in- 
effabilia illius visionis arrepta sit, hoe in- 
certum erat,—ideo forsitan dixit, “sive 
in corpore sive extra corpus, nescio, Deus 
scit.”? And similarly Thom. Aq. and 
Estius: not, as Meyer thinks, making the 
alternative consist between reality and a 
mere vision, but between the anima, the 
life, being rapt out of the body, leaving it 
dead, and the mens, the intelligence or 
spirit, being rapt out of the body, leaving it 
‘secundum modum quendam vivens’); such 
an one (so Tov To.wvToy resumes after a 
parenthesis, 1 Cor. v. 5), rapt (snatched or 
taken up, reff.) as far as the third 
heaven. What is the third heaven? 
The Jews knew no such number, but com- 
monly (not universally: Rabbi Judah 
said, “Duo sunt ceeli, Deut. x. 14”) 
recognized seven heavens: and if their 


arrangement is to be followed, the third 
heaven will be very low in the celestial 
scale, being only the material clouds. That 
the threefold division into the air (nubi- 
ferum), the sky (astriferum), and the 
heaven (angeliferum), was in use among the 
Jews, Meyer regards as a fictionof Grotius. 
Certainly no Rabbinical authority is given 
for such a statement: but it is put forward 
confidently by Grotius, and since his time 
adopted without enquiry by many Com- 
mentators. It is uncertain whether the 
sevenfold division prevailed so early as the 
Apostle’s time: and at all events, as we 
must not invent Jewish divisions which 
never existed, so it seems rash to apply 
here, one about whose date we are not 
certain, and which does not suit the con- 
text :—for to be rapt only to the clouds, 


\ a o MPR 

‘eos * oldev) * dpmayévta *rov * TowvTov “ Ews TpiTOV cde 
Succhiotan Eoap tebe ee ae 
Kal olda ‘tov ttovodtov dvOpwrov (eiTe P év 
p , v Vv \ lal ye > 15. € r 0 \ 
copate elte Y ywpls TOU cwpatos ovK olda, oO * Beds 


hkl 


017. 


rr 


even supposing ver. 4 to relate a further 


assumption, would hardly be thus solemnly 
introduced, or the preposition €ws used. 
The safest explanation therefore is, not 
to follow any fixed division, but judging 
by the evident intention of the expression, 
to understand a high degree of celestial 
exaltation. I cannot see any cogency in 
Meyer’s argument, that ‘the third heaven 
must have been an idea well known and 
previously defined among his readers,’ see- 
ing that in such words as pis pakdptos, 
&e. it is manifestly inapplicable. 

3, 4.] A solemn repetition of the fore- 
going, with the additional particular of 
his having had unspeakable revelations 
made to him. Some, as Clem. Strom. y. 
12 [80], p. 693 P., Iren. ii. 30. 7, p. 162, 
Athan. Apol. 20, vol. i. p. 263, Orig. (or 
his interpreter) on Rom. xvi. lib. x. 43, 
vol. iv. p. 688, @ecum., al., think that this 
was a fresh assumption, €ws rplrov obpavod 
KaKeiGev eis Toy Tapddeicov, and with these 
Meyer agrees: but surely had this been 
intended, some intimation would have been 
given of it, either by «al, or by placing eis 
Tov mapddercoy (as the stress would be 
then no longer on the fact aprayiva as 
before, but on the new place to which 
jpmdyn) in the place of emphasis before 


a 


/ > ‘ ] a a b] @ / 
M. XNTOMaL, Eb myn ev Tails * acGevelats [pov]. 
Oedajow Kavyjcacbar, ovK Ecopar ”» ddbpwvr ° adiOevav 


3—7, 


*dppynta pyuara & ov ¥ é€ov avOpéTrm Aadjoat. 


IIPOS, KOPIN@IOTS B. 


aia 


5 Z Sardo- x here only +. 
UTrep L -v. 


eV, XVili. 23 


t - t , Zz , z £ \ be > a > 7% Symm. 
TOU “TOLOUTOU “KQUYV1)TOMLAL, “ UTEP OE EMAUTOU OU ~ KAU= y Matt. xii. 4. 


yap épa * dheiSomar dé, uy Tes 


d = here only, 
387.) e = ch. x. 13, 16 b. 
iv. 6. x. 13. 


5. om tov M. 
1 (corrd by 8! appy). 


h Rom. vii. 13 reff. Jos. Antt. i. 13.4. ii. 2.1. 


for 2nd umep, wep: D}, 
Tos acyyynpacw D!, 


Acts i. 29 
6 ee \ i ie 
day yap gely en 


z ch. vii. 14. 
ix. 2. 
a ch. xi. 30. 


els ewe froylontas & Urrép beh. xi.16, 19 
aA 3 , a E 
m0 Bnréree pe, 1) axover [Tu] e& wood. 


h ec Rom. ix. 1. 
Eph. iv. 25. 
Ps. xiv. 2, 


7 \ a c 
Kal T) “vtreEp- 


(Rom. xi. 21 reff.) Isa. liv. 2. Xen. Cyr.i.6.19,35. (uy etSov SidacKerv, Eur. Orest. 
h 


f= here only. (Hos. vii. 15.) g —1Cor. 
om ou (from preceding termination) 
om wov B D!(and lat) 17 syrr copt 


arm: ins (from ch xi. 30?) D3FKLMPN rel vulg goth eth Ath Thdrt Damasce lat-ff. 


6. for yap, 5¢ K: yap ku P. 


om Tt (as superfluous) BD3EX! m 17 am(with 


demid fuld tol harl?) 2th arm Orig,(and int,): ins D1(and lat) KLN3 rel syr goth Chr 


Thdrt Damasc Th] (Ee Ambrst. 


nprayn;—or, by both combined,—ér: nab 
els Toy mapddeicov jprayyn. As it is, 
with the verb preceding in both clauses, 
and therefore no prominence given to the 
places as distinguished from one another, I 
must hold €ws rpirov ovp. to be at least so 
far equivalent to eis rby mapddeicor, as to 
be a general local description of the situa- 
tion in which 6 rapddeoos is found. The 
repetition of cite . .. . oldey is equally 
accountable on either explanation, being 
made for solemnity and emphasis. The 
mapadercos cannot here be the Jewish 
Paradise, the blissful division or side of 
Hades (Scheol), where the spirits of the 


just awaited the resurrection, see note on 


Luke xvi. 22,—but the Paradise of which 
our Lord spoke on the Cross,—the place of 
happiness into which He at His Death 
introduced the spirits of the just: see on 
ref. Luke. appyta prpara, i.e. 
as explained below, words which it is 
not lawful to utter :—as Vulg., “arcana 
verba, que non licet homini loqui.” The 
interpretation, “que dici nequeunt,” as 
Beza, Estius, Calov., Olsh., al., is hardly 
consistent with the narrative; for in that 
case, as Bengel remarks, ‘Paulus non 
potuisset audire.’ The passages adduced 
by Wetst. mostly refer to the mysteries, 
or some secret rites: e.g. Demosth. contra 
Newram, p. 1369, atrn 7 yuvh tuiv ebve 
72 uppnta fepa bwép THs méAcws, Kar 
eldcevy, & ov mposiKkey avthy dpdy kévnv 
ovcay. &@ ovx éfov] which it is not 
lawful for a MAN to utter (see above) :— 
imparted by God, but not to be divulged 
to others: and therefore, in this case, in- 
tended, we may presume, for the Apostle’s 
own consolation and encouragement. Of 
what kind they were, or by whom uttered, 
we have no hint given, and it were worse 
than trifling to conjecture. ‘ Sublimitatis 
certe magne fuere: nam non omnia ceeles- 


tia sunt ineffabilia, v. gr. Ex. xxxiv. 6, 
Isa. vi. 3, que tamen valde sublimia.” 
Bengel. d.] Of such a man he will 
boast, but not (see above on ver. 1) of him- 
self, except it be in his infirmities. 

Tov ToLoVTOV must be masc. as before, not 
neuter, as Luth., al., take it. This is 
shewn by dep, used of the person re- 
specting whom (reft.), whereas éy is said 
of the thing on account of which, a man 
boasts. He strikes here again the key- 
note of the whole—doasting in his in- 
JSirmities. He will boast of such a person, 
so favoured, so exalted; but this merely 
by the way: it is not his subject: it was 
introduced, not indeed without reference 
to the main point, but principally to bring 
in the infirmity following. 6.] For 
(supply the sentence for which yap renders 
a reason: ‘ Not: but that I might boast 
concerning myself if I would’) —if I shail 
wish to boast (imép euavrov), I shall not 
be a fool (I shall not act rashly or im- 
prudently, for I shall not boast without 
solid ground for it): for I shall speak 
the truth :—but I abstain (reff.), that no 
one may reckon of me (reff. and add 
eis waraklay oxomtwy, Demosth. 808. 18) 
beyond (by a standard superior to that 
furnished by) what he sees me (to be), 
or hears (if 7: form part of the text, or 
hears any thing: a pleonastic construc- 
tion = 7) ef Tt dover) from me. Lest he 
should seem to undervalue so legitimate a 
subject of boasting, he alleges the reason 
why he abstains : not that he had not this 
and more such exaltations, truly to allege : 
but because he wished to be judged of by 
what they really had seen and heard of 
and from himself in person. 7—10.] 
He now comes to that for which the fore- 
going was mainly alleged: the infirmity in 
his flesh, which above others hindered his 
personal efficiency in the apostolic ministry. 


712 IIPOS KOPINOIOTS B. XII. 


i ver. 1. 
k arrangement 


a a i ie / \ k vA . ] ra ’ ABDF 
a ; 
Born tov ‘aroxartiwWeov [610] *iva pn 'drepaipwpat, ABDE 


yords, ch. L a / by an 
uiven’" €000n por ™oKodoy "7TH capKl, ayyehos caTava wa pe odet 
1 (here bis. } 4 , , 
eTresa4 © kodadity [P wa pn | Urepatpwpar|. % ump TovTOV nol 
ixxi. 16. — m here only. = Num. xxxiii. 55. Ezek. xxviii. 24. n dat., 1 Cor. vii. 28. see 
Gal. iv. 14 o Matt. xxvi. 67 || Mk. 1 Cor. iv. 11. 


1 Pet. ii. 20 only t. 
q = ver. 5. 


p pleonasm., Rev. 
Winer, edn. 6, $ 65. 6. 
7. rec om 81:0, with DKLP rel vss Ath Chr Thdrt, Iren-int Aug: ins ABFX 17. 
utepaipouat DLP m. (so Pm below.) aft capi ins pou F vulg Orig-int, Cypr. 
ree (for catava) carav, with A?D23KLP R3(appy) rel syr-mg-gr Orig, Ath Mac Chr 
Thdrt Damase: txt A1BD!FR?} 371(sic, Treg) (Orig, tov catava). om 2nd wa 
bn vrepatpwuat (as superfluous: but the repetition has special emphasis) ADFR! 17 
latt «eth Chr Iven-int Tert, Aug: ins BKLPN3 rel syrr copt goth Orig, Mace Thdrt, 


Damase Bas lat-ff. 


8. ins xa: bef vrep A Orig Thdrt, Iren-int. 


7.| And that I might not, by the 
abundant excess of revelations (made to 
me), be uplifted (the order of the words is 
chosen to bring 77 bmepB. x.7.A. into the 
place of foremost emphasis: see reff. The 
5:6 can hardly stand with the present 
punctuation. If it forms part of the text, 
it must begin the sentence, and we must 
with Lachmann join nal 7H brepB. Tay 
amor. to the foregoing, as in apposition 
with do@evefais. But thus a very strange 
sense would be given), there was given me 
(‘by God: certainly not, as Meyer, al., 
by Satan, of whom such an expression as 
€566n would surely hardly be used: cf. 
H xdpis 7 So00ctod pot, so often said by 
the Apostle-—Rom. xii. 3, 6; xv. 15 al., 
and the absolute use of €5468n for bestowed, 
portioned out by God, 1 Cor. xi. 15; xii. 
7, 8; Gal. iii. 21; James i. 5) a thorn 
(the word may signify a stake, or sharp 
pointed staff, tidov ott, Hesych.,—so in 
Hom. Il. o. 176, kepadhy .. . mhtar ava 
oroAdmecot; but in the LXX, reff., it is 
‘a thorn, and such is the more likely 
meaning here. Meyer cites from Artemid. 
ili. 33, &kavOat nal onddomes ddbvas on- 
palvovor 51a 7d dv [compare ref. Ezek., 
oxddow mikplas kal &kav0a ddvvns|. See 
however Stanley’s note, who rejects the 
meaning ‘thorn,’ and supposes the figure 
to refer to the punishment of impalement) 
in my flesh (the expression used Gal. iv. 
14 of this same affliction, roy wetpacudy 
iuay ev TH capkt mov, seems decisive for 
rendering the dative thus, and not as a 
dativus incommodi: see also ref. 1 Cor.), 
the (or an) angel of Satan (even if we 
read gatay, it can only be the genitive. 
If taken as the nom., the expression would 
mean either, a hostile angel, which would 
be contrary to the universal usage of 
Satan, as a proper name: or, the angel 
Satan, which is equally inconsistent with 
N. T. usage, according to which Satan, 
though once an angel, is now &pxwy rijs 
éfovalas tov &épos, Eph. ii. 2, and has his 


tov kup. bef tpis D} copt wth. 


own angels, Matt. xxv. 41), that he (the 
angel of Satan,—not the cxdédop, which 
would be an unnecessary confusion of me- 
taphors. ‘Tne continuation of a discourse 
often belongs to the word im apposition, 
not to the main subject, Meyer) may 
buffet me (xoAapi(y is best thus expressed, 
in the present. The aorist would denote 
merely one such act of insult. Thus 


Chrys.:.. ste .. Sunvexots deicGas Tov 
xaAwov" ov yap elev, tva Korahion, 


GAN’ tva nodadl(n,—Theophyl., ory wa 
dag we kodaplon, GAN aet,—and similarly 
(Ecum.), that I may not be uplifted (the 
repetition gives force and solemnity,—ex- 
pressing his firm persuasion of the divine 
intention in thus afflicting him). As 
regards the thorn ttself, very many, and 
some very absurd conjectures have been 
hazarded. They may be resolved into three 
heads, the two former of which are, from 
the nature of the case, out of the question 
(see below): (1) that Paul alludes to 
spiritual solicitations of the devil (‘in- 
jectiones Satan’), who suggested to him 
blasphemous thoughts,—so Gerson, Luther 
(how characteristically !), Calov.,—or re- 
morse for his former life, so Osiander, 
Mosheim, &c.: or according to the Ro- 
manist interpreters, who want to find here 
a precedent for their monkish stories of 
temptations, — incitements to lust, — so 
Thom. <Aq., Lyra, Bellarmin, Estius, 
Corn.-a-Lapide, al. (2) that he alludes to 
opposition from his adversaries, or some 
one adversary Kat ékoxhv; so many 
ancient Commentators, Chrys., Theophyl., 
(Zceum., Theodoret,—Calvin, Beza,al., and 
more recently, Fritzsche, and Schrader. 
(3) that he points to some grievous 
bodily pain, which has been curiously 
specified by different Commentators. The 
ancients (Chrys., Theophyl., Gcum., Je- 
rome on Gal. iv. 14 [lib. ii. 4, vol. vii. 
p- 460}) mention kepadadryla: seme 
have supposed hypochondriac melancholy, 
which however hardly answers the con- 


8—10. 


IIPO> KOPINOIOTS 


713 


a ee b] an Rk arse 
Tpis Tov KUplov * mapexddeca * iva ‘amooTh am €emov. * 5, Matt xi 


9 kai eipnKév pot 
ev Yaoeveia “ TedeiTat. 
comat Y év Tats © 


Y’ApKel cou 7 xapis frou" 1) 


32. xxvi. 53. 


% \ 8 s Luke xv. 28. 
yap spade he xxv. 
s 1 Cor. i. 10 
y 2 ff. 
* pore oov HaQov KAU i ee 


reff. 
acQevelats ov, iva * erirKnmvonn CWT ELLE acoantel axy, 


9. John 


€ 4 lal 10 ab 8 (Luk 

7 Svvamis TOD YpLoTod. 10 * evdoxe@  év Y acOevetiats, xv.8 (Lake 
vi, 8. Heb. xiii. 5. 3 John 10) only. Num. xi. 22. v = ch. xi. 30. w = here 
only. (See Luke ii. 39. Rom. ii. 27.) Eur. Bacch. 90, x ver. 15 onlyt. (- -SEws, ch. xi. 19. -dcor, 


Sir. xxii. 1).) 


y Rom. ii. 17 reff. 
ach. y. 8, 


Rom. xv. 26, 27 reff. 


9. for epnrev, exrey F Chr Thart. 


z here onlyt. €TLOK, ETL TAS olkias, Polyb. iv. 18. 8. 


b 1 Cor. x. 5 reff. 


rec aft Suvauis ins wou (see note), with 


A?D2-3KLPN3 rel syrr Orig, Chr Thdrt Pallad : om BD1FX?! goth «th Iren(gr and int) 


Archel Isid Orig-int, Bas Tert Cypr Jer Ambrst. 


rel Orig Ath: txt ABD!FN}. 


rec TeAcioutat, with DIK LPR3 


om pov B 672. 71 harl syr copt Iren(gr and int). 


10. aft ao@everas ins wou F vulg(not am F-lat). 


ditions of a oxéAoW, in which acute pain 
seems to be implied; alii aliter, see Pool, 
Synops. ad loc. ; and Stanley’s note, which 
is important in other respects also, and 
full of interest. On the whole, putting 
together the figure here used, that of a 
thorn, occasioning pain, and the kodAa- 
piopuds, buffeting or putting to shame, it 
seems quite necessary to infer that the 
Apostle alludes to some painful and tedious 
bodily malady, which at the same time 
put him to shame before those among 
whom he exercised his ministry. Of such 
a kind may have been the disorder in his 
eyes, more or less indicated in several pas- 
sages of his history and Epistles (see notes 
on Acts xiii. 9; xxiii. 1 f.:—and Gal. iv. 
14 (15?); vi. 11 (?)). But it may also 
have been something besides this, and to 
such an inference probability would lead 
us; disorders in the eyes, however sad in 
their consequences, not being usually of a 
very painful or distressing nature in them- 
selves. 8.] In respect of this (angel 
of Satan, not cxddoyp, see below) I thrice 
(rpls, not indefinite as Chrys., Hom. xxvi. 
p- 621, rouvréoti, moAAdKis. Meyer well 
observes, ‘ At his first and second request, 
no answer was given to him: on the third 
occasion, it came; and his faithful resigna- 
tion to the Lord’s will prevented his asking 
again’) besought the Lord (Christ, see ver. 
9) that he might depart from me (the angel 
of Satan, see Luke iv. 13): 9.] And 
He said to me (this perf. can hardly in 
English be represented otherwise than by 
the historical aorist ; in the Greek, it par- 
takes of its own proper sense—‘ He said, 
and that answer is enough: ‘He hath 
said, —but this last would not contain 
reference enough to the fact itself. The 
poverty of our language in the finer dis- 
tinctions of the tenses often obliges us to 
render inaccurately and fall short of the 
wonderful language with which we have to 
deal. How this was said, whether ac- 


companied by an appearance of Christ to 
him or not, must remain in obscurity), 
My grace (not,—‘ My favour generally ;?— 
‘ My imparted grace’) is sufficient for thee 
(apxet, spoken from the divine omni- 
science, ‘suffices, and shall suffice? q.d. 
‘the trial must endure, untaken away: 
but the grace shall also endure, and never 
fail thee’), for (the: reason lying in My ways 
being not as man’s ways, My Power not 
being brought to perfection as man’s power 
is conceived to be) (My) Power is made 
perfect (has its full energy and complete 
manifestation) in (as the element in which 
it acts as observable by man) weakness. 
See ch. iv. 7, and 1 Cor. ii. 3, 4,—where 
the influence of this divine response on the 
Apostle, is very manifest. If I mistake 
not, the expression THs Suvdpews, there, 
favours the omission of “ov here, as in our 
text, and makes it probable that it was in- 
serted for perspicuity’s sake, and to an- 
swer to 74 Suv. Tov xp. below. Most 
gladly therefore will I rather (than that 
my affliction should be removed from me, 
which before that response, I wished) 
boast (kavx. is in the emphatic place,— 
I will rather doast in mine infirmities. 
Had paadov signified ‘rather than in 
revelations, or ‘rather than in any thing 
else,’ it would have been maAAov év tats 
aoOevelars pov Kavx AT opa) in my in- 
firmities, that (by my do@<veim being 
not removed from me, but becoming 
my glory) the Power of Christ may have 
its residence in me (see ref. Polyb.—‘ may 
carry on in me its work unto completion,’ 
as above). 10.] Wherefore (because 
of this relation to human weakness and 
divine power) I am well content in in- 
firmities (four kinds of which are then 
specified,—all coming also, as well as ac@. 
proper, under the category of aa@éverm, 
as hindrances and bafflings of human 
strength),—in insults, in necessities, in 
persecutions, in distresses,— on behalf of 


714 


c = here (Acts 
xxvii. 10, 21) 


only. Prov. : g r) 5 LPR 
at ie xeplacs, imép ypictod: btav yap &aabeve, TOTE SuvaTos c 2 ef 

26 reff. plur., EL t 

ch. vi. 4. Me. nol7 
e ay Ss 17 ll h L i. ¢ tal k. , pe \ 47 

Mt. x, 30. Téyova ‘addpwv: tmets we *nvayxdcate. éyo yap 

RET aN 1 CIBC Ades , fa) Dp X ns L 

L xi la@errov vp tuov ™avvictacbar ovdev yap ™ vaTépnoa 

2 Thess. i. 4. a \ 

2 Tim ili TOV ° UTEepAlav atrocTéAwy, eb Kal P ovdey elm. 1 Ta 

bis only. A mn 1 , ’ A > 

Prov.xi. 19. wep 4 onuela TOD atroaTOAoU *KaTeipyacOn év vpiv ev 

2 Mace. xii. a 

sony, Smaon tvTonovn, Xonpelois Te Kal “Y Tépacw Kal “ duva- 


f Rom. ii. 9 reff, 


zg =a iv. 19 Heol. 


IIPO> KOPINOIOTS 


ev ° UBpeow, éy 4 dvaynaus, 


XII. 


év ° Sumypois, 


13 ti yap eotw *6¥ jocwOnte *brép Tas owas 


h = 1 Cor, xiii. 1. ich. xi. 16, 19 reff. k Acts xxvi. 11 reff. 1= Acts xvii. 29. 1 Cor. 
xi. 7, 10. m = Rom. iii. 5 reff. n constr., Rom. iii. 23. ch. xi. 5. (i. 7 reff.) o ch, xi. 5 only t. 
p 1 Cor. vii. 19 reff. q = Luke ii. 12. 2 Thess. iii. 17 al. r Rom. ii. 9 reff. s = Acts 
xx. 19 reff. t Rom. ii. 7 reff. u Acts ii. 22. Heb. ii. 4. v Acts vii. 36 reff. 


1 Cor. xii. 10 al. 
Isa. viii. 9. xx. 5.) 


w = Matt. vii. 22. 
2 Pet. ii. 19, 20. 


x constr. acc., as Matt. xvi. 26. 
Z == ver. 6. 


y here only. (-r7ac@at, 


for ev avaryrais, kat evaykois N'(corrd by orig] scribe to avayx., by &* to txt). 


om ev diwyywots A. 
F. duvatw (for -ros eyu) F. 


for 5th ev, car BN! : 


kot ev a: txt ADF KLN? rel. 


OTE 


11. rec aft adpwy ins kavywpevos, with LP rel syrr goth gr-ff: om ABDFKR 17 latt 


coptt xth arm Orig, lat-ff. ques F. 
for ovdev, ov F. 


12. at beg ins adda F. 


om vp B!(Tischdf) D}. ud que A. 


aft ovdev yap ins TB. 
katnpyacdn BIE d: 


katnpyacOny D. rec ins 


ev bef onuetos (mechanical repetition from the foregoing), with D3KLP rel vulg- 


ed(with demid) Thdrt; ca: F Syr Chr: ve N°: 


goth arm Chr Damase Ambrst Bede. 
ins BX! a 17 Damase. 
13. [noowOnre, so BD!N! 17: 


Christ: for whenever I am weak (apply- 
ing to all five situations above), then I am 
mighty. Wetst. quotes from Philo, Vita 
Mosis, i. 13, vol. ii. p. 92, wh avamlatere. 
Td acbeves tuay Sivauis eo. 11—18.] 
He excuses his boasting, and is thereby 
led to speak of the signs of an Apostle 
wrought among them, and to reassert his 
disinterestedness in preaching to them, on 
occasion of his past and intended visits. 

11.| I am BecoME (the emphasis 
on yéyova,—I am verily become a fool, 
viz. by this boasting, which I have now 
concluded. ‘Receptui canit:’ -Bengel. 
But it is still ironical, spoken from the 
situation of his adversaries) a fool: ye 
compelled me (ime?s emphatic). For I (éyé 
also emphatic, but more with reference to 
what has passed : ‘ye compelled me, it was 
no doing of mine, for J &e. The meaning 
is not, as De W., “J, not mine adver- 
saries,” who are an element foreign to the 
present sentence) ought to have been re- 
commended by you (emphatic, by you, not 
by himself): for I was nothing behind 
(when I was with you) these overmuch 
Apostles (see on ch. xi. 5: but here even 
more plainly than there, the expression 
sannot be applied to the other Apostles, 
seeing that the aor. would in that case 
be inconsistent with the fact—the Corin- 
thians never having had an opportunity 


edatwOnrat F.] 


om ABD!X} a 17 am(with fuld tol) syr 
ree om te, with ADF KLPN-corr! rel : 


for vmep, mapa D. 


of comparing him with them), even though 
I am nothing (see similar expressions of 
humility, 1 Cor. xv. 9—11). 
12.| Confirmation of the ov8ev torépnoa 
... The signs indeed (the ue is ellipti- 
cal,—see Hartung, Partikellehre, ii. 411, 
—corresponding to a suppressed duws dé 
..+.3 ‘in this case, the signs indeed &e., 
but, notwithstanding, I am not recom- 
mended by you.’ So Soph. Gd. Col. 526, 
iiveykov Kkakdtat’, @ Evol, Hveyk, aéxwv 
nev, Oebs toTtw. It always throws out 
into strong emphasis the noun, pronoun, 
or verb to which it is attached, as here 
onueta) of an Apostle (rod generic,—‘ejus 


qui Apostolus sit,’ Bengel) were wrought . 


out among you (“the Apostle’s own per- 
sonality as the wor ‘ker i is modestly veiled 
behind the passive.” Meyer) in all (pos- 
sible) patience (endurance of opposition, 
which did not cause me to leave off work- 
ing. wropovy is not one of the onucia, as 
Chrys., Hom. xxvii. p.627 : 0€a motov rparov 
rlOnot, Thy bropoviy. TOUTO yap aroaTdAoU 
detyua, Td péepew mayra yevvalws,—but the 
element in which the onueta were wrought 
out), by signs and wonders (on. not as 
above, but as constantly found with répaci, 
as an intensitive synonym) and mighty 
works (see ref. Heb.). 13—15.| His 
disinterestedness, shewn in his past, and 
resolved in his future dealings with them. 


ev ! orevo- ABDF 








11—15. 


52 ? \ > 

aéxxrnaolas, et pn) STL aVTOS Ey@ Ov 
, \ a2 1 , 14 5 Ve GS / b 

SvaplaacGé por THY 1 adiKiay TavTnD. tov © Tplrov (eit). 

a > a \ conan \ a . 

[? robro] ‘ éroiwws féyw éNOeiv Tpos UVpuas, Kat ov ? KaTa- , 


TIPOS KOPINOIOTS B. 


715 


>KaTevadpKnoa Duo ; * Mar, Rom. 


xvi. 16 reff. 
ch. xi. 8 only 


= here only. 
Thue. iii. 66. 


, > \ a \ ¢ a tAXa c a > \ Ce 

vapknow' ov yap 8 &mT@® Ta vLwVY, AANA vEaS. OV yap ech, xii 1 
/ lal lal ; / > > c Ree Fe 

h gpeirer Ta Téxva Tois yovedow * Onoavpiferv, GAR’ ob f Acts xxi.13 


/ \ ? 
yoveis Tots Téxvoiss 1 éyw dé * idtota | Samavijcw Kat ™ éx- 


g1Cor. x. 24 
reff, 
er. IL. 


c \ n a ¢ a > o , , hy 1 sok, 
SarravnOjoopar brép TOV " uxXav Lay, Eb ° TEPLTTOTEpAS 11 Cor. xvi.» 


k ver. 9. 


1 Acts xxi. 24 reff. 
n = Heb. xiii. 17. ii 


1 Pet. ii. 11. 


om ott K 47. 


eyw bef avros F m latt goth. 


m here only +. Polyb. xxv. 8.4, €kdamavav Tas mposddous. 
0 ch. i. 12 reff. 


apaptioy F. 


14. rec om Tovto, with KLP rel Thdrt Gc: ins ABFNa be d m o 17. 47 latt syr goth 
eth arm Chr Damase Thl Ambrst Pel, and (but bef tpitov) D 93 (Syr ?) copt Did. (see 


note.) 


rec aft karavapknow ins vuwy (from above ; had vpwy been in the text origly, 


it would never have been ejected, leaving the verb standing alone. This is further shewn 
by the var vuas), with D?-3KLP rel vss gr-lat-ff; vuas D!F: om ABN 17 ath Damase. 


[aAAa(1st), so ABDFLPN ade fk mn 47. | 
15. aft damavnow add ka exdaravnow D!(and lat) Ambrst. 


G-lat Ambrst. 


aAAq@ (2nd) AX 17. 
om et D!(and lat) 


rec aft ex ins Kat (¢o give [ mistaken | emphasis: see notes), with 


D?2:3K LPN rel syrr arm Chr Thdrt Damase Pel: om ABD!FR! 17 coptt goth. 


The question rf yap «.7.A. is asked in 
bitter irony. It is an illustration of év 
adon srouovy, and of the distinction con- 
ferred on them by so long manifestation 
of the signs of an Apostle among them. 
‘Was this endurance of working which I 
shewed, marred by the fact that I worked 
gratuitously among you?’ joo. vrép does 
not imply that all churches suffered loss, 
and that the loss of the Corinthians was 
only not greater than that of other 
churches: but the comparative, implied in 
joc. is carried out by the brép,—‘ ye suf- 
fered loss in comparison with the other 
Churches’ 13. et py Ste] except that 
one point, in which of all others they had 
least reason to complain. This one is put 
forward to indicate their deep ingratitude, 
if they did complain, seeing that the 
only point of difference in their treatment 
had been a preference: ‘die tief gefranfte 
Liebe rebdet,’ Meyer. On katevdpk. see 
ref. Xap. p. T. 45. ravTyv| The irony 
here reaches its height. 14.] tptrov 
(the rotro, though so strongly attested, can 
hardly have been omztted, had it ever been 
in the text, and therefore has probably 
been inserted from ch. xiii. 1) ér. Exw enO., 
must, from the context, mean, I am ready 
to come the third time ;—not, ‘Z am the 
third time ready to come, i.e. ‘ this is the 
third time that I have been ready to come 
to you. ‘This latter meaning has been 
adopted by Beza, Grot., Estius, al., Paley, 
al., and even De Wette, hesitatingly, in 
order to evade the difficulty of supposing 
Paul to have been before this twice at 
Corinth. Buton this see Prolegomena to 
1 Cor. § v. Here, the context has abso- 
lutely nothing to do with his third pre- 


paration to come, which would be a new 
element, requiring some explanation, as in 
1 Thess. ii. 18. The natural, and, I am 
persuaded, only true inference from the 
words here is, ‘I am coming to you a third 
time,—and J will not burden you this time, 
any more than I did at my two previous 
visits.’ Our business in such cases is, 
not to wrest plain words to fit our precon- 
ceived chronology, but to adapt our con- 
Sessedly uncertain and imperfect history 
of the Apostle’s life, to the data furnished 
by the plain honest sense of his Epistles. 
ov yap {nt@ . . . .] Wetst. quotes 
Cicero de Fin. ii. 26: ‘Me igitur ipsum 
ames oportet, non mea, si veri amici futuri 
sumus.’—elCova émi(nT@, Puxas avT) xpn- 
Mdtwv, cwrnplay avtl xpuctov, Chrys., p. 
629. ov yap édeider...] Paul was the 
spiritual father of the Corinthian church, 
1 Cor. iv. 14, 15: he does not therefore want 
to be enriched by them, his children, but 
rather to lay up riches for them, seeking 
to have them as his treasure and thus to 
enrich them, as a loving father does his 
children. The @ycavpés is left indefinite : 
if pressed strictly, it cannot be earthly trea- 
sure in the negative part of the sentence, 
heavenly, in the positive ;—cf. next verse. 
Notice, éefAe: is not impersonal, but 

the common verb to rékva and yovets, agree- 
ing by proximity with the former. 15. | 
eye 5& Tay ptoe TaTépwy Kal mA€oV TL 
moteiy emaryyeAAouat, Theodoret: and 
similarly Chrys. and Theophyl. They day 
up treasures: J will spend them :—xa) ri 
eyo, Xphuata daravhiow; avtds éyw éK- 
SaravnOjcoma: Toutéoti, Kby Thy odpKa 
d€n Samavica: bwep THiS owTnplas Tov 
Puxav buav, od peloouat, Theophyl. Cf. 


716 


p = here 


e a > a e > a 
(Cor, xi17) UMaS ayaTov Pyocoy ayaTo_dal. 


only. 2 Macc. 


IIPOS KOPINOIOTS B. 


XII. 


16"Eotw 6é, éy@ ov 


c , CoA > \ e s 4: 

a oonty + q KaTeBapnoa vuas. adda *uTapy@v * TavoUpyos : dérw 
ae, : 2 rn f a 2 A 
(evew, duds “édaBov. 17 yy Y twa wv anéctadKa Tpos: Upas, 
2 Kings xiii. ? ~ we 1 
a) v 8? abrod ¥ émdeovéxtnoa twas ; 18 * rapexddeca TiTor, 


r Acts viii. 16 


= Job y. 12. 
(good sense, 
Prov. xiii. 1. 
XXViii. 2.) 
(-yta, ch. xi. 


£ Acts xiii. 10 
reff. 
u = ch. xi. 20. 
xvi. 12. ch. viii. 6. 
aconstr, Acts xxi. 21 reff. 


v constr., Luke xxi. 6. 


b Rom. iy. 12 reff. 


x.13. Heb.i.l. 2 Pet.i.9. Jude 4) only$. (Isa. xxxvii. 26 only.) 
ii Rom. iv. 17 only. 


xix. 33 reff. f = ch. ii. 17. 


for ayarwy, ayarw bi d 17. 
16. aft eyw ins de F syr Thi. 
(a) 20-31. 39. 57. 73 Chr. 


17. om &: avtov F. 18. 


Rom. viii. 3. Gal. i. 20. 
y here only. Exod. xxxiii. 2, 12. 


Kal Y cvvarréctetna *TOV aderpov' wn TL  éTNEovVeRTHTEV 
tas Titos; od TO abT@ *rvevpate *TEepieTaTHoaper ; 
ov Tols avTois -iyverw ; 

19¢TIdnae Soxeite Ott 4 buiv © atroNoyovpeba. 


f KaT- 


w ch, ii. 11 reff. x =1 Cor. 
Esdr. vy. 2 only. z see ch. viii. 18, 22. 
c = (see note) Mark xv. 44 (Matt. xi. 21. Luke 

y d dat., see 1 Cor. 1x. 3. e Acts 

(Luke xix. 30 al.) Exod. xxxii. 11 A. 


[noooy, so ABD!PR! 17: edacoor F.] 

ovk eBapnoa vuas D1: ov katevapknoa vuev FN 
[aaaa, so ABDIFLPN a m 47. | 
quas L. 


19. ree (for madat) wadw, with D-gr KLPN% rel G-lat harl' syrr copt goth arm Chr 


Thart : txt ABFR!17 vulg D-lat Ambrst-comm Pel Bede. 


Hor. Od. i. 12. 38: ‘animeque magne 
prodigum Paullum.’ ei is less strong 
than ei «al, which has been apparently a 
gloss on it. It assumes the case, but does 
not bring out the contrast between the 
course of action and the state of circum- 
stances so strongly. Here, it appears as if 
fcocov &yarauot were by the ef connected 
with éxdamavnOjnocouat,—‘and will be spent, 
used up, in the service of your souls, if, the 
more abundantly I love you, the less I be 
loved :’ implying, that such a return for 
his love was leading to, and would in time 
accomplish, the e«damavnOjcopat. 

16—18.] He refutes a possible, perhaps 
an actual calumny,—that though he had 
acted disinterestedly towards them himself, 
he had some side-way of profiting by them, 
through others. 16.] €otw 8é—‘ but 
let us suppose the former matter dis- 
missed :’ let the fact be granted, that I 
myself (emphatic) did not burden (= kar- 
evdpxnoa) you. Then the sense breaks off, 
and the force of the concession goes no 
farther, the following words making a new 
hypothesis. Nevertheless, being (by habit 
and standing, irdpx.) crafty (unprincipled, 
and versatile in devices), I caught you with 
guile (with some more subtle way. Caught 
you, in order to practise upon you for my 
own ends; but €AaBov is not émAecor- 
€xtnoa, as Chrys., Hom. xxviii. p.633 :—see 
ref. and note). 17, 18.| Specifi at on, 
in refutation, of the ways in which this 
might be supposed to have taken place. 
The construction twa ay . . . be avrod is 
an anacoluthon. He sets twa dy aréor. 
amp. du. forward in the place of emphasis ; 
how intending to govern Tiva, is not plain: 
but drops the construction, and proceeds, 


rec (for karevaytt) kat- 


dC avrov x.7.A. See examples of the 
same in reff., and Winer, edn. 6, § 63. 1. 
2. d. 18.] mwapexadeoa, scil. ‘fo go 
to you:’ see reff. This journey of Titus 
cannot, of course, be the one spoken of 
ch. viii. 6, 17, 22, 24; but some previous 
mission to them before this Epistle was 
written: probably that from which he re- 
turned with the report of their penitence 
to Paul in Macedonia, ch. vii. 6 ff. We 
certainly have not elsewhere any hint of 
6 adeApéds having accompanied him on this 
journey : but this is no reason why it should 
not have been so. Tov adehpov—per- 
haps, one of the two mentioned ch. viii. 
18, 22: some other, well known to the 
Corinthians, but absolutely unknown to us: 
but not, @ brother, as in E. V. It is plain 
from this and from what follows, that this 
brother was quite subordinate to Titus in 
the mission. TO adTG mvevdp.]| dat. 
of the manner; see ref. The Spirit in 
which they walked was the Holy Spirit: 
TG avT@ mvevpatine xaplouate’ xapiowa 
yap Kade? Td orevotpevoy wh AaBerv, 
Theophyl. Trois avr. txv.] in ‘the 
same footsteps, viz. each as the other: 
ovde picpdv, pnaol, wape~HABov Thy euhy 
656v, Theophyl. The dative tyveow, as 
in ref. = év tyxveow: see also Acts xiv. 
16; Jude 1l. Meyer cites Pind. Pyth. x. 
20,—éuBéBaxev txverw marpds, and Nem. 
vi. 27, txveow ev Ipakiiduavros éby wéda 
véuwy. Cf. also Philo de Caritate, § 2, 
vol. ii. p. 385, Tots avrots txverw éemako- 
Aovdjou. 19—21.] He refutes the no- 
tion which might arise in the minds of his 
readers, that he was vindicating himself 
BEFORE THEM as judges, see 1 Cor. iv. 3 ; 
and assures them that he does all for their 


16—21. 


IIPOS’ KOPIN@IOTS B. 


tee 


évavtt Oeod ev ypioTeS Nadodpevr” Ta Sé TavTa, © aya- s Rom.ix.1. 


Eph. iv. 17. 
/ heh. vii. 1 reff. 


mntol,‘ imrép THs \bpav * oikodouhs. 29! hoBodpmae yap! py fans. 


‘tras EMwv ody olous Oétw ™ cipw byas, Kayo ™ evpeOd 

a lol / 

2 Ypiv olov ov OéreTe: | un | reas P41 Epers, P SHros, PY Ovpol, 
a rn 

Ps EpiOetat,  kaTaranwal, * YriOupicpol, Y puciwcets, “ axata- 


- i / 
otaciat' 2) wr wddw éXOovTos * wou ¥ TaTreweaces * we 07 eds 
k Rom. xiv. 19 reff. 


vii. 35, ch, vii. 15) only. 


j posn., 1 Cor. ix. 
12, ch.i. 6 
bis, 24. vii. 7 
3ce. villi. 13, 
14. xiii. 9. 
Phil. i. 19, 25. 
ii. 30. Col. i. 
8. 1 Thess. 
iii. 7 (Rom. 
xvi. 19. 1 Cor. 

‘ 1ch. xi. 3. m = 1 Cor. iv. 2 

o 1 Cor. i. 11 reff, 


reff. n dat., Luke xxiv. 35 al. p Gal. y. 20. q as 
above (p). Rom. xiii. 13, 1 Cor. iii. 3. Sir, xl. 5. r = Eph. iv. 3lal. plur., Gal. vy. 20 
only. (Wisd. vii. 20.) s Rom. ii. 8 reff. t1 Pet. ii. lonly+. Wisd.i. ll only. (-Aos, 
Rom. i. 30.) u here only. Eccles. x.11 only. (-o77s, Rom. i. 29.) v here 


only+. (-ovovy, 1 Cor. iy. 6 al.) 
y ch. xi. 7 reff. constr., Col. ii. 8. 


20. kar eyw F. 


wl Cor. xiv. 33 reff. 
z Rom. i. 8 reff. 
evwriov, with DKLP rel Thdrt Thl @c: txt ABFX m 17 Damasc. 
deov, with D?3KLN3 rel: om ABD!FPR! m(6ew) 17. 
epis (ttacism?) AN bd fg hk17 Syr arm Chr Thi: txt 
BDFKLP rel latt syr coptt goth Thdrt Damase Tert Ambrst. 


x constr., Acts xxi. 17 reff. 


rec ins Tou bef 
for ayam., adeApa P. 


rec (Aout, with 


D?3K LPR rel latt syr coptt Chr Thdrt Tert: txt ABD!F 17 Syr goth arm Damasc. 
21. rec cAOovta we (grammatical correction), with DKLN? rel goth: txt ABFPX! 


vss lat-ff(cwm venero). 
gr-lat-ff: txt BDFLP (ec?) dfg kn ec. 


good, fearing in what state he might find 
them on his arrival. 19.] maar was 
misunderstood, and méAw appears to have 
been a conjectural emendation, from ch. iii. 
1; v.12. dda does not suit the inéer- 
rogative form of the sentence, which would 
throw it out into too strong emphasis. 
Lachmann, Tischdf. [ed. 7], Meyer, De 
Wette read it as in text:—Ye have been 
some time imagining (i.e. during this my 
self-defence) that it is to you that Iam 
defending myself. Then the answer fol- 
lows: the assumption being made, and 
elliptically answered, as in ver. 16. 

kat. Qeov is emphatic, and opposed to 
buie. év xp. Aadotpev, as in ch. 
ii. 17, which see. 7a 8¢ avr. | 
supply either AaAoduev, or better under- 
stand 7a wdayra as‘ all our things’ (1 Cor. 
xvi. 14), i.e. our words and deeds, and 
supply yiverat, as there. Grot., Gries- 
bach, Scholz, and Olsh., would read tdde 
mayra, and join with AadAotuer. But 
(1) Paul never uses the pronoun éé¢ ; and 
(2) if he did, it must apply to what follows, 
not to what has preceded. 
of the personal pronoun between the article 
and the noun, as in THs bp. oixodopjs, 
occurs, as A. Buttmann has correctly re- 
marked (see Moulton’s Winer, p. 193, 
note 4:),in Paul only (see reff.), and with no 
other pronoun than juar. 20. | ‘ Edi- 
fication, of which you stand in need, for, 
&e. He here completely and finally 
throws off the apologist and puts on the 
Apostle, leaving on their minds a very 
different impression from that which would 
have been produced had he concluded 
with the apology. Lest, when I arrive, 
I should find you not such as I wish (in 


The insertion 


rec Tamewwon (gramml corrn or itacism?), with AKN rel 


rec om we, with D?KL rel: ins ABDFN d. 


ovx ofovs OéAw is an indefinite possibility 
of aberration from ofovs 0€Aw, presently 
particularized, un mws Epes, «.7.A.), and 
I should be found by you (iuiy merely 
the dative of the agent after the passive 
verb. Meyer makes it ‘in your judgment,’ 
but I much prefer the other: the passive 
form is adopted to bring out the éyé into 
emphatic contrast), such as ye wish not 
(not odx oioy @éAere, because there is now 
no indefiniteness ; Azs disposition towards 
them in such a case could be but of one 
kind, viz. severity: rovréori, Tiuwpds kK. Ko- 
Aaoris,Theophyl. Chrys., p. 634, brings 
out another point,—ov« elzrey, oiov ob B€dho. 
GAAG TANKTIKOTEpoY,—oloy ov BovAcaOe). 

What follows, viz. un mws.. . pata, 
is an epexegesis of the last sentence, but in 
it the definiteness is on the side of the 
ovx otovs OéAw, the indefiniteness on that 
of ofov ob @éAere, which latter is only 
hinted at by the mild expressions of being 
humbled, and lamenting the case of the 
impenitent. py tes, scil. dow (or 
evpeOaov) év tuty. “The vehemence of 
his language has caused him to omit the 
verb.” Stanley. épbetar, self-seek- 
ings, see note on ref. Rom. wb. se- 
cret malignings,—xatak. open slanders. 
akatact., see reff. and note. 21.] 
py carries on the uh mwas... uh THs, 
but with more precision, dropping the in- 
definite wws. The sentence loses much in 
force and, indeed, becomes inconsistent 
with the context, if with Lachmann (and 
Liicke, Conjectanea exeget. i. De W.) it be 
made interrogative (which it may be gram- 
matically with either reading, tarewéoet 
or -on), in which case the answer would be 
negative. maw here, as Meyer ob- 


718 TIPO> KOPINOIOTS B. XIII. 

f > geamnatelz a Nee ge \ , a 

1 Escenot) ® wou * mpos buas, Kal ® mevOjow Tohdovs THY © TpONnLap- ABDF 
6 reff. t \ \ . i 

vitor. v2  THKOTOY Kab [9 de weravonoavrav “ ért TH © axaSapoia Kat re 
reff. str., ~ 
here only. Gen. fil. 34 al. h. xiii. 2 r+. 1] y ii. 3 
Tt Hera) re Maal EN Csi a 8 ee ehere no 17g 

47 


serves, must belong to the whole éA0dv70s 
pov tamewadoet we 6 0. pu. mpds du., because, 
erddv having been used without méAw just 
before, the emphatic situation of méAw as 
applying to it would be unmeaning: see 
also the very different way in which it is 
connected with @A@w, ch. xiii. 2. 
ramewooe| ‘Nihil erat quo magis exul- 
taret apostolus, quam prospero suv preedi- 
cationis successu (1 Thess. ii. 20): contra 
nihil erat, unde tristiore et demissiore 
animo redderetur, quam quum cerneret, se 
frustra laborasse,’? Beza (Meyer). The 
fut. (ref.) indicates an assumption that the 
supposed case will really be. That this 
humbling, and not that of being obliged to 
punish, is intended, seems evident: the 
exercise of judicial authority being no hu- 
miliation, but thecontrary, and humiliation 
being the natural result of want of success. 
5 Geds pov expresses the conviction 
that whatever humiliation God might 
have in store for him would be a part of 
His will respecting him. apos Upas | 
among you, as the generality of inter- 
preters: ‘in regard to you,’ in my relation 
to you, as Meyer. Either may be meant : 
but if we take the former, we must not 
join it, as Grot., al., with é€A@dvros: it 
belongs at all events to tamewdcet. 
mevOnow| Theophyl. explains, ph edOav 
KoAdon avtovs, Kal mevOnon 51a TovTO" 
rouvréott, Tx toxaTa AvT7nOA: so also 
al. and Billroth, Riickert, Olsh., and De 
Wette. But punishment seems out of 
place in this verse, which expresses his fear 
lest he should be humbled for, and have 
to lament the case of the impenitent,— 
and then, as he declares ch. xiii. 2, be 
forced to proceed to discipline ; but this 
point is not yet introduced. I much 
prefer therefore taking it as Chrys., p. 635, 
—rovs ph metavoovytas mevOel, TovsS To 
aviara voovovras, Tous ev TH Tpavmars 
pévovtas.  evvdnoov Tolvuv a&rocToAkyv 
dperhy, drav pndev éavT@ auveidws To- 
ynpdv, bwtp aAdoTplov Opnvii Kakayv, Kat 
bmtp tay érEepas TANMMEANMEV@Y TATEL- 
yorat. TovTo yap uddioTa TOU didacKd- 
Aov, TY ofTw guvaryelv Tais TAY pabnTaY 
cvupopais, To Kéwred Oat kal mevOeiv em 
Trois Tpabuacr TOY apXomevwy. Similarly 
Calvin: ‘veri et germani Pastoris affectum 
nobis exprimit, quum luctu aliorum pec- 
cata se prosequuturum dicit. Et sane ita 
agendum est, ut suam quisque Pastor Ee- 
clesiam animo inclusam gestet, ejus morbis 
perinde ac suis afliciatur, miseriis condoles- 


cat, peccato lugeat.’ So Estius, but per- 
haps too minutely fixing the meaning of 
mevOeiy to mourning them as “ Deo mor- 
tuos:”? and Calovius (Meyer): “non de 
pena hic Corinthiorum impenitentium, sed 
de mcerore suo super impeenitentia:” and 
so likewise Meyer. awoNX. T. Tponp. | 
Why moAdovs? Why not all? I believe 
he uses 7oAAovs TaY TponuapTnKdT wv asa 
mild expression for tovs moAAovs Tovs 
mponuaprnkdétas, and that we must not 
therefore press too closely the enquiry as 
to what the genus of rponu. is, of which the 
moAAol are the species. Liicke (as above) 
cited by Meyer, explains—“ Cogitavit rem 
ita, ut primum poneret Christianorum ex 
ethnicis potissimum T@y mponu. kK. Mi) BETO- 
vonodvTwy genus universum, cujus generis 
homines essent ubique ecclesiarum, deinde 
vero ex isto hominum genere multos eos 
qui Corinthi essent, designaret definiret- 
que.” But this seems travelling quite out 
of the way. Meyer explains the genus to 
be all the sinners spoken of in ver. 20, 
the species (roAAovs) those designated by 
&kaSapo., mopy., and acery. But this 
again is unnatural; and does not accu- 
rately fit ver. 20, in which not so much the 
mponuaptnueva. as the present state at the 
Apostle’s coming, is the subject. The 
distinction between the two participles, 
mponu. and petavonodvtwy, should be ob- 
served. As Meyer well remarks, the perf. 
mponuaptnkdtwy denotes the permanence of 
the state from the time of the committal of 
the sin: whereas the aor. peTavonodvTwy 
has the sense of the ‘futurum exactum,’ 
—and who at my coming shall not have 
repented.” Zo what does mpo- refer? to 
the time before their conversion ? Hardly 
so: for the sins, of the incestuous person 
1 Cor. v., and of these also, which would 
give the Apostle such pain, must be con- 
ceived to have been committed in their 
Christian state: being in fact those against 
which we find such repeated cautions in 
1 Cor.,e.g.ch.v.11; vi. 15, 18; x.8; xv. 33, 
34. I would therefore understand the apo- 
indefinitely, almost pleonastically—point- 
ing to the priority of sin implied in tie idea 
of repentance. etayv. ért} Meyer would 
join together mevOjow... érf, and indi- 
cates this as the natural connexion of verb, 
object, and ground. But to say nothing of 
the harshness of revOhaw modAAous én, and 
the almost necessarily reflective form of 
petavona. em) TH aK... expatav,—I con- 
ceive the aorist €mpatay to be fatal to this 





15/2. IIPO> KOPINOIOTS B. 719 


hropvela kal iacedyeia *4 Erpakay. XIII. 1} ™ Tpérov ™1C0r.v.1 


i Mark vii. 22. 


nr ba \ r ’ / 7 
™rovTO Epyomat Tpos Yas. “emt TTOMATOS SUO papTUPOY © Kom. siii.13. 


2 Pet. ii. 2 
; rn ° 4 ay pn 2 P / } alt Wisd 
Kab TPloOVv oTtabynoetat TQav pea. TPOElLpynKa Kal mie. 2d /anly. 
k attr., Acts i. 
1 reff. 11 Cor. xii. 28 reff. m [ch. xii. 14.] John xxi. 14. Num. xxii. 28,32. Judg. 
xvi. 15, n Matt. xviii. 16. 1 Tim.v.19. Devur. xix. 15. see Heb. x. 28. ol.c. A. Rom. 
xiv. 4. p Matt. xxiv. 25 || Mk. ch. vii. 3 alt 2 Mace. iii. 28 al. 


Cnap. XIII. 1. ins :dov bef tprtov (from ch xii. 14) AN? abedfo 17 vulg eth 


Damase Thl Pel Aug Bede. 
vulg Dial Ambrst Aug Pel. 


for epxomat, eToiuws exw eAOe (from ch xii. 14) 
A Syr. ins wa bef em NX! 35 G-lat syrr Pel Bede. 


for ka, n N 32. 46 


2. for 1st kat, yap D! o 42. 113-marg Ambrst Pel Sedul Bede. 


arrangement. Thus taken, it would make 
the Apostle lament over these impenitents, 
on account of the impurity, &c., which they 
@rpatay—i. e, once practised, but which is 
now gone by. The sense would require 
mempaxact. Whereas if connected with 
petavonodvTwy, the aorist expresses ‘and 
shall not have [repented of the ax., &e., 
which they practised ],’ and wouldthus come 
rightly after petayono., implying the re- 
moval of the former state of sin. —_petav. 
is usually constructed with dé, Acts viii. 
22 (Heb. vi. 1), or éx, Rev. only,—ii. 21 f. ; 
ix. 20 f.; xvi. 11: but as Paul only uses 
the word this once, and as the construction 
with ézi is perfectly legitimate and highly 
expressive (see reff. LXX), there can be no 
objection to it here. Cuap. XIII. 1— 
10.] He warns them of the severity which 
on his arrival, if such be the case, he will 
surely exercise, and prove his apostolic 
authority. To this proof, however, he ex- 
horts them not to put him. 1.] This 
third time I am coming to you; i.e. 
‘this is the third visit, which I am now 
about to pay you. Hadnot chronological 
theories intervened, no one would ever have 
thought of any other rendering. The usual 
one, ‘This is the third time that I have 
been intending to come to you,’ introduces 
here, as also in ch. xii. 14, an element not 
only foreign to, but detrimental to, the 
purpose. The Apostle wishes to impress on 
them the certainty of this coming, and to 
prepare them for it by solemn self-examina- 
tion; and in order to this, he (on this 
interpretation) uses an expression which 
would only remind them of the charge of 
éAappta which had been brought against 
him, and tend to diminish the solemnity of 
the warning. As another chronological re- 
fuge, Beza, al., suppose his two Epistles to 
be meant by the two former ‘profectiones 
ad itlos.’ In answer to aid attempts to 
give here any but the obvious sense, we 
may safely maintain that had any other 
been meant, we should certainly have had 
more indication of it, than we have now. 
On ztplroy rovto, Meyer compares Herod. 


v. 76, Téraproy 5) TodTO... . amikduevor: 
see also reff.: and on Paul’s visits to Co- 
rinth, the Prolegomena to 1 Cor. § v. 

émt ordp.. | i. e. ‘I will not now, as before, 
be with you év mdon brouorf as regards 
the offenders: but will come to a regular 
process, and establish the truth in a legal 
manner,’ see reff. This explanation, 
however, has not been the usual one: 
Chrys., Calvin, Estius, al., and recently 
Neander and Olsh. and Stanley, under- 
standing the two or three witnesses, of 
Paul’s two or three visits, as establishing, 
either (1) the truth of the facts, or (2) the 
reality of his threats: so Chrys., Hom. 
Xxix. p. 639 f.: dmat elroy tk. dettepov, bTe 
mapeyevouny? Aéyw kal viv did ypauudror. 
kal why dy akovonté mov (al. day pe 
axovonte), Emep emeOdpouy yéyoverv. cay 
d€ mapaxovonte, avaykn Aomdy orhora 
Ta eipnueva, Kal emayayely Thy Timwplay, 
—and Theophyl., may pjua amevkytikdv 
katactabjoerat. Butit is decisive against 
the'whole interpretation, as Meyer remarks, 
that thus the sins committed since the 
Apostle’s last visit would remain altoge- 
ther unnoticed. Another view, connected 
with the rendering of épyoua: ‘ am intend- 
ing to come,’ is given by Wetstein: “ Spero 
jam denique mihi successurum, ut vobis 
demonstrem, serio me desiderasse ad vos 
venire : sicut ea que trium hominum tes- 
timonio probantur, in judicio fidem fa- 
ciunt.” Similarly Grotius and Le Clerc. 
But it is fatal to this, that according to it, 
the 8vo udprupes had failed to establish 
it. kat 7p., not for #) tp.,—two (where 
only two can be had), and three (where so 
many can be obtained): ‘two and three 
respectively.’ waptipev, the dual number 
not occurring in the N. T. 255 
have forewarned you, and I now fore- 
warn you, as (I did, mpoclpnxa) when 
present the second time, so also (I do) 
now (mpodéyw) when absent. It cer- 
tainly seems to me that this is the only 
natural way of taking the words. Grot., 
Est., Bengel, al., and De Wette, take és 
mapay To Sev’T. to mean, ‘as if I were 


720 


q Gal. vy. 21. 
1 Thess, iii. 
donly. Isa. 
xli. 26 only. 


IIPOS KOPINOIOTS B. 


dm@poreyw, Os ‘apm * To *devTEpov Kat 

POAEY@, WS P p ; 
| gs nr r a ee \ 

taponmapTnKkocw Kat Tois outros Tacw, OTL EaVv EXOw cde 


XIII. 


'dmrwv vu, TOLS ABDPE 
LPR ab 


fe 


r1Cor. v. 3 ’ rn fal 1m 
reff. X els TO“ ardduw ov Y detcopwau: 3 érrei * Soxysnv * Enreite TOV noi. 
: erie ace ’ 5) \ an ci at) > c. A 5) ? a 47 
tan n’s) = ev ~Emol NaXOVYTOS YKplaTOV, OS ELS UMAS OUK ¥ ac Oevel, 
only +. a n \ 5] / 2 > 
whereonly. GANA * Ouvarel ev dyin. 4 Kal yap éatavpdOn && * aobe- ; 
see idd, an 
Scott, sut 4 Di \ [tne s a, \ \ toon \ 
Scott, sub peas, Pahra Of €K Suvapews Oeod" Kal yap nels 
v = 2 Pet. ii.4,5. Actsxx.29. Ezek. xxxvi. 21. w Rom. vy. 4 reff. x = 1 Cor. iv, 2. y = Rom. 
viii. 3. z Rom. xiv. 4. ch. ix. 8 only t. a1 Cor. ii. 3 reff. = 1 Cor. iv. 15 reff. 


om ws D}(and lat) syr arm. 


rec aft vuy ins ypapw, with D°KLP rel syrr goth 


arm Chr Thdrt Damase Ambrst; Aeyw copt xth-pl: om ABD'!FN 17 latt xth-rom 


Aug Sedul Bede. 


om es To F arm. 


3. for ewe, ott F Ambr, Augalic: € Orig, Mac Thdrt,: # Orig, Dial Thdrt,: an 
Orig-in lat-ff: guid Ambr: quomodo Ambrst: for emer doxiuny, ex o1xodouny 93. 


AadovyTos bef ev euor F. 


4. rec aft Ist kat yap ins ec (see notes), with AD3LN% rel vulg(and F-lat) syrr goth 
Orig, Chr (ca yap nu. « Chr-ms) Thdrt;;, e Dial Hip Orig-int Ps-Ath-int lat-ff: 


om BD'FKN! 1! 17 copt 2th Eus Thdrt; Damase Thl Paulin. 
ins cat bef ques (appy, as Meyer, the na: yap was taken as merely 


112 arm. 


om 2nd yap F 


= namque, and thus another ka added to give the emphasis), with f g copt Chr: txt 
ABDFKLRX rel latt syrr goth Cyr Thdrt Damase Th] Cc lat-ff. 


present the second time, meaning this 
next time. But is it possible that the 
Apostle should have written so confusedly, 
as to have said in the same sentence rpitoy 
TovTo tpxoua, and ws mapmy To SevTeEpor, 
both, according to these interpreters, with 
reference to the same journey ? And would 
he not have even on such an’ hypothesis 
have said 7d devrepoy rovTo? But if we 
render as above, the mpoeipynxa (perf. 
because the warning yet endured in force) 
refers to his second visit (rapav 7d Sevr.), 
and the mpod¢yw to his present condition 
of absence (amay viv), @s being as (‘I 
did’ or ‘do,’ for it applies to both clauses), 
and «at the simple copula. TOUS 
aponp.| the same persons as are thus 
designated above, ch. xii. 21. It is not 
necessary to fix the mpo- any more accu- 
rately. Tots Aoutrois mac | all the 
rest of you, who may not have actually 
sinned, but still require warning, on account 
of your own personal danger, connexion 
with the mponuaprnkdtes, Ke. éav 
€\Ow eis TO 7. | atmy nextcoming. This 
was what he apoefpnxey when he was last 
there, and now mpodéyet. 3.| érmet 
gives the reason why he will not spare: 
they required the exertion of discipline; and 
they challenged him tothe proof of his apos- 
tolic authority. Soxipyy . . . Kprorod | 
The genitive is either objective, a proof 
of Christ speaking in me, i. e. ‘that Christ 
speaks in me,’—or subjective, a proof 
given by Christ speaking in me—‘a 
token of my authority vouchsafed by Christ 
speaking in me.’ This latter meaning is 
more suited to what follows, where Christ 
becomes the subject. Such proof would be, 





the immediate execution, by divine power, 
of some punishment denounced by Paul’s 
word, as in Acts xiii. 11. és, i.e. 
Christ : see above. Suvartet, to answer 
to aobevet, refers both to gifts and mira- 
cles, and to the Power of Christ which He 
would exert in punishment—eis duds and 
év july differ—the eis being hypothetical, 
—the éy, matter of fact. The assertion 
tends to remind them of the danger of 
provoking Christ, who spoke by Paul. 

4.| Confirmation of the fore- 
going ovk aobeve?, dAdAa BSuvare?. The 
rec. text, al yap ei, would be quite beside 
the purpose, and would mean, ‘ For even 
if He were crucified,’ ‘for even putting the 
case that He was crucified :’ cat ef cannot 
be = ef cal, though, as in Vulg. ‘ etsi,’-— 
and E. V. Hartung, Partikellehre i. 139, 
shews that in kal ef, the climax belongs 
only to the hypothetical particle «i, not 
as in «i kal, to the fact presupposed : 
‘even if, not ‘if even,’ or ‘although. 
Examples of xa) ef are Plato, Sympos. 185, 
Kal éav todTo movhons Gmrat h dls, Kab 
ei mdvu ioxupd eort, mavoerat. Hur. 
Androm. 266, kal yap ei mépii @ Exer 
TnkTos pddvBdos, ekavarthaw o eye. 
Sappho, rat yap ai pevyer, Taxéws didten. 
See more in Hartung, l. e. For he was 
even crucified (that «al yép always means 
‘for... even’... or ‘for... also, 
and never simply ‘for,’ see Hartung, 
i. 137 f., where he has collected many ex- 
amples, e. g.: Il. a. 63, Kal ydp 7° dvap ek 
Aus éortv,—Herod, i. 77, Kal yap mpds 
rovTous ai’T@ émerolnto cuypaxin) from 
(as the source,—the conditional element, — 
by which His crucifixion became possible) 


= 


eee 


3—7. 


>? fa) a ~\ > an 3 
° aobevodmev ev aitd, adrAa * Gyoomev GY avT@ EK a~ 


-TIPOS) KOPINO@IOTS B. 


72] 


ce ch. xi. 21, 29. 
= 1 Thess. 


be - : a? RU 8at 
© Suvapews © Ocod [eis buds]. 5 féavtods 8 weipaleTe Eb © 1 Cor.i18 


b] \ n > 
éoTé  éy tH ™arioter, ‘ éavtovs idoxydtere * i) ovK 


1 


2nd pers., 


3 f 
ETM b= “oh. vii. 11 reff. 


= Rev. ii. 2. 


WOO KE fs 7 ev dl n XN m2 oe > 3 [i 0.” Bs 
5 TE ~€AUTOVUS, OTL LNOOUS XPLaTos EV ULV | ECOTLW | 5 iii. 10. Ps. 


Xxyv. 2. see 


> / ft e S a +b. xi. 17. 
Mei” up ® Te ° ddoKipol éate. 8 édtrivw Oé OTL yvoOoerOe OTE , Mer Is, 


= 1 Cor. ili. 


a ae i 
jets obK eopev ° dddKipuot. 7 MebyoueOa dé Ampos TOV i rH 


fa] \ \ fal ig fal \ bé > ~ e a t §6 
€OV [LN TOMTAL VUAS KAKOV [MNOEV, OVX Wa Nels * OOKL- 


m 1 Cor. xiv. 25. 


xxvii. 29 reff. q here only. 


for ev, cvv AFN Syr copt goth. 


*ABD!IFR 17 Damasc.—om adda (yo. cuv avTw P. 
om ex duvamews Oeov F: om Oeov K. 


(mss vary). 


n Luke ix. 13. 1 Cor. vii. 5 only. 
Num. xi. 2. 


9, 16, 1g. 
1 constr., 1 Cor. 
xiv. 37 reff. 
o Rom. i. 28 reff. p Acts 
r Rom. xiv. 18 reff. 


rec (nooueba, with D3KL rel Chr Thdrt: txt 


for cvy, ev D}(and lat) 17 Chr, 
om es vuas BD8 flor arm 


Chr Sedul: iz vobis joined with follg ipsis in D-lat (so also D!-gr) : ins AD'FKLX rel 


(bef ex Suva. OU g: Nuas cd). 
5. om eautous Sokimacete A. 


om 7) &!: e Po. 


xpirros bef incovs AFPS 


vulg copt arm Clem Damase Ambrst Bede: txt BDKL rel syrr goth Chr Thdrt Jer. 
om eorw BD! 17 «th Clem Chr-comm,: ins AD? 3FKLPRX rel latt goth arm Thdrt. 


6. for de, yap F. 


[aft nuers ¢ is written but marked for erasure by N?.] 


7. ree evxouat (conformation to edm(w, ver 6?), with D3KL rel Syr goth Chr Thdrt 
Ambrst Cassiod: txt ABD!FPX m 17 latt syr copt eth arm Isid Damase Aug. 


for ovx wa, wa wn KL. 


weakness, yet He lives by (source) the 
Power of God (which raised Him from 
the dead, Rom. vi. 4; viii.11; Eph. i. 20; 
Phil. ii. 9). For we also are weak in 
Him (i.e. x Him, in our communion with 
and imitation of Christ, we,as He did, lay 
aside our power and spare you: we par- 
take of His voluntary abnegation of power 
which we might have used. The context 
requires this explanation, and refutes that 
of Chrys., p. 644, tl eoru, ao0. ev avT@; 
diwkducba, EAavydueba, TA EaxaTa TaoXO- 
ev, so Theodoret, Theophyl., Grot., Estius, 
al.), but shall live (exercise our apostolic 
authority, in contrast to the ac@évea 
above) with Him (as He now exercises 
His power in His glorified resurrection 
life) from (source) the power of God [with 
respect to you (cis buas, if genuine, may 
belong either to Suvduews Oeod, = Suvdp. 
Qcod THS cis Suas, the art. being.often 
omitted in such constructions, —or to (jao- 
mev, ‘we shall live with respect to you,’ 
which agrees better with the parallelism, 
but not so well with the arrangement of 
the sentence. The sense seems to require 
the latter interpretation, for the divauis 
Gcod eis tp. would be rather the result, 
than the sowrce of the apostolic energy 
indicated by (joouer)]. I have taken ¢f- 
couev, as the context plainly requires, 
figuratively (see ref.): but many Com- 
mentators take it literally, of the reswr- 
rection: e.g. Grot.—‘ vitam consequemur 
immortalem.’ 5.] “You want to 
prove Christ speaking in me ;—if you ne- 
cessitiate this proof, it will be given. But 
Vor. II. 


I will tell you whom rather to prove. 
Prove YOURSELVES; there let your atten- 
tion be concentrated, if you will apply 
tests.” Notice the prominently emphatic 
éavrovs: so Chrys., ib.: Tl yap Aéyw meph 
€uod Tod SiSackdAov, pnol.... buas yap 
avrovs éay BovAnOnre ekeTdoar .. . 
Bpecbe Bri wal ev viv 6 xpiords. 
el gore év tH 7m.) ‘Whether you main- 
tain your Christian place and standing 
in Christ, which will be shewn by the 
power of Christ’s Spirit present and ener- 
gizing among you. emylv. EQuT., 
émt] for the construction see reff. and 
Winer, edn. 6, § 66. 5. 1. a. et py 
mt, unless indeed... . see reff. 
dSddxupor, ‘not abiding the proof, worth- 
less,—i.e. in this case, ‘mere pretended 
Christians.’ 6.] But (however it 
may fall out with*your proof of your- 
selves) I hope (or perhaps better, expect) 
that ye shall know that we are not 
worthless (unable to abide the proof 
to which you put us. The verse is said, 
as Theodoret, ameAntix@s;—and Chrys. 
remarks, ib., éresd) yap évteibev BovAcobe, 
gnol, Sia THs eis buds KoAdoews THY 


ees 


doxyvy AaBelv, ovK amophoouey Tov 
Sotvar vuivy thy aardderkw). well 


Yet he prays God rather that they may 
require no such demonstration of his apos- 
tolic power, even though he lose in reputa- 
tion by it. pay troufjo. tp. Kak. pnd. | 
Not, as Grot., al., ‘that I may not have to 
inflict on you any evil’ (an extraordinary 
rendering of kakbv moteiv), but that ye 
may do no evil, corte nnn to tvo, 
A 


722 


s = Rom. vii. 
18, 21 reff. 

t constr., Mark 
ix. 22. Luke 
xii. 26. 

u ellips., 1 Cor. 
Hig de 

v= ch. xi. 21, 

W posn., see ch. 
xii. 19 reff. 
and note. 

x here only t. 
(-riGeuv, 
ver. ll. 

-TLO MBS, 
Eph. iv. 12.) 


Pevyopeba, THY * LUaV 


y ver. 2. 

z Tit. i. 13 
only t+. Wisd. 
vy. 22 only. 


(-~ta, Rom. 
xi. 22.) a \ 9.5K fa > Y A, Saar \ 
2) 1 Kadelabe, ! TO avTo % dpoveire, » eipnvetere, Kal YO Oeds 
i. 19. ix. 27. 
(Acts xxvii. 3.) b ch. x. 8 reff. c1 Cor. i. 16. iv. 2. 1 Thess.iv.1. 2 Tim. iv. 8. d =1 Cor, 
i. 10 reff. see above (x). e =ch.i. 4 &c. reff. f Rom. xii. 16. xv. 5. Phil. ii. 2. iv. 2. 
h Mark ix. 50. Rom. xii. 18. 1 Thess. v.13 only. 2 Chron. xiv. 5. Sir. yi, 6. i here 


g Rom. viii. 5 reff. 


only. j Rom. xy. 33. 


for vu, nuwets N'(txt N-corr![? |). 
8. om 77s (twice) F. 
9. om yap D®K 46. 1081-16 arm. 
rel Syr Thdrt : om 
10. un 
rec edwKe por bef 6 Kupios, 
a2 m 17 latt copt goth Damasce. 
11. ins ro bef Aor. D! f: add ov P. 
om To avro ppoverte A. 


pets 7d Kaddov Torite below. ov7~K 
tva....] ‘And the purpose of this my 
prayer is not to gain any repute by your 
Christian graces, but that you may be 
highly endowed with them, and (if it so 
happen) we may be as of no repute (‘ ho- 
minum scilicet judicio,’ Beza).’ That this 
is the sense, and that Sdéxipor is not in 
this verse to be applied to substantiation 
of power by punishment, is necessitated by 
the construction,—it being plainly shewn 
by the infin. after evxdu., that iva is not 
here meant to apply, even in part, to the 
purport of the prayer (as in ColY 1.95 
2 Thess. i. 11; see note on 1 Cor. xiv. 
13), but to its purpose. And that being 
settled,—we pray .. ... not in order that 
, * * 
we may appear Soxipor,—it follows that 
the appearing Sox.por would bea result of 
the fulfilment of the prayer, viz. of your 
doing no evil, and this it could only be by 
their doing no evil bringing credit on the 
Apostle’s ministry, It is not for this end 
that we pray that you may do no evil, but 
for your own good, even if that tend to 
the non-exercise, and so depreciation, of 
our apostolic power. 8.| For we 
have no power against the truth (of the 
Gospel, as Meyer; not of the facts, as 
Chrys., al., and De Wette, which might 
suit kara THs GA., but comes in very 
lamely with érép ris 4A.—‘If you walk 
in the truth, we shall be at one with you 
and so have no opportunity of shewing our 
power’) but (only) on behalf of (in further- 


IIPO> KOPINOIOT= B. 


pot pavamev, GAN iva byels TO * Kado TroL}TE, Hucis O€ 
€ Oo 100 9 8 > ~ t 8 / 0 / \ n 
@s °adoxysor @pev. Sod yap * dvvaweOa TL KaTa THS 
ddnbeias, “ aXXA Urép Ths adnOeias. 
ve c lal Vv > fal [al e a be Py \ s nr * 
Otay ‘pels Y acOevamev, Deis 5é Suvatol are ToUTO Kab 
Xxataptiow. 19 dia TovTo TadTa 
r 2 \ / ivf y Ni x Zz, / a , 
atav ypabo, wa Ytapov pi) *aTroTOMes *xpriowpLat 
\ \ b b} / A e / b ” A > b > 
Kata THY »é€ovclav iv oO KUpios » Edw@xKEY pot Els olKob0- 
pi Kal ovk eis » Kabaiperw. 
la 
11 ¢ Aourov, adeAdol, yaipere, 1 xataptiverOe, ° mapa- 


movecte KL d. 
[adaAa, so DIFR. 

ote F. 
ABD!FPN? 17 latt copt eth arm Damasc lat-ff. 
bef mapwy DF c 47 latt Gc: un m. wn m. 
with KL rel syrr eth arm Chr Thdrt Thl Ge: txt ABDFPR 


XIII. 


9 yalpowev yap 


(homeeotel in d 17.)] 
rec ins de bef cat, with DK LN* 


xpnooua: DFP ¢ d k! 47. 


xaipeabe P. add kat L. 


ance of the cause and spread of) the 
truth. 9.] For (confirmation of 
ver. 8 by the still stronger assertion, 
WHEREIN his joy consists, and for what 
he prays) our joy is, when we are weak 
(have no opportunity for shewing our 
power in punishment) but ye are mighty 
(in Christian graces, and requiring no exer- 
cise of our authority): this (viz. that the 
state of the case may be as just mentioned) 
we also pray for, viz. your perfection 
(generally,—in all good things, see karap- 
tTiopdv, Eph. iv. 12: not, as Bengel, ‘ne 
opus sit quenquam de corpore rescindere ;? 
the reference here being far more general). 
10.] 81a rodro, ‘because I wish and 
pray for your perfection. Tatra, ‘this 
Epistle? &awor., sharply. xpyjo-., scil. 
juiv. ~See in reff. similar omissions of the 
dative. BotAoua yap ev Tots ypdumact 
Kelcba Thy a&mrotoulay, GAAG wr ev Tots 
mpdypact. Chrys., Hom. xxx. p. 649. 
kata 7. é&. Hv ....] gives the reason why 
he did not wish to act arordéuws,—because 
the power would seem to be exercised in 
a direction contrary to that intended by 
Him who gave it. 11—13.] Con- 
CLUSION. 11.] General exhorta- 
tions. “Severius scripserat Paulus in 
tractatione ; nune benignius, re tamen ipsa 
non dimissa.”  Bengel. xatp., re- 
joice, scil. in the Lord, as Phil. lish 
iv. 4. So also 1 Thess. v. 16. 
Katapt., TAC yiverOe Kal dvawAnpodre 
7& Aelrovta, Chrys., ib.: “amend your- 





wate sales at 


8—13. 


A i > M4 \ j > / ” 
TNS ayaTns Kal ys e€oTal 


mo addaphous Kéy dylo * pensar. 


| Grytou TavTes. 


“as H yapis tod Kupiov *Inaood xprarob Kal 4 ™ dryer 


IIPOS KOPINOIOTS, 


723 


> c rn 
wel tpov. 
aotravovtar buas 


1= Acts ix. 13 
reff. Rom, i. 
7 al. fr. 

m Rom. vy. 5. 
viii. 39. 


12k aomd- k Rom. xvi. 16 
(reff.). 


Tov ™ Oeod Kai 4 “Kowawvia Tod aylou TvEvpaTOS PETA »=iCor.i.9. 


TAaVT@V UMOV. 


Phil. ii. 1 al. 


IIPO> KOPINOIOTS 


transp espnvns and ayarns DL m vulg(with fuld, agst am tol) goth arm Thdrt Thl 


Ambrst Pel: 


om ayarns ka F 17 eth-rom.—aft last cat ins rns DLUadfhk m. 


12. pianuats bef ayw AFL egmn vulg Chr Thi lat-ff, piAnuart ayarns f: txt 


BDKPX rel Thdrt Damase Cc. 
13. om xpiorov B k?, om vyuwy P. 


rec at end ins auny, with DK PN? rel 


vulg syrr copt goth arm-zoh Thdrt Ambrst : om ABFLN! 17 harl! eth Chr-mss. 


SUBSCRIPTION. rec mpos kop. devtepa eypapn aro pidkimmwv THs warEedovias O14 TLTOV 
k. Aovea, with K Syr copt Thdrt-ed Gc, and omg ts wared. Laf gn 47: zp. kop. 


B’ eypadn amo pidinmwyv B? (d), and (adding or:xwy pn) P: 


eypabn amo piAimray dia 


TiTov kK. Aovxa b k mo: mp. kop. B. eyp. amo pid. bia TiTov BapvaBa Kk. AovKa h 44. 


106-8-33: oml: mpos kop. B’ exAnpwn* apxetat mp. yar. D: 
txt AB! 17, and (adding or:xwy x18) X. 


avxeTat mpos yaar. EF: 


selves,” Stanley. mapakad., take 
comfort; a recurrence in the end of the 
Epistle to the spirit with which it began ; 
see ch. i. 6, 7, and, for the need they had 
of comfort, ch. vii. 8—138. This is better 
than ‘ comfort (or ‘ exhort’) one another, 
which would more naturally be expressed 


by apakadcire dGAANAovs, or: éavTods, 
see 1 Thess. iv. 18; v. 11; Heb. iii. 13; 


also Heb. x. 25 and note. TO avTo 
op. belongs to aydrn, eipnvevete to ci- 

VN. kat, ‘and then, 12.] 
Concluding greetings. év ay. oud. | 
See on Rom. xvi. 16. ot Gy. waves | 
viz. in the place whence the Epistle was 
written. 13.] Concluding benedic- 
tion; remarkable for the distinct recog- 
nition of the Three Persons in the Holy 
Trinity, and thence adopted by the Chris- 
tian Church in all ages as the final 
blessing in her Services. The grace of 
our Lord Jesus Christ is put first; “nam 
per gratiam Christi venitur ad Patris amo- 
rem.”  Bengel. KoLWoV. T. Gy. 
av. | communion,—fellowship, gen. obj.— 
not ‘communicatio activa, gen. subj.— 


END OF 


eTcAeoOn mp. Kop. f’ 


TOUTESTL THY METOXIY AVTOU kK. THY METa- 
Ani, Ka? hy ayiaducba, TH ep Tuas 
eTLPOLTNTEL TOD TapakANTOU KoLV@VOl avTOD 
yevdpevor, kal mvedma kal avTol, ovk ovata, 
GAAG meOeker, bytes, Theophyl., and simi- 
larly Geum. Chrys. adds, Pp 652, oUTw Ta 
THs Tpiddos adialpera* kal ov TOU mvetpards 
éoTy 7H Kowwvia, ebpebn Tov viov" Kal ov 
Tov viod cot 7H Xapis, Kal TOU TaTPpbds kK. 
Tov aylov mvevpmaros. BETA TWAVTOV 
vpov] “And this blessing he invokes, 
not on a few individuals, or on any one 
section of the Corinthian Church, but ex- 
pressly on every portion and every indi- 
vidual of those with whom, throughout 
these two Epistles, he had so earnestly and 
so variously argued and contended. Asin 
the first, so in the second Epistle, but still 
more emphatically, as being here his very 
last words, his prayer was, that this happi- 
ness might be ‘ with them all’ (uera mav- 
twv buev).” Stanley. Compare, for the 
same emphatic was, Rom. i. 5, 8; iv. 16; 
[xvi. 24,] &e.: and for was following its 
substantive and unemphatic, ib. viii. 32, 
37 3 1 Cor. vii 3 xe, &e, 


VOL, Il, 


LONDON: 


! 


GILBERT AND RIVINGTON, PRINTERS, 


ST. JOHN’S SQUARE. 











: er one 
7 ; J oe z Onn 
i 


* 
mat iit 


i i. i 





- 
feast IS) 
Bats ristens et! 
SeRa bya ha tsaghe pe 
Earn) 


Vee, 
er tae 
ikine 
AS haled et rigs 
' 


Sak eras 
Pee ab 


‘ 
rer 
a 


Ler ee 
Ul ay BY at ae ev 





